Here's my idea for a drastic compromise on universal medical care coverage. Provide a government paid system, but have it be a very cheap one that does not cover every type of health problem. Focus on the cheapest and most cost-effective things. It would not be a comprehensive medical care system, nor even a quality one, but it would be cheap, with maximum value for the money that was put into it. One of the arguments put forward in favor of universal medical coverage is that providing preventative treatment could end up saving lots of money down the line. Well, there's no reason we can't have that without a comprehensive healthcare system. In a way, this compromise would be getting most of the best out of both worlds. Those who wanted out of the lower quality government system would be given a health voucher, so they could spend the money towards private care. That way there wouldn't end up being an economic penalty for those who opted out of the system for private care. However, this healthcare coverage would not cover every type of treatment, and as a result people would have to buy additional private supplementary health insurance for comprehensive health coverage. This would be the best way government could have results with limited money put in to the system. This whole proposal is based on the economic concept of diminishing returns. That is, the more money you spend, the less value you get for each additional dollar spent. The first amount of money can be spent on picking the low hanging fruit, and achieve a lot of results relative to the amount of resources used. People will still die due to lack of treatment, but you will have still saved all the lives that were inexpensive to save. I believe a low quality partial coverage system could be very inexpensive to provide. Look at the prices of healthcare in Third World countries, it's only a fraction of what it is in the US. I suspect though this type of compromise would be a very difficult political thing to achieve, since Conservatives typically don't want any system, and Progressives want it all and won't settle for less.
~ Not a bad idea. At least it is worth exploring further. Much more logical than the ACA abomination ...
What ? Healthcare by its nature is comprehensive. There is no way you can separate the different aspects of healthcare. Many are interrelated. If you try to separate healthcare problems, it becomes chaos. .
You seem to be arguing for a subsidized public option. I would be open to a version that is fully premium supported if I could get rid of Obamacare, but I don't think that's what you are asking for since you specified "very cheap."
I would to. I would luv to see cap and preexisting conditions requirements eliminated from private insurance. Then, republicans are free to buy insurance that s.u.c.k.s. Outstanding idea.
Bet your asteroid. I would luv to have the public option for everyone under 65 only available for purchase with a yearly deadline. You wouldn’t last long.
Remember, private companies We just eliminated Obanacare....You do get, that every country in the world with universal HC pays less per capita then for profit health insurance here. That’s you paying everyone’s profits....
My employer sponsored health insurance was much better pre-Obamacare than it is now. So if we get rid of Obamacare, I'm unclear why I "wouldn't last long."
Because, your employer based healthcare is not portable. Neither do you have control over provisions insisted upon by Obamacare. You have a Private insurer that offers no protection from preexisting conditions and caps. It was cheaper cause you’re healthier now then you will be. Try leaving and going somewhere else and keeping your insurance. Obamacare was started to offer the millions of of middle class workers affordable coverage when they list their jobs during the Bush recession. Guarantee when you retire, your coverage will cease. They don't give a fk about you.
Pre-existing conditions have been covered by employer sponsored healthcare for...decades. So if Obamacare is your ideal, well I guess you're living in nirvana now.
Not everywhere and at great exoense to your wages. Benefits and wages come out of the same corporate pocket. if you want to keep your employer based a HC, I could care less. But many have no alternative and would like to work elswhere.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say, but I assume it comes down to someone giving you healthcare for free because..."corporate."
Matbe not sure because the ears are closed. Maybe jumping from one false narrative to another because we’re in the govt is bad, corps are good mode. You can’t take it with you, It costs you higher wages your employer could give you. One simple fact, our system cost more per capita then any-other UHC system in the world.... Ask PEOPLE on Medicare ? Private insurance sucks compared. You can get treated at the best hospitals regardless of where you move in the US, try that with your insurance.... IMO, you’re not serious spouting crappola like, UHC is free. Laughable.
Really ? Before Obamacare, insurance companies could deny you coverage if you had a pre-existingcondition. That affected 50 million people, including 17 million children. Of those with pre-existingconditions who sought private insurance, 47 percent didn't get it.
People on Medicare are not paying the full cost of the program, which is why it's only a few years away from bankruptcy. Which is why, if you can recall what this thread is actually about, on my post at #5, I supported a premium supported public option. If the people getting the plan pay the full cost, they can decide for themselves if they prefer Public Option Medicare, Employer sponsored, or your precious...Obamacare.
Are you saying that in the pre-Obamacare era, employee sponsored healthcare didn't cover pre-existing conditions?
That accurately represents my view of all govt provided programs. Any healthcare system that doesnt rely on competition to promote quality is going to be 'Shitticare.' And I don't mind it being built for those that want it, until I'm expected (read: coerced) to participate in it...
Same old fix news talking points. First, the IRS, like it is for SS, is required to raise the cap as needed to keep the program solvent. They stay several years ahead. They only recently did it for SS. Second, Medicare recipients paid into the fund to support their fathers....that was their contribution to the insurance policy. But keep spreading false news when every country with UHC already pays less per cap then we do. Repeat..LESS.The public option will cost less then private insurance too, but not as less then UHC. Why ? Cause they are only paying 2% overhead instead of 17%. It’s that simple.Ahh, it’s already been done.