Alternatives to Obamacare

  • Thread starter Thread starter FireFromHeaven
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Boatswain2PA said:
The foundational problem with ANY health system is that we must ration health care. We must ration health care because there will ALWAYS be a greater demand for health care than there is a supply. As new technologies and therapies come open, more people will want them.

In a perfect free market system, health care is rationed by who can afford it. In a perfect socialist market system, health care is rationed by bureaucrats who determine who gets what.

If our politicians, or more importantly our voters, could understand this, they could better decide where on the spectrum between these to extremes we want to be.

My suggestion is this: Have a three tier national health system. The first tier is for anyone who is here, legal or illegal, and this consists of public health prevention measures - ie: vaccinations, neonatal care, etc…things that we want EVERYONE to have because it negatively affects all of us (herd immunity, etc). The second tier is for all legal US citizens, and includes a higher level of preventive care services - routine physicals, routine chronic health management (asthma, htn, diabetes, etc). What the government pays for this second tier should be set at the state levels to determine. The third tier is strictly market, and is between the consumer, their insurance, and the provider. If the consumer wants an all-inclusive policy, they can pay for it. Likewise, if the consumer simply wants a catastrophic coverage policy, they can pay (less) for that as well.

The federal gov’t pays for tier one, the states pay for tier two, and the person pays for tier three.

Oh, and real tort reform in the form of medical malpractice jury made up of the physician’s peers.
Click to expand...
That is a really interesting idea for health care.
 
Boatswain2PA said:
The federal gov’t pays for tier one, the states pay for tier two, and the person pays for tier three.
Click to expand...
Don’t you mean the person pays for tier one, the person pays for tier two, and the person pays for tier three?
 
The reason for Obamacare is that the free market didn’t work. There were people who could not purchase insurance because the insurance companies redlined them for having a serious medical conditions. I don’t think people in general expect they should get insurance for free but there were too many instances of insurance being unaffordable to people even when they had jobs. I don’t believe that medical coverage should be treated in the same way as someone buying a cadillac or a chevy.
 
Sunbreak said:
The reason for Obamacare is that the free market didn’t work. There were people who could not purchase insurance because the insurance companies redlined them for having a serious medical conditions. I
Click to expand...
Reminds me of advice I used to hear about not getting certain medical conditions checked. Because if confirmed you could get marked as having a pre-existing condition and may be unable to get problems later in life addressed.
 
freeRadical said:
Don’t you mean the person pays for tier one, the person pays for tier two, and the person pays for tier three?
Click to expand...
As opposed to person pays for everything and not everyone gets basic coverage or person pays for everything with massive inefficiency?
 
Sunbreak said:
The reason for Obamacare is that the free market didn’t work. There were people who could not purchase insurance because the insurance companies redlined them for having a serious medical conditions. I don’t think people in general expect they should get insurance for free but there were too many instances of insurance being unaffordable to people even when they had jobs. I don’t believe that medical coverage should be treated in the same way as someone buying a cadillac or a chevy.
Click to expand...
The insurance market worked just fine. Look at Life insurance. No one is complaining about that.

We should remember that just before Obama was elected 85% of all Americans were happy and satisfied with their health insurance and their health care. There was no problem…
 
Sunbreak said:
The reason for Obamacare is that the free market didn’t work. There were people who could not purchase insurance because the insurance companies redlined them for having a serious medical conditions. I don’t think people in general expect they should get insurance for free but there were too many instances of insurance being unaffordable to people even when they had jobs. I don’t believe that medical coverage should be treated in the same way as someone buying a cadillac or a chevy.
Click to expand...
The free market worked fine . Now insurance is a mess and more people are uninsured that before Obamcare went in effect
 
Sunbreak said:
The reason for Obamacare is that the free market didn’t work. There were people who could not purchase insurance because the insurance companies redlined them for having a serious medical conditions. I don’t think people in general expect they should get insurance for free but there were too many instances of insurance being unaffordable to people even when they had jobs. I don’t believe that medical coverage should be treated in the same way as someone buying a cadillac or a chevy.
Click to expand...
Before Obamacare we didn’t have a free market in health insurance, we didn’t even have a free market in healthcare. The AMA has a monopoly on healthcare in this country. They country the supply of doctors, they control the supply of hospitals, they control the price of healthcare. Health insurance is expensive because healthcare is expensive. That’s how insurance works. The price of healthcare influences the price of health insurance, not the other way around. Health insurance was state regulated, they weren’t allowed to compete across state lines. As always, these monopolies in healthcare and health insurance are supported by the government.
 
