Affordable medical insurance for all?

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Was the elderly market too small to attract their interest? Respectfully, Supposn

Elderly market is 80% of market so of course they are interested. Make sense now??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

"Fraud" is integrated in the "market". the "market" is essentially inhuman because it is based entirely on materialism. It is concerned only with itself and increase. Life re-enforces life, the "market" re-enforces feces.

Actually the market is about caring for your customers and employees. Would you work for a company that did not care about you and offer you the best wage you can get anywhere in the world?? Would you buy products from a company that did not care about you??

If you still don't understand try opening a company that does not care about its employees and customers. Can you figure out what would happen?

You have to wonder who led you so far astray that you got a simple thing perfectly backwards?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

"Fraud" is integrated in the "market"

in a market economy you say, how can I help you more than competition

in a socialist economy you say , where's my free stuff

Guess where you have far more fraud?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Those who propose that it will adjust for the benefit of humans deceive any who would believe.

China just switched to capitalism and moved 800 million into the middle class out of libcommie
en masse starvation. The greatest benefit to humans in all of human history

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Systems such as this are created by people and should serve people, not greedy instincts.
.

??? there is nothing greedy about trying to survive by offering the best jobs and products possible. It is God's dream for human interaction.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

'Capitalism' without controls has shown itself to be against our best interests every bit as much as Marxist-Stalinism. The history is evident.

It is?????? Where did capitalism kill 150 million innocent souls???????????

 

[Andylusion]

Affordable medical insurance for all?
“Medicare for All”, (M4A) may or may not be a satisfactory remedy, but I'm certainly a proponent of increased federal participation for basic medical insurance. Medicare was enacted because private insurers would not, or could not, and did not provide satisfactory alternatives.
I'm a proponent of federal entire catastrophic, subsidized medical preventative and screening insurance, and Medicaid for those U.S. legal residents that cannot otherwise afford medical insurance.

In terms of our population's deaths, disabilities, and sufferings, and financial costs to our nation's aggregate entities, we may now be more or less paying the costs for M4A, but we're not obtaining all of the benefits that M4A would provide.

Regardless of USA's future medical insurance policies and practices, federal entire catastrophic, subsidized medical preventative and screening insurance would reduce the costs to government and/or nongovernment medical insurers and be to our nation's best interests. State regulators of medical insurers practices and fees would expect medical insurance prices to reflect the burden of costs shifted to the federal government.

Respectfully, Supposn

Federal entire catastrophic, and subsidized medical preventative and screening insurance. … I'm a proponent of federal subsidy for explicitly listed and describe medical screening and preventative procedures, and entire funding of individuals' entitlements to catastrophic medical insurance. Otherwise, how can medical insurers and service providers be held financially and criminally responsible for failing to proactively offer such procedures to their clients and patients?

Too often catastrophic medical and financial consequences were due to the patient not receiving medical screening and preventative procedures when their medical conditions clearly indicated that they were reasonable candidates for such procedures. ...

There was zero demand for Medicare to start with. Zero. No one anywhere, wanted Medicare. Government pushed to have Medicare, because they knew it would gain them votes. The more you make people dependent on government, the more you lock in future support by the public for politicians like yourself. Why do you think FDR was able to get 3 terms? Buying votes.

But there was no demand for it, whatsoever, before FDR came up with his plan to enslave people with government entitlements.

But let's move beyond that.

There is no medical screenings and preventative measures that are cost effective. Virtually none.

First, getting a screening doesn't stop anything. I know of several women for example, who got breast cancer. They were screened, and the cancer was found, and it still spread and killed her.

Many people on the left, appear to live in a mythological world, where if you have a screening, that this magically stops illness. Early detection is important, and you do have a better chance of survival if the illness is caught early.

But there is promise of success, no guarantee of anything.

Additionally, the name "preventative" is a bit of a joke. There is nothing that prevents anything. This is why some people get a flu shot, and then still get the flu. Because the shot doesn't stop you from getting the flu. It can increase your chances of not getting the flu, and it can even reduce the severity in some cases of the flu if you get it. But ultimately, you could get a strain of flu that the flu shot didn't cover, and end up as sick as someone who never had a flu shot.

There is no way to "prevent" a health issue.

Second, even with screening and vaccination, you have no idea who is going to get cancer, and who will not. Because of this, you have to have screenings for everyone.

