My Healthcare Solution. 2 Parties, 2 Bills.

[Patranus]

I guess being single for life does have its benefits... it's cheap.

There you go again, wanting other people to pay for YOUR choices.

 

[drebo]

Interesting. 40%/$4900 is a bit stiff - but the prices are a lot more reasonable than I thought.

Meh. The point of health insurance is supposed to be for major medical, and that plan covers that. It includes 2 visits per year for preventative care and the prescription drug plan isn't terrible either, as long as you're getting generics. A healthy person between 20 and 40 shouldn't need anything more (until they have a family, but then the stakes are different).

 

[JS80]

and pray tell how do you fund each plan, seperate tax plans for each group? Can I claim independent and not use either plan?

Well, I was hoping the republican plan would be the nothing plan, and the dems would go bankrupt themselves.

 

[Thump553]

The fact of the matter is that the VAST MAJORITY of people who do not have health care CAN afford it. As discussed (and proven) many times before, you can get a health insurance with $1,500 deductible for as much as many people spend on their cell phone each month or eating out.

The central fact is that those with pre existing conditions make up such a small percentage of the population that addressing those needs should be done on a state/local level.

<--- self employed, pay 100% of health coverage for my wife and self

I pay $780 per month for a plan with a $10,000 family deductible. We're both in good health, no preexisting conditions and I've shopped around for coverage a lot. Anyone have a monthly cellphone bill over $780 or is Patranus just BS us again?

 

[cubeless]

<--- self employed, pay 100% of health coverage for my wife and self

I pay $780 per month for a plan with a $10,000 family deductible. We're both in good health, no preexisting conditions and I've shopped around for coverage a lot. Anyone have a monthly cellphone bill over $780 or is Patranus just BS us again?

you employ your wife, cover her, she covers you, get a tax break...

not really defending patranus, but the class of singles who don't buy insurance was the discussion...

 

[djmartins]

Here is an idea....

You let each state decided what is good for it as that is the role of the state.

Best idea: keep the government the hell out of health care.

 

[drebo]

<--- self employed, pay 100% of health coverage for my wife and self

I pay $780 per month for a plan with a $10,000 family deductible. We're both in good health, no preexisting conditions and I've shopped around for coverage a lot. Anyone have a monthly cellphone bill over $780 or is Patranus just BS us again?

Your inability to find a better plan does not mean that the system is broken. Besides, you have not told us what type of plan it is. If it's coinsurance, you're getting ripped off. If it's an HMO plan, that's not bad.

It simply highlights the fact that EVERYWHERE is different, and what works in California may not work other places. This is one of the biggest reasons why a federally run program is destined to fail.

Incidentally, neither of the proposed bills will help your monthly costs (they'll likely be higher).

 

[sandorski]

So the solution is to create 2 Government Plans each needing Funding, Bureaucracy, Rules, and Regulations? It's all based on this notion that Both Political Parties Need to be involved in the final decision, because it's, somehow, important?

:\

 

[nobodyknows]

My healthcare plan is this:

If you have no health care but have a life threatening illness go and kill someone and get health care in prison. You might be in prison but you are still alive.

With so many deserving target why kill just one?

 

[nobodyknows]

Just a thought.

You can bring Republicans and Democrats together to pass healthcare reform. Just give them everything they BOTH want. Force the Republican’s hand by making them craft their own healthcare bill. Democrats should craft their own with NO compromises. Two distinct bills.

Then Congress should combine these two bills under a single rule: States get to hold an election and vote on which side of this legislation they want to be governed by. States can literally opt into either the Democrat or Republican healthcare plan. Popular vote wins on a state by state basis.

This would have incredible consequences. Such as being able to determine, years from now, which plan ended up better. With those facts in hand you could argue to nationalize the plan that worked best.

You can lead by example instead of with an iron first. You don’t have to force a diverse group of 300+ million people to live under the same exact laws. Unclench your fist and maybe we can find a peaceful way to resolve our differences by agreeing to disagree.

You've got my vote!!

 

[nobodyknows]

Why would you say that. There are certain things clearly defined in the Constitution that the federal government is required to do (defense for one) and the remainder is left to the state/people.

if you don't like how your state is handling health care THAN ELECT PEOPLE THAT REPRESENT YOU or MOVE TO A STATE THAT HAS THE SAME VIEWS AS YOU.

VOTE WITH YOUR FEET.

Just don't get sick on vacation. Bad, bad, bad idea.

 

[PrinceofWands]

How about something truly different.

