How about municipal insurance...Each city, small group of towns, etc. could offer their own health insurance plans. The doctors and hospitals would all be local...Yes I know there would be problems, on vacation in CA and my insurance is from TX, etc. But it could not be worse than Obama care...And administrators would be local elected officials, if you don't like them or how they run it, vote them out or run against them...What recourse do you have against Obama care? Just a thought! I am more into states rights than federal power...If you don't like how that state is run, move to another...It's not as easy to move out of the US to another country...And no I don't want that, I still believe the US is one of the best places to live in the world...And I have traveled extensively in my military career.
Put quite simply the applicant pool would not be large enough to spread the risk. Essentially the same reason large corporations don't run their own insurance plans.
How about pooling restaurant workers, medical care workers, etc. together? Offering various groups of workers group health insurance. Increasing the pool and lowering premiums. There are more ways than I have just stated to establish large groups of insured's to bring down premium costs. PPACA failed to do this. And it failed to decrease the number of individuals seeking E.R. care and increased premiums for a large majority that already had insurance and liked it but weren't able to "keep it". By requiring we all pay for maternity care even when we and our employees don't need it or want it and newborn care we don't need or want, we pay higher premiums. And, insurance companies are still charging those with pre-existing conditions more so many of those individuals can't afford the coverage, even though they can get it. PPACA should have required private companies to insure those with pre-existing for the same premium as the majority for this to be effective. There are so many falicies in the PPACA.
You have been asked to document this statement before and you failed to do so. This is illegal under the ACA and was one of it's key provisions. If you actually have any evidence this occuring post it otherwise you should stop making an unsubstantiated claim.
The pool would definitely be big enough in most cities. And large corporations more or less do run their own insurance plans. Most large insurance plans are self funded. They don't really pay premium, they just pay the claims, and sometimes they have stop loss insurance to protect against catastrophic claims. The corporations pay insurance companies to administer the plan and project the claims so that the corporations know how much to budget. I don't think the OP has a horrible idea, but the reasons this won't happen are the same reason the US hasn't and probably won't switch to a single payer plan: - Most people in the united states like their insurance. It would be a political nightmare to try and get legislation passed that will take people's plans away and replace them with government plans. - Even if you got people behind that the medical community would not be behind this plan. They don't want to negotiate with the government. - Health insurance companies employ a lot of people in America. That's a lot of jobs you'd kill. It wouldn't be a politically popular plan.
You can do that today. There are many association groups. That's quite the rant. Many inaccuracies too.
As we don't have employer funded health insurance in Australia, this is a quite common practice with many companies and organisations. "Group discounts" for employees keeping the cost of private health insurance down. We have universal healthcare in Australia so the basics are covered anyway. What this allows is employees are able to choose a plan specifying certain services like dental, physio etc. Premiums are also deducted from wages fortnightly or monthly depending on the pay period. I believe it's also possible to salary sacrifice heath insurance premiums in some cases.
Not legal. Sorry. They can only cover on one State. Just because it has national presence does not mean they can pool outside of a State.
How many states have Blue Cross, Blue Shield. It is all one company even though they write in multiple states? The Corporate risk is already shared among the subsidiaries, thus among the recipients in the multiple states. The pool is at the corporate level not at the state level but it is still an insurance risk pool.
Surprised you never caught the plan to promote purchasing insurance across state lines and tort reform as some of the alternatives to Obamacare.
States can already create joint markets that allow risk pools to span multiple states under the ACA. None have been interested in doing so thus far (though some states may be moving in that direction now).
We shouldn't have it here, either. ANY OTHER way of funding health insurance is superior to employer funded health insurance.
Tort reform = Doctor's Welfare and Relief Act of 2015. Republicans appear to think that if doctors didn't have to worry about defending themselves in malpractice cases, that cost saving would be passed through to patients. Never gonna happen. They already know what the market will bear.
I'm trying to get my head around this, correct me if I'm wrong. For example you have health insurance as a resident of California. You fly to New York and get sick. Are you saying your health insurance won't cover you?
Tort Reform should include if a lawyer takes a case on contingency he should have to take it to a jury. Why? because most of them file the case hoping it will be settled out of court by the malpractice insurance company and they then can make some fast cash, usually getting more than their client. They wouldn't take contingency cases that are unfounded if they knew they would have to "argue" the case in front of a jury. The majority of cases that Insurance companies refuse to settle out of court at the request of their Doctor/insured have jury judgements in favor of the Doctor. If, the defendant had to pay the plaintiff(doctors) court costs and attorney fees if they lose, there would be half or 1/4 of malpractice cases filed. And if these were contingency cases, the majority of them would have never been filed to begin with.
a state run program would cost more then a federal program for the same reasons the more people insured the more profitable the insurance carrier but then again, costing more would mean more jobs created as each state would have to have employees to do the same thing.... so there is a plus there too private insurance is no longer working, we gave it this last hail marry, but it looks like even the individual mandate\exchanges wont save them, time for a public option would could maybe have free state hospitals and if people want to pay to go to a private hospital they still could .
The topic was instead of ObamaCare. Instead of Obamacare, Federal Regulatory laws should have been reformed to include Health Insurance. These laws only included homeowners, life, auto insurance and the like. Then, medicare should have been expanded to create what could have been called Part E(for everyone else) that would cover the uninsurable, those with pre-existing conditions and those that didn't qualify for their State Medicaid insurance and with incomes below the poverty line. These individuals would pay a set premium based on the number individuals insured under the program and based on their annual salary. The Federal Government/taxpayer would pick up the difference between actual cost and what was paid in for the tax year. Much cheaper for taxpayers. More people insured at an affordable premium. Less control of small, large business health insurance and individual/family insurance. Never should HHS have been given the final say on the "minimal essential benefits" when they could include many benefits the majority of insured's don't need or will never need, due to their marital status or age. Such as maternity, newborn care, child dental.and the like. Can you make an argument against these facts?
Sorry there are no facts, just opinions. Stating that a plan you are proposing would be cheaper than the ACA is only an opinion unless you have actual data you are willing to present. Presenting your own opinions as facts without any supporting evidence and without any actual details is just an opinion at best and at worst anact of extreme hubris. And if you are willing to let people pick and choose what is included in their health insurance you also have to be willing to say what the consequences should be if they require medical care outside of the chosen options covered by their policy.
