So, where are pro & con

[slngsht]

And how has that idea worked out over the last several decades?

 

My preference has just two steps to it:

1) Make affordable health coverage available to everyone;

2) Anyone that declines coverage signs a waiver acknowledging personal responsibility for all medical costs they incur and may not receive treatment (including catastrophic or ER) until payment arrangements are made. Bleeding out at the hospital driveway is a realistic possibility.

 

Subsidies for those who cannot afford coverage would still be less than the what service providers (doctors, hospitals, ambulances, etc) currently write off and then pass on to those who do pay.

What if a private organization, such as a church or other charity chooses to provide service to those in need? Is this acceptable to you? or does it have to go through government?

 

... and as people continue to find out how ACA impacts their lives, the old system won't look all that bad.

[lucky dawg]

What if a private organization, such as a church or other charity chooses to provide service to those in need? Is this acceptable to you? or does it have to go through government?.

 

That would be a great, though few could afford to do so for very long.

 

I would prefer the only government involvement to be making sure coverage is available to everyone who chooses to get it. And those who knowingly elect not to, are on their own; no more requirement that hospitals and doctors must treat some people for free. Can't get much more conservative than this.

[slngsht]

That would be a great, though few could afford to do so for very long.

 

I would prefer the only government involvement to be making sure coverage is available to everyone who chooses to get it. And those who knowingly elect not to, are on their own; no more requirement that hospitals and doctors must treat some people for free. Can't get much more conservative than this.

 

This is much much more reasonable. It's actually a repeal of the EMTALA (another example of gov involvement having consequences, even though it was well meaning) - with addition of a baseline catastrophic insurance option.

[bigdog]

lucky dawg, The problem is multifaceted. The politicians being awash with campaign money is most of the problem. The other problem are the folks themselves. They refuse to accept that a solution to a problem may take some time to fix. As a result they tend to demand quick fixes and gravitate to anything labeled as "free" which was precisely how the press and the Obama administration sold "Obama care" in his first term. Of course this fits in nicely with politicians whom only think in terms of the election cycle. It becomes a self feeding monster. It might seem cruel. But it sometimes takes a long time to properly fix complex problems.

 

It's precisly how that bonehead Bush along with congress got the patriot act passed. Totally in contradiction to the constitution. We were hurting from the attack and all the politicians of Washington used that to usurp the constitution and grant themselves more power over we the people. And we citizens closed our eyes or simply refused to see the unintended consequences. They may have had good intentions. But in the end the patriot act turned out to be an evil monster.

 

The preexisting condition issue and insurance in general should be worked on at the state level. What the government did with the ACA was in effect throwing a wet blanket over the whole nations health care to stop a headache.

 

Kudos to every one for the lack of name calling on such a hot button issue.

Edited November 25, 2013 by bigdog

[s2k7]

xxx

Edited January 24, 2014 by s2k7

[slngsht]

All we're missing is for a jester to come out on the balcony at the white house and read off a scroll.

 

Administration just announced ANOTHER EXEMPTION! LOL

 

BUT BUT BUT It's the LAW OF THE LAND!

 

How the heck can insurance companies forecast what the cost model for these plans are?

 

The Obama administration, in an 11th-hour change just before the holiday break,announced a major exemption in ObamaCare that will let people who lost coverage and are struggling to get a new plan sign up for bare-bones policies.

 

The move Thursday to allow potentially hundreds of thousands of people to sign up for "catastrophic" coverage plans was blasted by the insurance industry as a shift that would cause "tremendous instability.”

 

The administration downplayed the sudden change, saying they expected it to impact fewer than 500,000 people.

 

Health and Human Services spokeswoman Joanne Peters said, "This is a common sense clarification of the law. For the limited number of consumers whose plans have been cancelled and are seeking coverage, this is one more option."

 

An administration official confirmed to Fox News that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sent a letter to Capitol Hill saying the administration was expanding the definition of catastrophic plans to deal with people who have not been able to get a new plan.

 

An insurance industry official, speaking not for attribution, told Fox that while the administration was playing down the significance of the move, it could turn out to be a troublesome last minute change and the industry fears far more than the 500,000 people will apply.

 

Another industry official, Robert Zirkelbach AHIP Spokesman Vice President, Strategic Communications, said, “This type of last-minute change will cause tremendous instability in the marketplace and lead to further confusion and disruption for consumers."