The Free markets simply CANNOT manage affordable healthcare.

The idea that insurance companies are not dominated by oligopolies is the flaw in this argument. That there is some fair and free insurance market.

The second problem is that while increasing competition among insurance (should this be a realistic proposal which it is not) would perhaps reduce the overall healthcare cost by a fraction of a rounding error on the total pot - it does little to reduce the other 99.587%. I am am perhaps embellishing a bit on my figures but not by much.

The problems with our healthcare costs go a whole lot deeper than more insurance choice. Ted's proposal is then just scratching the surface.

 

I still haven't heard a good argument against healthcare being a right but this requires an in depth analysis of what is a 'right', IMO it's nonsense. Let's talk in term of rights first.

The declaration of independence lists life, liberty and pursuit of happiness as 'natural rights'.

How can anyone pursue happiness if they cannot afford healthcare, particularly when they need life saving treatment or treatment to address a severe physical impairment?

The arguments i see against healthcare being a right are:

1. 'no, no-one has the right to anyone else's labor'

2. 'no, healthcare is a basic need but not a right, it is a privilege'

IMO, these are weak responses and rationalizations from those who just seek to delegitimize government.

Let's also look at what is in the constitution when it comes to role of government:

1. To form a more perfect Union
2. 'To establish Justice'
3. 'To insure domestic Tranquility'
4. 'To provide for the common defense'
5. 'To promote the general Welfare'
6. 'To secure the Blessings of Liberty'

'Promote the general Welfare', this to me would also support need for government to ensure healthcare is accessible and affordable to everyone.

Conservatives get caught up with the definition of rights - 'inalienable' rights, 'self-evident' rights, 'god given' rights, 'natural' rights etc.. reality is, all of it is BULLSH&T!

For instance, what does 'god given' mean to an atheist? NOTHING.. Not everyone has to believe in a god

What about the idiotic idea that there are 'natural' rights? What this means is that we need to look at human nature, what does everyone desire? life, liberty and happiness. This is naive and a big lie. There are certain things about human nature that are dark - killing. Pre-historic humans who were free KILLED each other, it is also human nature! why isn't killing a right if it's part of our DNA just like the desire to live?

We can also poke holes in the ideas of 'inalienable' or 'self-evident' rights. All of this is absolute NONSENSE because it's vague, cannot be proven, can be argued/interpreted in a million ways. This is why using the word 'RIGHT' results is circular arguments and BS debates.

What we need to focus on is BASIC NEEDS and ensure government guarantees basic needs. FOOD, WATER, HEALTHCARE, SHELTER, SECURITY. Within this context, IT IS CLEAR that access to affordable healthcare is a BASIC NEED that should be provided by government. Using the word 'RIGHT' is the wrong way to debate this topic, a right is truly a nonsensical idea, there are no rights unless we create them.

 

Do you understand at all the concept of competition? What we do is the opposite of what Obama care did. Obama care reduce the number of insurers offering policy from 3 or four to one or none. We intend to increase the numbers to more than a dozen. And you are embellishing your numbers grossly and ignoring the fact that a goodly percentage of of the cost of healthcare is government.

 

why was system failing before ACA?

 

It wasn't and Obama care didn't even try to fix what problems did exist.

 

Wait, where are there only 1 or no insurance companies? Every state has NUMEROUS insurers in their state.

 

The system was a failure. Insurance companies discriminated against the people that were vulnerable and premiums were rising at the same rate (or more) than they are now. ACA wasn't passed because we had a great system, it was passed because it was not working. I'm not saying ACA was the solution, the system is still a mess... but it was a mess pre-ACA as-well, to deny this is to be intellectually dishonest.

 

I thought you were being serious about healthcare for America.

I agree the gov has never tried to pay off workers with health care targeting them to the exclusion of all others.. And, that is never going to happen, either.

 

Rates were rising because state local governments were demanding that more and more things be covered by company insurance policies. Even at that the over whelming majority of people were quite happy with their healthcare.

 

Yes and many of them are no longer selling health insurance, at least not through the exchanges.

 

Before ACA, the ones that didn't need healthcare were happier, the ones that needed it the most, were worse off. Now, the ones that need healthcare the least, are less happy and the ones that need healthcare the most, are happier. It's this simple, ACA just shifted the burden from one group to another.

The free markets is about profits and ONLY profits. A corporation doesn't have a conscience, it survives on profits whilst humans have empathy and survive on food, water etc.. This difference is what leads to government, in one way or another. The free markets doesn't care about a life, a human is an object that generates a profit or a loss and if it's a loss, the human is eliminated. The government seeks to apply some sort of security, morality, empathy, compassion to this system.

The free markets will naturally discriminate against the most vulnerable. Left unregulated, why would a profit making entity charge a healthy person $300/month and a person with a pre-existing condition $300? this may demonstrate compassion, empathy, morals but it's not profitable. Naturally, a profit making entity will set a much higher price and not care whether the individual can afford it or even die without it. This is where government interferes and , WE, created government, in part, to provide security. What ACA has done is essentially force the healthy to chip in and make them pay a little more, so that the ones that most need care are better off. Obviously, there is whining but people need to always think 'what if i were one of the people with a pre-exiting condition that used to get f'cked in old system?' We should all be okay paying in to ensure that the weak, the vulnerable are taken care of. If conservatives think this is coercion or violates rights, they just lack empathy and compassion.

 

If the pool is large enough it doesn't matter. Insurance is about the size of the pool when it comes to health care the same is true of any other kind of insurance. Pre existing condition isn't an insurance issue no one will sell you home owner's insurance if your house is already on fire. You want to set up a program to help people with preexisting conditions? Fine all for it within certain limitations. But I'm also not interested in establishing a system that encourages people to be irresponsible jackasses.