If you have screenings for everyone, then you are going to spend way more money on screenings, than it would cost to simply treat people who get the illness.

This is true in nearly every case.
Cost-Effectiveness of Prevention
You'll need a subscription to read that.

But the research shows generally that preventative medicine is not cost effective. Again, it's not that complex of a issue. All the cancer screening in the world, does not stop you from getting, or dying of cancer. All the cancer screening in the world, does not reduce the cost of treatment, and hospitalization by even a dollar. It might increase your chances of surviving cancer, yes. But it does not reduce the cost.

This is why in most of the rest of the world, preventive care is actually far more rare than in the US. Far fewer women have mammograms in the UK and Canada, than women in the US. Far fewer.

And the reason why, is because the government is paying for it, and the government knows those things are expensive, with little cost benefit.

In the US, private people pay for it, and thus there is more of it.

So saying you want government to take over providing preventive care, is in reality saying you want less preventive care.

But let's ignore that for a moment.

So to be direct... Even if we assumed that preventive care was a win, and even if we assumed it was cost effective, neither of which are true.....

How do you propose we pay for it? Did you miss the Federal Budget? We have a national debt of $22 Trillion, and we currently have a deficit of about $1 Trillion. Even if we cut the military budget 100%, we would still be in deficit.

So... do tell... where are you going to getting the hundreds of billions to fund all this preventive medical care?

 

[Supposn]

Affordable medical insurance for all?
“Medicare for All”, (M4A) may or may not be a satisfactory remedy, but I'm certainly a proponent of increased federal participation for basic medical insurance. Medicare was enacted because private insurers would not, or could not, and did not provide satisfactory alternatives.
I'm a proponent of federal entire catastrophic, subsidized medical preventative and screening insurance, and Medicaid for those U.S. legal residents that cannot otherwise afford medical insurance. …

Federal entire catastrophic, and subsidized medical preventative and screening insurance. … I'm a proponent of federal subsidy for explicitly listed and describe medical screening and preventative procedures, and entire funding of individuals' entitlements to catastrophic medical insurance. Otherwise, how can medical insurers and service providers be held financially and criminally responsible for failing to proactively offer such procedures to their clients and patients?

Too often catastrophic medical and financial consequences were due to the patient not receiving medical screening and preventative procedures when their medical conditions clearly indicated that they were reasonable candidates for such procedures. ...

There was zero demand for Medicare to start with. Zero. No one anywhere, wanted Medicare. Government pushed to have Medicare, because they knew it would gain them votes. The more you make people dependent on government, the more you lock in future support by the public for politicians like yourself. Why do you think FDR was able to get 3 terms? Buying votes.

But there was no demand for it, whatsoever, before FDR came up with his plan to enslave people with government entitlements.

But let's move beyond that.

There is no medical screenings and preventative measures that are cost effective. Virtually none. … But there is promise of success, no guarantee of anything.
There is no way to "prevent" a health issue.

Second, even with screening and vaccination, you have no idea who is going to get cancer, and who will not. Because of this, you have to have screenings for everyone.

If you have screenings for everyone, then you are going to spend way more money on screenings, than it would cost to simply treat people who get the illness.

This is true in nearly every case.
Cost-Effectiveness of Prevention
You'll need a subscription to read that.

But the research shows generally that preventative medicine is not cost effective. Again, it's not that complex of a issue. All the cancer screening in the world, does not stop you from getting, or dying of cancer. All the cancer screening in the world, does not reduce the cost of treatment, and hospitalization by even a dollar. It might increase your chances of surviving cancer, yes. But it does not reduce the cost.

This is why in most of the rest of the world, preventive care is actually far more rare than in the US. Far fewer women have mammograms in the UK and Canada, than women in the US. Far fewer.

And the reason why, is because the government is paying for it, and the government knows those things are expensive, with little cost benefit.

In the US, private people pay for it, and thus there is more of it.

So saying you want government to take over providing preventive care, is in reality saying you want less preventive care. ...

Andylusion, if as you posted, “There was zero demand for Medicare to start with. Zero. No one anywhere, wanted Medicare. Government pushed to have Medicare, because they knew it would gain them votes”, how could it gain votes? Why would both Democratic and Republican presidents sign bills to enact and expand the federal Medicare programs, unless there was an continues to be a need and demand for the federal Medicare program?

