'My health insurance is going up to $800 a month with a $15k deductible and that's the CHEAPEST PLAN"

[dblack]

Or...

What if...

...... ...... ...... The government created a quasi-independent not for profit Health Insurance Organization?

...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... Call it something like "US Heath Insurance Service" (USHIS)

PREMISE:

• USHIS would be established as an indepented organization similar to the Post Office.
• USHIS would be not for profit.
• USHIS would be self-funded.
• USHIS could offer policies through the ACA (subsidized).
• USHIS could offer individual policies outside of ACA for individuals not qualifying for ACA.
• USHIS could offer group plans to employers and other groups (religious, union, trade, credit unions, etc.).
• USHIS could offer health, dental, vision, and long term care plans.
• USHIS could bid on contracts just, like other health insurance companies, for processing MediAid, MediCare, VA, and TRICARE claims processing.
• USHIS would have a board of governors appointed for staggered 6 year terms with: 3 Appointed by the Senate Majority Leader, 3 Appointed by the Senate Minority Leader, 3 Appointed by the Speaker of the House, 3 Appointed by the House Minority Leader, and 1 Appoinged by the President. (Total 15). The "Chairman" for the board would be selected from the pool of 15 members by the members themselves - not appointed by executive or legislative branch.
• Services would be scaled to regions (I don't know how many) and not a one-size fits all as different regions in the country have different cost of living and therefore different costs of providing care.

As a non-profit entity, it would not be beholden to shareholders.

It would would be open to offering group plans to employers (private small businesses, corporations, local/state/federal contracts, non-profit organizations, etc.) and would have to complete on a cost/efficiency basis with private for profit insurance companies.
Could such an organization:

1. Be competative?
2. Lower health care costs by removing for profit and being more efficient?

And remember, we are NOT creating a government bureaucracy, the intent is a non-profit, more effient system as an alternative to compete at scale.

Let the free market work by providing alternatives to the for-profit model.

WW

Then the government would finally control health care. Congratulations?

 

[DonGlock26]

Nataline Sarkisyan was told to go home and die, too.

Because Cigna wanted bigger profits.

I'll bet there was a little more to it than that.

"Sarkisyan's doctors at the UCLA Medical Center told the family and Cigna that they recommended a liver transplant, and patients in similar circumstances have a six-month survival rate of 65%. Different doctors gave different estimates of the likelihood of success. Dr. John Roberts, chief of the transplant service at UC San Francisco (not the transplant center treating Sarkisyan), said that his center generally does not accept a patient without a 50% or greater five-year survival rate. Dr. Goran Klintmalm, chief of the Baylor Regional Transplant Institute in Dallas, said this particular operation was a "very high-risk transplant," but that he would consider the same operation on a similar patient.[5] On December 11, 2007, Cigna rejected the request for coverage for the liver transplant. Sarkisyan's doctors at UCLA, including the head of its transplant unit, wrote a letter to protest that the treatment proposed was neither experimental nor unproven and called on Cigna to urgently review its decision."

Death of Nataline Sarkisyan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Regardless, your point is that socialised medicine and private insurance both refuse patients' services. So, why make the taxpayers responsible, when the nation is already deeply in debt?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

A.I. ill do all the work.
Do you need everything spelled out for you

AI is going to repair the light fixture in my kitchen that has gone out?

AI is going to fix my curtain rods in the living room?

AI is going to mow my grass with a lawn tractor?

You apparently don't know what AI is!

 

[dblack]

AI is going to repair the light fixture in my kitchen that has gone out?

AI is going to fix my curtain rods in the living room?

AI is going to mow my grass with a lawn tractor?

You apparently don't know what AI is!

Those are all things AI will likely be able to do in the near future.

 

[mudwhistle]

Republicans have done everything in their legislative power to destroy the Affordable Care Act, and you numbnuts cheered.

Pat yourselves on the back, morons.

You got what you wanted.

Yep.....you all knew that this insurance program was messed up but you forced it down everyone's throat anyway.

Our health care system worked fine till you socialists started screwing it up.

 

[initforme]

Our health care system worked fine till you socialists started screwing it up.

No, it was failing people long before the aca. Its hard to fathom as a nation we arent able to figure out healthcare for our citizens. Says something.

 

[JoeB131]

I'll bet there was a little more to it than that.

No, there really wasn't. She had a decent chance of survival. Probably better than the 65% chance they were giving her because she was young. But Cigna was about that bottom line.

Regardless, your point is that socialised medicine and private insurance both refuse patients' services. So, why make the taxpayers responsible, when the nation is already deeply in debt?

Because what we are doing now is more expensive than just having single payer. The US spends 17% of its GDP on health care. Most of the single payer countries only spend 8-11%.

A government program will reject a patient because their prognosis isn't good.

A private insurance will reject a patient because they aren't making enough profit. (after they've already taken their money!)

Which is worse?

 

[dblack]

No, it was failing people long before the aca. Its hard to fathom as a nation we arent able to figure out healthcare for our citizens. Says something.