 

The exchanges are only a small percentage of insurance plans. The vast majority of people are covered under employer based group policies. So no, there is not just "1 or no insurance companies in states". There are NUMEROUS carriers in every state.

 

Not through the exchanges and if you are an individual that's where you have to go thanks to Obamacare.

 

How else can those who need healthcare the most afford it if the healthy don't chip in? how do we guarantee the size of pool is adequate? After all, conseravites hate the individual mandate. A medicare for all would be a better system as everyone would pay in (taxes) and everyone get access to affordable care. This guarantees a large enough pool where the sick can get access to affordable care.

i agree that there should be incentives to ensure that those who take care of themselves are rewarded but why would free market provide such incentives? Doctors make money off the sick, drug companies make money off the sick. If everyone ate well, exercised and had an ideal BMI/body fat %, the healthcare industry would make billions and billions less money. So tell me, why would free markets want a healthier population?

 

Because you aren't likely to cost them as much money. Insurance companies are in essence gambling that you won't get sick before your premiums cover most of the cost of treatment you are likely to require. Insurance is not directly part of the health care industry. And in certain ways operates in opposition to it and in certain ways it can act as a price control. Why do you think insurance companies much prefer that you use generics rather than name brands?

 

insurance companies are a form of price control to healthcare providers and drug companies BUT not as much because they find ways to make up for the costs. They just hike premiums or hike deductibles. Why is it that the insurance companies in the USA make so much money when we have such an unhealthy population? EVERYONE makes money off the sick, period. True price control would be for government to set limits on deductibles and premiums, now insurance companies would have no clever ways to make up for the costs and they would truly put pressure on healthcare providers to control costs. There are no price controls and the more the sick, the more profits for doctors, hospitals, drug companies and and insurance companies make up for costs by penalizing the insurance holders. It's this simple....

The best way to bring down costs is to become healthier but who will provide the incentives when healthcare providers make money off the sick and insurance companies just shift costs to the insurance holders? WE, are the ones paying for it all... the private entities are making a f killing in profits, at our expense.

 

Which means basically nurses x ray techs et all have middle class jobs. The incentives are again provided by the health insurers who actually bear the cost of care. Why do you think a lot of them want you to take a physical before they sell you health or life insurance?

 

no, we bare the costs.. why do you think insurance companies have been hiking premiums so much, before and after ACA? why do you think insurance companies make billions no matter how sick our population is?

some want to know how healthy you are, not because they want you to be healthier, but to know what they need to do to cover your cost. Once again, healthcare providers make money off the sick and insurance companies just shift the costs to premium payers, you know it, i know it.

we need government to provide incentives for people to live healthier lives, the private industry doesn't care as the costs of our unhealthy population is just put on us, premium payers and tax payers. The more unhealthy were are, the more money healthcare providers make and the more we pay on premiums, insurance companies just make us pay for it.

 

O course they hike premiums they have to to cover costs, and don't forget, that much of the cost increase is due to government interference in the market place.

 

exactly but my point is neither healthcare providers nor insurance companies have incentives to tackle the biggest issue we have - unhealthy population.

Imagine two simplified scenarios:

Scenario A. 20 people, 10 very sick, 10 healthy. 10 of these people cost the system 1 million a year in care, the other 10 cost the system 10k a year. How is the insurance company going to cover the the cost? ensuring premiums are high enough to cover the 1 million cost, via high deductibles and high rates. The doctors providing this care are in high demand and make good $$, the drug companies which provide necessary drugs make good money and hospitals providing in patient care, make good money.

Scenario B. Now imagine the 20 people were super healthy and cost the system 20k a year. Now the insurance company will reduce premiums significantly and still make a profit (less costs, less revenue). The doctors will be in less demand though and probably make less, drug companies will make less, hospitals will make less.

See how simple? let's summarize:

1. Insurance company doesn't really care, they make money in both scenarios by setting premiums accordingly (WE BARE THE COSTS)
2. doctors, hospitals & drug companies DO CARE. They seek to lose money if people are healthy
3. Premium payers DO CARE. They seek to lose money if people are less healthy

In short, insurance companies are neutral and we are left with a conflict of interest between premium payers and healthcare providers. How do we address this without government setting some rules?

 

It will happen soon after a prominent politician first proposes doing it. Will that ever happen?
Only if a prominent politician decides that a supermajority of voter support is more useful than donor support.

 

No it isn't. You can go directly to the insurer. The exchanges were set up for high risk individuals (pre-existing conditions etc) and low income individuals. Insurers are pulling out of exchanges in republican run states because those republicans intentionally torpedoed the ACA in their states, and refused to expand Medicaid. The exchanges are doing just fine in states that implemented the ACA, as intended.

 

Untrue, that is what they have YOU telling others. Their game is working, work on the minds of the under educated and get them to praise your sales pitch, "less govt means more for the PEOPLE"
Don't be a sucker...

 

Good to see someone else out there paying attention. Anyone screaming against you will call you a downer, you dont support free trade, a free market, etc... Today, we have a free market run amuk and guys like this other dude on here is praising their story. the one that sounds like Trump and republican, "we are here to help you = We will take advantage of you. I don't know what you do, where you are, or how old you are. But prepare for the worst because it is coming. 50% on healthcare, the rest "oh well" We are going to become what is close to a communist country but still have free speech. Free speech is and will be worthless because those that should listen, dont and they are being paid by the mega rich to run their agenda...
Gather in the streets ? They don't care, they will be far away protected by security. Vote against them wont work either because they will have all the money to forward their party. We are totally screwed and been screaming about this for years. No one ever listens...