Credible medical authoraties did not claim early detection and treatment prevents illnesses. What USA’s American Medical association, state medical associations, and hospitals, all advocate earlier screening and treatment as general policies to net reduce costs and induce better medical outcomes of illnesses that do occur.


Within the initial post of this thread, this excerpted paragraph from the thread, “Federal entire catastrophic, and subsidized medical preventative and screening insurance” was quoted by you:

… I'm a proponent of federal subsidy for explicitly listed and describe medical screening and preventative procedures, and entire funding of individuals' entitlements to catastrophic medical insurance. Otherwise, how can medical insurers and service providers be held financially and criminally responsible for failing to proactively offer such procedures to their clients and patients?

Too often catastrophic medical and financial consequences were due to the patient not receiving medical screening and preventative procedures when their medical conditions clearly indicated that they were reasonable candidates for such procedures. …

Earlier detection reduces incidences of increased (and too often incurable) illnesses. but you didn’t pay attention to what you quoted.
Regarding the costs for screening, credible medical authorities did not advocate for everyone be screened for all possible illnesses. To imply otherwise reveals basic ignorance of medical matters that most other people are generally aware of.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Andylusion]

Affordable medical insurance for all?
“Medicare for All”, (M4A) may or may not be a satisfactory remedy, but I'm certainly a proponent of increased federal participation for basic medical insurance. Medicare was enacted because private insurers would not, or could not, and did not provide satisfactory alternatives.
I'm a proponent of federal entire catastrophic, subsidized medical preventative and screening insurance, and Medicaid for those U.S. legal residents that cannot otherwise afford medical insurance. …

Federal entire catastrophic, and subsidized medical preventative and screening insurance. … I'm a proponent of federal subsidy for explicitly listed and describe medical screening and preventative procedures, and entire funding of individuals' entitlements to catastrophic medical insurance. Otherwise, how can medical insurers and service providers be held financially and criminally responsible for failing to proactively offer such procedures to their clients and patients?

Too often catastrophic medical and financial consequences were due to the patient not receiving medical screening and preventative procedures when their medical conditions clearly indicated that they were reasonable candidates for such procedures. ...

There was zero demand for Medicare to start with. Zero. No one anywhere, wanted Medicare. Government pushed to have Medicare, because they knew it would gain them votes. The more you make people dependent on government, the more you lock in future support by the public for politicians like yourself. Why do you think FDR was able to get 3 terms? Buying votes.

But there was no demand for it, whatsoever, before FDR came up with his plan to enslave people with government entitlements.

But let's move beyond that.

There is no medical screenings and preventative measures that are cost effective. Virtually none. … But there is promise of success, no guarantee of anything.
There is no way to "prevent" a health issue.

Second, even with screening and vaccination, you have no idea who is going to get cancer, and who will not. Because of this, you have to have screenings for everyone.

If you have screenings for everyone, then you are going to spend way more money on screenings, than it would cost to simply treat people who get the illness.

This is true in nearly every case.
Cost-Effectiveness of Prevention
You'll need a subscription to read that.

But the research shows generally that preventative medicine is not cost effective. Again, it's not that complex of a issue. All the cancer screening in the world, does not stop you from getting, or dying of cancer. All the cancer screening in the world, does not reduce the cost of treatment, and hospitalization by even a dollar. It might increase your chances of surviving cancer, yes. But it does not reduce the cost.

This is why in most of the rest of the world, preventive care is actually far more rare than in the US. Far fewer women have mammograms in the UK and Canada, than women in the US. Far fewer.

And the reason why, is because the government is paying for it, and the government knows those things are expensive, with little cost benefit.

In the US, private people pay for it, and thus there is more of it.

So saying you want government to take over providing preventive care, is in reality saying you want less preventive care. ...

Andylusion, if as you posted, “There was zero demand for Medicare to start with. Zero. No one anywhere, wanted Medicare. Government pushed to have Medicare, because they knew it would gain them votes”, how could it gain votes? Why would both Democratic and Republican presidents sign bills to enact and expand the federal Medicare programs, unless there was an continues to be a need and demand for the federal Medicare program?

Credible medical authoraties did not claim early detection and treatment prevents illnesses. What USA’s American Medical association, state medical associations, and hospitals, all advocate earlier screening and treatment as general policies to net reduce costs and induce better medical outcomes of illnesses that do occur.