It says we don't care for intrusive government. And we recognize that keeping government limited to the necessities makes it harder to abuse.

 

[initforme]

No, there really wasn't. She had a decent chance of survival. Probably better than the 65% chance they were giving her because she was young. But Cigna was about that bottom line.



Because what we are doing now is more expensive than just having single payer. The US spends 17% of its GDP on health care. Most of the single payer countries only spend 8-11%.

A government program will reject a patient because their prognosis isn't good.

A private insurance will reject a patient because they aren't making enough profit. (after they've already taken their money!)

Which is worse?

Sad story. Doesnt need to be this way. Cover the procefure. Done.

 

[DonGlock26]

No, there really wasn't. She had a decent chance of survival. Probably better than the 65% chance they were giving her because she was young. But Cigna was about that bottom line.



Because what we are doing now is more expensive than just having single payer. The US spends 17% of its GDP on health care. Most of the single payer countries only spend 8-11%.

A government program will reject a patient because their prognosis isn't good.

A private insurance will reject a patient because they aren't making enough profit. (after they've already taken their money!)

Which is worse?

You don't think the doctors figured in her youth?

Listen, I don't want a shitty Canadian style rationed health care plan. Got it?
It's cheaper (if that's even true) because it's garbage.
My private insurance is much better. If you want good health insurance, then earn it.

The worse insurance are the SP ones driving up the national debt and involves rationing, long waits, and
substandard medical workers like the UK's shitty plan.

 

[CrazyTrader55]

No, it was failing people long before the aca. Its hard to fathom as a nation we arent able to figure out healthcare for our citizens. Says something.

Yeah. It says that our politicians are corrupt and pretty much worthless. Yeah, they are good at pointing fingers at the other side, but terrible at actually, you know, doing anything besides redistributing other people's money, and getting rich in the process.

 

[initforme]

If one is paying for insurance then the companies have a duty to cover ALL claims.

 

[CrazyTrader55]

If one is paying for insurance then the companies have a duty to cover ALL claims

How about fraudulent claims?

 

[mudwhistle]

No, it was failing people long before the aca. Its hard to fathom as a nation we arent able to figure out healthcare for our citizens. Says something.

It's clear you got catfished into believing the false propaganda Obama was spewing that got us into this situation in the first place.

A paid snakeoil salesman who would sell his mother for a few bucks, who was so broke he couldn't afford a bus ticket to the 2004 DNC and is now worth millions.

 

[AntonToo]

Comments...
1. Thanks, Obama, for absolutely nothing.
2. Health Insurance costs are out of control.
3. There is no solution, Democrat, Republican, or Trumpian
4. The only solution is the free market. The costs have gotten so out of control, and out of the realm of reality, that the suggestion here is to not buy the policy to begin with. This "insurance" doesn't guarantee health, or longevity. We are all going to die regardless.
5. Pay cash instead
6. Think outside the box. Fly to foreign countries for healthcare if needed.

The system has failed, the politicians have failed. We are responsible for ourselves at this stage.

Republicans after doing nothing constructive on healthcare for a decade, have just killed off subsidies that SPECIFICALLY would help this single mother be able to afford insurance in - rasing insurance costs for 2026 by an AVERAGE of 100% a month 23 million Americans that get insurance through exchange.

And now you rightwingers want to talk about how "obamacare-did-that"? Unbelivable.

 

[Polishprince]

If one is paying for insurance then the companies have a duty to cover ALL claims.

No they don't.

All insurance companies have exclusions, limits and deductibles.

Its all explained in the policy.

The problem with ACA is that they have relaxed so many of those exclusions, that it pushes the premiums to crazy levels. If someone want a sex change, even something that is obviously elective, is required to be covered.

 

[Dorian Mode]

View attachment 1198063

It's clear you got catfished into believing the false propaganda Obama was spewing that got us into this situation in the first place.

A paid snakeoil salesman who would sell his mother for a few bucks, who was so broke he couldn't afford a bus ticket to the 2004 DNC and is now worth millions.

Please refresh my memory. Wasn't it the ACA that Pelosi tried to get through without allowing anyone to read the bill first? If you have to sneak something through congress you know it is not good for the people and only good for the democraps and their benefactors.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Republicans have done everything in their legislative power to destroy the Affordable Care Act, and you numbnuts cheered.

Pat yourselves on the back, morons.

You got what you wanted.

It's still around. What are you talking about?

Oh, yeah....those "risk corridors" which is also spelled "subsidies".

And our 2,500 savings? Like that ever had a chance in hell of happening.

And cost cutting?

Hahahahahaha

You clowns built a battleship out of concrete block.

 

[HikerGuy83]

You and yours are only good at ******* things up, and never can craft a single solution.

Uh oh....^^^ someone is triggered ^^^

 

[HikerGuy83]

The private system was broken,

No it wasn't.

It wasn't perfect for sure.

But you really did your best to break it.