1. Ban all insurance.
2. Medical suppliers and practitioners would, overnight, no longer be able to charge prices that require massive financial investing companies. Their choice would be: charge what an average consumer can afford to pay on their own, or close. This is only logical since not even 1 in 10 people could afford ANY care at current prices.
3. After the chaos and realignment, the medical suppliers and practitioners willing to accept more modest earnings would remain, each with larger shares of the market due to many competitors closing. These would be charging reasonable rates for the first time in a long, long time.
4. Average Americans can now afford their own healthcare, direct from pocket.


So long as insurance exists in ANY form, corporations can charge any amount they wish since there is a way for people to pay it. Take away the deep pockets and the market will essentially correct itself - finding equilibrium with wages, not with corporate investing.

 

[JS80]

How about something truly different.

1. Ban all insurance.
2. Medical suppliers and practitioners would, overnight, no longer be able to charge prices that require massive financial investing companies. Their choice would be: charge what an average consumer can afford to pay on their own, or close. This is only logical since not even 1 in 10 people could afford ANY care at current prices.
3. After the chaos and realignment, the medical suppliers and practitioners willing to accept more modest earnings would remain, each with larger shares of the market due to many competitors closing. These would be charging reasonable rates for the first time in a long, long time.
4. Average Americans can now afford their own healthcare, direct from pocket.


So long as insurance exists in ANY form, corporations can charge any amount they wish since there is a way for people to pay it. Take away the deep pockets and the market will essentially correct itself - finding equilibrium with wages, not with corporate investing.

I bet just getting rid of Medicare/aid would have pretty much the same effect without as much chaos.

 

[Patranus]

How about something truly different.

1. Ban all insurance.
2. Medical suppliers and practitioners would, overnight, no longer be able to charge prices that require massive financial investing companies. Their choice would be: charge what an average consumer can afford to pay on their own, or close. This is only logical since not even 1 in 10 people could afford ANY care at current prices.
3. After the chaos and realignment, the medical suppliers and practitioners willing to accept more modest earnings would remain, each with larger shares of the market due to many competitors closing. These would be charging reasonable rates for the first time in a long, long time.
4. Average Americans can now afford their own healthcare, direct from pocket.


So long as insurance exists in ANY form, corporations can charge any amount they wish since there is a way for people to pay it. Take away the deep pockets and the market will essentially correct itself - finding equilibrium with wages, not with corporate investing.

You are an idiot.
You act like an MRI machines and other technology cost nothing.

 

[Jaskalas]

So the solution is to create 2 Government Plans each needing Funding, Bureaucracy, Rules, and Regulations? It's all based on this notion that Both Political Parties Need to be involved in the final decision, because it's, somehow, important?

:\

The yes/no votes for the Bill are largely based on party affiliation. How else do we get a /yes vote from both sides?

 

[sandorski]

The yes/no votes for the Bill are largely based on party affiliation. How else do we get a /yes vote from both sides?

Remove Partisanship. Not likely to happen anytime soon though. Why is that such a concern though? There's no good reason why both sides need to Support something, just the Majority.

 

[mect]

After thinking about it, I really don't see any reason why individual states could not be in charge of health care. That allows the people of that state to decide what system is best for them. The only real argument I've seen against this is that the states are too small and would result in too much overhead compared to a program run at the national level. However, I've not seen any data to support this. On the other hand, most states are larger than countries such as Norway, where national health care has been successful. I would think this indicates that there is no reason health care couldn't be handled at the state level. There are several reasons why I think it would be better off at the state level.
(1) Smaller more nimble programs where changes can be more easily implemented.
(2) More representation for the voters. Let Kansas set up their creationism based program and Massachusetts set up their we'll pay for the poor to go to resorts to relieve stress version.
(3) Learning in parallel. With lots of different programs running simultaneously, there will be much more data available for determining what works and what doesn't.

Anyways, just my thoughts.

 

[drebo]

How about something truly different.

1. Ban all insurance.
2. Medical suppliers and practitioners would, overnight, no longer be able to charge prices that require massive financial investing companies. Their choice would be: charge what an average consumer can afford to pay on their own, or close. This is only logical since not even 1 in 10 people could afford ANY care at current prices.
...
So long as insurance exists in ANY form, corporations can charge any amount they wish since there is a way for people to pay it. Take away the deep pockets and the market will essentially correct itself - finding equilibrium with wages, not with corporate investing.

You realize that insurance companies were NOT the reason that the bold occured in the first place? Medical insurance as the norm was a SYMPTOM of the bolded. The bolded occured because Medicare came in and defined prices for servers which were on the whole much higher than what providers were charging before.

 

[ElFenix]

Break up the union while you're at it.

a wise man once said:

It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.