Within the initial post of this thread, this excerpted paragraph from the thread, “Federal entire catastrophic, and subsidized medical preventative and screening insurance” was quoted by you:

… I'm a proponent of federal subsidy for explicitly listed and describe medical screening and preventative procedures, and entire funding of individuals' entitlements to catastrophic medical insurance. Otherwise, how can medical insurers and service providers be held financially and criminally responsible for failing to proactively offer such procedures to their clients and patients? Earlier detection reduces incidences of increased (and too often incurable) illnesses.

Too often catastrophic medical and financial consequences were due to the patient not receiving medical screening and preventative procedures when their medical conditions clearly indicated that they were reasonable candidates for such procedures. …

Earlier detection reduces incidences of increased (and too often incurable) illnesses. but you didn’t pay attention to what you quoted.
Regarding the costs for screening, credible medical authorities did not advocate for everyone be screened for all possible illnesses. To imply otherwise reveals basic ignorance of medical matters that most other people are generally aware of. Respectfully, Supposn

They drummed up support for it. People then, just as today, love the idea of free stuff.

No one wanted or asked for Social Security or Medicare. The people in government, wanted votes. Namely FDR wanted votes. FDR knew that if he could advertise for government giving away stuff, that he could gain support for his presidency.

And it worked perfectly. He went out there, made endless promises, and told everyone that this was a great and wonderful thing, and people will have free stuff, and sure enough he got support from the public.

Again, prior too FDR using cash-for-votes, no one had been demanding Social Security. No one had been demanding Medicare.

But the cash-for-votes worked. He was the only president in US history to get 3 terms in office. Paying people off to vote for you, works. As it does today. It's ironic when you think about it, because what do we hear from the left-wing constantly? You say you want to get money out of politics, and yet putting money in politics is what you celebrate with FDR.

And what happened because of that? Social Security was signed into law in 1935, and came into effect in 1936. You know what happened in 1937? A recession.... in the middle of the great depression.

Credible medical authoraties did not claim early detection and treatment prevents illnesses. What USA’s American Medical association, state medical associations, and hospitals, all advocate earlier screening and treatment as general policies to net reduce costs and induce better medical outcomes of illnesses that do occur.

However, people still say "preventative medicine". Preventative, implies.... that it can 'prevent'... hence "preventative"... illness. You have in this post at least, correctly pointed out that it does not "prevent". But most still sit around implying that it can "prevent" illness with "preventative" medicine.

Nevertheless, the problem is that regardless if you call it preventative or not, you still say that it results in a "Net Reduce costs".

This is simply not true, on a general level. It just flat out, is not true.

On an individual level, then obviously there is a cost benefit. A $100 screening, could possibly catch an early cancer, which could save me millions in treatment. That's true.

But on a national level, paying for screenings for 300 million people, only a fraction of which will get cancer, that could be billions of dollars in care.

Last time I looked it up, the total cost of all Flu related treatment in the entire United States, was actually lower than the estimated cost of giving everyone (meaning those likely to need them) in the entire country, flu shots.

Earlier detection reduces incidences of increased (and too often incurable) illnesses. but you didn’t pay attention to what you quoted.

No, I did. You just don't like the answer. Yes, reduces. We all know it can reduce. But costs of early detection, is great than the cost of simply treating people as they come in.

Regarding the costs for screening, credible medical authorities did not advocate for everyone be screened for all possible illnesses.

Well this is where people like you, live in a fantasy world, that ignores the realities of politics.

Yes, I would imagine, although I don't have those specific numbers in front of me, that if we carefully limited 'preventative' or early detection screens, specifically to the exact group of people who are most at risk, would could likely make many more such preventative medicine to be cost effective.

Yes, I know that medical authorities do not advocate for everyone to be screened.

Right, because they live, and people like you want to live, in would where politics plays a roll in how the system works.

Now here's the reality.... The first person to die outside of the government's narrow defined screenings, there are going to be protests and lobbyists demanding that the screenings include their group.

If you said the group at risk is women age 60 to 70, the first few to die at age 50 to 59, will demand screenings for all of them as well.

And then you'll have someone getting cancer in the 40s, and then you'll have a demand for screenings in their 40s.

That's how the system works.

And pretty soon, government won't have the money for endless preventative care, and you end up with less and less over it.