JB_Dugan said:
We should remember that just before Obama was elected 85% of all Americans were happy and satisfied with their health insurance and their health care. .
Click to expand...
Maybe so but both Obama and McCain were running on healthcare reform platforms, especially with so many losing jobs and insurance coverage after the 2007-9 market crash.
 
I’ve been with Medi-share for over a year now and it has worked exactly like my Anthem plan used to and even better in a few ways. Here’s a summary I wrote after my son was in a baseball accident last year. The greatest part was having the Medi-share employees pray with us when I would call in to address which doctors we were using, procedures, etc.

collierbaseball.blogspot.com/
 
Sunbreak said:
The reason for Obamacare is that the free market didn’t work. There were people who could not purchase insurance because the insurance companies redlined them for having a serious medical conditions. I don’t think people in general expect they should get insurance for free but there were too many instances of insurance being unaffordable to people even when they had jobs. I don’t believe that medical coverage should be treated in the same way as someone buying a cadillac or a chevy.
Click to expand...
Hogwash. The reason for Obamacare is that the liberals, who have good intentions, were in control of two branches of government and wanted to remake the United States in the image an likeness of the socialism that is rampant in Europe. The free market id and does work; and there is no such thing as a completely free market in health care in the US. The health care market was regulated both by the federal government and the states, and there were clear issues that needed to be resolved. However, the vast majority of people who had health insurance were satisfied with the results; they were not happy about the cost, which continued to escalate, but they were happy with their choice of doctors, and with the coverage of their policies. Those who wanted catastrophic coverage obtained it; those who wanted a moderate policy obtained it, and those - particularly the unions - who bargained for premium coverage got it.

The problem with the liberal is that too often they do not think through their plans, and what might be the outcome of their ideas. And if you want a place to start with that one, look at Johnson’s programs; welfare was available, so long as there was no man in the house. Families for two generations and now going on three have been destroyed.

The plan the liberals came up with was not what the public wanted - just look at the lies we were told - you can keep your doctor; you can keep your plan. Plans now provide coverage which is totally meaningless - men don’t need obstetrics; but we are getting crammed down to a form of single payer system. And the next round sadly won’t hit before the next election - Obama will see to that - when businesses which provide insurance find that the plan they have had are out the window just like the individual plans are now.

Yes, pre-existing conditions needs fixing; but what we got has screwed the process worse than before it got started. Ask the unions how they feel about losing their coverage.
 
otjm said:
Yes, pre-existing conditions needs fixing; but what we got has screwed the process worse than before it got started.
Click to expand...
This is your only concession to the criticism that the old free-market insurance program failed people through no fault of their own? People who wanted insurance, but could not get it?

Well, before you waste any more words listing all the faults of other people’s attempt at fixing that problem, suppose you outline how pre-existing conditions can possibly be fixed in the context of a free-market insurance business.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
This is your only concession to the criticism that the old free-market insurance program failed people through no fault of their own? People who wanted insurance, but could not get it?

Well, before you waste any more words listing all the faults of other people’s attempt at fixing that problem, suppose you outline how pre-existing conditions can possibly be fixed in the context of a free-market insurance business.
Click to expand...
Start by breaking down the portability issue, requiring larger risk pools, and providing some federal support for pre existing conditions. One of the difficulties has been trying to determine costs of pre existing conditions; and if the pool of insureds is too small, the costs simply will not work out. The issue is not that the insurance companies cannot work out the figures, but rather that the risk pools have been too small.
 
This thread has been dormant for a considerable period. With rare exceptions, reviving threads after a protracted period of inactivity is discouraged because:
  • the issues that spurred them are often no longer “hot” or current topics, explaining why thread activity ceased originally.
  • posters originally involved in the discussion are sometimes no longer active on the forum and, therefore, unavailable to reply to comments added to the thread.
Our experience suggests that, when a topic merits revival, it is best accomplished by initiating a new thread that draws on recent events and can be posted to contemporaneously. This eliminates the baggage of folks being frustrated by asking and not receiving responses to issues raised in early posts (because the new poster didn’t notice that the post he was responding to was made a long time ago).

Posters are very welcome to open a new thread on the subject or any other topic, as well as to actively participate in the myriad active threads in the fora.
**
Thank you to all those who have participated in this discussion. This thread is now closed. **
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top