If you doubt that.... just look at the rest of the world. I challenge you, go compare preventative medicine in Europe and Canada, compared to the US. We have more preventative care, than any other nation.

Why do you think that is? Because customers are paying for it, not government. You change that, and I would wager preventative care will decline in the US.

 

[Supposn]

... Even if we assumed that preventive care was a win, and even if we assumed it was cost effective, neither of which are true..... How do you propose we pay for it? Did you miss the Federal Budget? We have a national debt of $22 Trillion, and we currently have a deficit of about $1 Trillion. Even if we cut the military budget 100%, we would still be in deficit.

So... do tell... where are you going to getting the hundreds of billions to fund all this preventive medical care?

Andylusion, pay for what? Medicare for all, or federal subsidy for explicitly listed and describe medical screening and preventative procedures, or federal entire funding of individuals' entitlements to catastrophic medical insurance?

I’m neither opposed or an advocate of Medicare for all. I’m waiting for the Congressional Budget Office to analyze a specific “Medicare for all” proposal and tell us what they estimate to be the net costs to our governments, and all other entities that directly or indirectly currently pay for medical insurance, goods and services in the USA. We must be currently paying a great portion of those costs but we’re not fully benefitting from what we now spend.

Regardless of whatever medical policies the our nation may adopt in the future, I believe that federal subsidy of what’s deemed to be clearly indicated need for medical screening and preventative procedures would reduce medical insurers costs and be net beneficial to those aggregate taxpayers who also directly or indirectly pay for medical insurance. Medical insurers accepting the federal subsidy would be prohibited from charging additional fees or copayments for the subsidized procedures.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[there4eyeM]

Society benefits from education, so society provides it. Society benefits from defense, so society provides it. Society benefits from roads, fire fighting, protection of parks and historical sites, etc., etc.
Society benefits from general good health.
Those who do not wish to contribute to or participate in society may withdraw.

 

[Supposn]

Andylusion:

… Andylusion, if as you posted, “There was zero demand for Medicare to start with. Zero. No one anywhere, wanted Medicare. Government pushed to have Medicare, because they knew it would gain them votes”, how could it gain votes? Why would both Democratic and Republican presidents sign bills to enact and expand the federal Medicare programs, unless there was an continues to be a need and demand for the federal Medicare program?


Credible medical authoraties did not claim early detection and treatment prevents illnesses. What USA’s American Medical association, state medical associations, and hospitals, all advocate earlier screening and treatment as general policies to net reduce costs and induce better medical outcomes of illnesses that do occur.



Within the initial post of this thread, this excerpted paragraph from the thread, “Federal entire catastrophic, and subsidized medical preventative and screening insurance” was quoted by you:

… I'm a proponent of federal subsidy for explicitly listed and describe medical screening and preventative procedures, and entire funding of individuals' entitlements to catastrophic medical insurance. Otherwise, how can medical insurers and service providers be held financially and criminally responsible for failing to proactively offer such procedures to their clients and patients?


Too often catastrophic medical and financial consequences were due to the patient not receiving medical screening and preventative procedures when their medical conditions clearly indicated that they were reasonable candidates for such procedures. …

Earlier detection reduces incidences of increased (and too often incurable) illnesses. but you didn’t pay attention to what you quoted.

Regarding the costs for screening, credible medical authorities did not advocate for everyone be screened for all possible illnesses. To imply otherwise reveals basic ignorance of medical matters that most other people are generally aware of. …

Within the initial post of this thread, an excerpted paragraph from the thread, “Federal entire catastrophic, and subsidized medical preventative and screening insurance” was quoted by you, but you didn’t pay attention to what you quoted.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

… the current practice of employer-subsidized insurance for "most Americans" works pretty well, so the majority of Americans are not motivated to try something dramatically different.

Therefore, any "solution" must be directed to the minority of the population (but still tens of millions) who do NOT have access to employees-subsidized insurance, without fucking things up for the majority who are doing fine, health-insurance-wise.

The rational solution was (1) to make low-cost, minimal coverage available to healthy young people (who for the most part don't need health insurance), …(2) … (3) …
…

DGS49, everyone needs medical insurance. Almost all of USA’s more wealthy residents are not concerned with the cost of their medical insurance and they are medically insured.

I doubt if a majority of USA’s legal residents that are medically insured, are participants of an employers’ subsidized affordable medical insurance plan.

Many employees cannot afford to participate in any of their employers’ plans. If some employees and their families cannot afford the copayments integral to the employer subsidized plans’ copayments, they’re not effectively insured, (i.e. they’re not insured by any affordable medical insurance plan).

The annual income qualification thresh-hold for Medicaid is extremely low. I suppose most of USA’s working poor do not qualify for Medicaid and cannot afford their employers’ subsidized plans (if their employers do have such plans).

Almost all elderly Social Security income recipients are coved by Medicare, and their monthly insurance payments are deducted from their monthly checks. I suppose most of them do not have any additional substantial additional incomes or ex-employers’ or union’s subsidized medical insurance.

Hospital emergency room care is among the most expensive forms of medical care. The uninsured and those that cannot afford to pay the deductibles or copayments required by their medical insurance coverage, use hospital emergency rooms as their primary care providers. Because of these peoples’ difficult situations, they’re most unlikely to seek care sooner rather than later. These people have much fewer assets and incomes, hospitals cannot recover the expenses of their care. Those otherwise unrecovered expense not paid for by charity donors, and/or governments, may be reflected by hospitals’ increased prices. Much of hospitals increased prices are passed on to medical insurers and then to medical insurance payers. The majority of those using USA hospitals as their primary care providers, are legal residents of the USA.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[fncceo]

I CAN afford my medical I insurance... Until my insurer is forced by law to raise my costs because YOU CAN'T afford yours.

That makes it very difficult for me to give a fetid dingo's kidney whether or not you have insurance at all.

 

[Polishprince]

… the current practice of employer-subsidized insurance for "most Americans" works pretty well, so the majority of Americans are not motivated to try something dramatically different.

Therefore, any "solution" must be directed to the minority of the population (but still tens of millions) who do NOT have access to employees-subsidized insurance, without fucking things up for the majority who are doing fine, health-insurance-wise.

The rational solution was (1) to make low-cost, minimal coverage available to healthy young people (who for the most part don't need health insurance), …(2) … (3) …
…

DGS49, everyone needs medical insurance. Almost all of USA’s more wealthy residents are not concerned with the cost of their medical insurance and they are medically insured.

I doubt if a majority of USA’s legal residents that are medically insured, are participants of an employers’ subsidized affordable medical insurance plan.

Many employees cannot afford to participate in any of their employers’ plans. If some employees and their families cannot afford the copayments integral to the employer subsidized plans’ copayments, they’re not effectively insured, (i.e. they’re not insured by any affordable medical insurance plan).

The annual income qualification thresh-hold for Medicaid is extremely low. I suppose most of USA’s working poor do not qualify for Medicaid and cannot afford their employers’ subsidized plans (if their employers do have such plans).

Almost all elderly Social Security income recipients are coved by Medicare, and their monthly insurance payments are deducted from their monthly checks. I suppose most of them do not have any additional substantial additional incomes or ex-employers’ or union’s subsidized medical insurance.

Hospital emergency room care is among the most expensive forms of medical care. The uninsured and those that cannot afford to pay the deductibles or copayments required by their medical insurance coverage, use hospital emergency rooms as their primary care providers. Because of these peoples’ difficult situations, they’re most unlikely to seek care sooner rather than later. These people have much fewer assets and incomes, hospitals cannot recover the expenses of their care. Those otherwise unrecovered expense not paid for by charity donors, and/or governments, may be reflected by hospitals’ increased prices. Much of hospitals increased prices are passed on to medical insurers and then to medical insurance payers. The majority of those using USA hospitals as their primary care providers, are legal residents of the USA.

Respectfully, Supposn

Everyone needs medical care, at least some of the time. Not everyone needs "medical insurance".

Medical insurance protects the premium payer from excessive costs in the area of health care. Those who have no intention to pay for medical care- because they are indigent and don't have a pot to urinate in- might still need care if they have a medical emergency. Those folks would be better taken care of through public and private,including church related, charity practices. Many Christian churches have set up non-profit health care practices including the Sisters of Mercy. Not only Catholic churches, but Baptists, Methodists, Jewish, etc.religious groups have set up hospitals too. Never heard of an Atheist Hospital or an Agnostic Hospital.

 

[there4eyeM]

It is not a case of insurance. Americans deserve to be assured that healthcare be available humanely.
To repeat, a certain sum per person is spent annually in the U.S. for healthcare that is among the best in the world. A certain sum is spent in France annually per person for healthcare that is among the best in the world, and just as good as the U.S., and that sum is nearly half. Their healthcare is available to virtually everyone and no one goes bankrupt to have it.

 

[Supposn]

Everyone needs medical care, at least some of the time. Not everyone needs "medical insurance".

Medical insurance protects the premium payer from excessive costs in the area of health care. Those who have no intention to pay for medical care- because they are indigent and don't have a pot to urinate in- might still need care if they have a medical emergency. Those folks would be better taken care of through public and private,including church related, charity practices. Many Christian churches have set up non-profit health care practices including the Sisters of Mercy. Not only Catholic churches, but Baptists, Methodists, Jewish, etc.religious groups have set up hospitals too. Never heard of an Atheist Hospital or an Agnostic Hospital.

Polishprince, everyone needs some form of medical insurance.
The uninsured and those that cannot afford to pay the deductibles or copayments required by their medical insurance coverage, often use hospital emergency rooms as their primary care providers.
Because of these peoples’ difficult situations, they’re most unlikely to seek care sooner rather than later. Too often the medical conditions of people who seek medical care “later” are substantially deteriorated.
Sometimes their conditions deteriorate to extents that cannot be fully healed; the damage is permanent. In some cases, the damage becomes terminal.
In general, the consequences of delayed medical treatment are often longer durations for recovery, and/or greater disability and/or pain while recovering. Treating ill people later is usually of greater expense and these people are not paying those expenses. The great majority of these people are USA's legal residents, and a substantial portion of them that can work, are employed or have tried to seek employment; (they're the working poor that too often cannot qualify for Medicaid).
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Excerpted from the thread, "Federal entire catastrophic, and subsidized medical preventative and screening insurance":

… I'm a proponent of federal subsidy for explicitly listed and describe medical screening and preventative procedures, and entire funding of individuals' entitlements to catastrophic medical insurance. Otherwise, how can medical insurers and service providers be held financially and criminally responsible for failing to proactively offer such procedures to their clients and patients?
Too often catastrophic medical and financial consequences were due to the patient not receiving medical screening and preventative procedures when their medical conditions clearly indicated that they were reasonable candidates for such procedures. ...

DGS49 and Andylusion, credible government, or non-profit, or commercial USA medical insurance plans that that are subsidized by a Federal screening and preventative procedures subsidy, would be prohibited from billing clients for: (1) Any amounts from the costs of the patience’s annual care that would otherwise be insured; ( i.e. no “annual deductibles”); (2) the costs for any of the screening and preventative procedures specified within the contract between the federal government and the administrators accepting the subsidy for their individual insurance plans.

This federal subsidy would increase federal general budget expenses and would be reflected within federal tax rates and the federal deficit. It would reduce the costs of medical insurers accepting the subsidy. States insurance regulators are expected to take these subsidies into account, and the prices of subsidized plans should be reduced.

This would be of some net increase of cost to wealthy income taxpayers or other income taxpayers for whom their medical expenses are an extremely lesser proportion of their taxable incomes.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[there4eyeM]

Birth certificates, driver's licenses, hunting and fishing permits are not private enterprise. For an automobile, one must have tags and insurance. The tags are provided by the state that mandates insurance. That ordains that a business exist. How is it that the state would provide the raison détre for an enterprise? What sense is there in having the tags and not the insurance be one-stop shopping?
An intelligent approach to living together as we do and must today includes maximizing the health and well being of all.

 

[justinacolmena]

That's the problem with healthcare or medical insurance which is offered on an involuntary or mandatory basis.

It's a classic health-and-beauty scam.

Mayor Becky Ames of Beaumont, Texas is under some sort of compulsion to have her makeup, lipstick, hair, and nails "done" regardless of the rules she imposes on others on the same compulsory basis as her morning vanity mirror routine.

Texas mayor apologizes after violating stay-at-home order to go to nail salon

Jefferson County District Attorney’s Office and the state's licensing and regulation department are investigating after Beaumont Mayor Becky Ames was seen at the salon.

www.nbcnews.com

You've really got to be a dyke as an older or more powerful woman to patronize such sexualized health-and-beauty "services" typically offered by younger or more subordinate women.

Not to mention the stylish COVID-19® masks for women sold on Etsy, eBay, and Amazon.