They won't be separated into different pools, they will still be in the same pool as the low-risk, they'll just pay more. Basic problem with preventative care.......people only go for preventative care if they want to. So unless you are prepared to force people to go to the doctor this is a none argument. If you are prepared to force people to go to the doctor where the stop. Do you force people to lose weight? Pre-existing is a hard nut to crack admittedly. You have to have a window though to prevent people from not paying insurance because it A) saves them money now and B) when they get sick they can always buy it then. The point of insurance is that you are paying a company money until you need that money to pay doctors. If a person never pays a company and then wants the company to pay doctors the company loses money. His bill isn't only about addressing the cost of medical care, but also the cost of the insurance itself. While I agree with you 1000% on the tax code, I can see a plus to this particular approach. One of the concerns in the medical debate is care for the less fortunate. If doctors are encouraged to use some of their time to care for the less fortunate for free then the less fortunate don't get left out of preventative care and hopefully avoid major issues. Hard to proclaim that is doesn't work when not all states are on board. Curious, how many states all this? Ok, so plumbers may not have been a good example, because if they are members of a Union I believe you are correct. Let's change the example to Beauticians since that I'm aware of they don't have many if any Unions. This would allow Beauticians to form an Association and through they Association get insurance in a larger pool.
True, I didn't look it up since I already knew its definition. And yes, I think we need to prevent the Federal government from redistributing or mandating the redistribution of 'money' directly to individuals. Insurance is sold as a hedge against an unforeseen loss, which the purchaser pays for in advance, in hopes that they will not have to avail themselves of it. Social Security and Medicare are paid for in advance by the recipients, in hopes that they will live long enough to reap a return as a result. When something of cost is provided in advance of their paying for it, it is either called a loan which is most often repaid with interest, or a charitable gift which the provider(s) have by their own free choice extended without expectation of repayment in kind. That is not to say that those who provide charitable gifts should not or do not expect to see some form of positive response from the recipient. Oh, and your Social Security benefit is indeed based upon the amount you contributed, and you can use their calculator to get a rough figure of what that amount would be based on your past earnings and expected date of retirement and age. Medicare is not something most people would want to need a benefit from, and although I paid into it I'm happy to say that I haven't collected a cent of benefit from it, and hope that I will never have to.
The amount you are paid monthly is indeed calculated on the amount you paid in, however the total amount you receive in total from Social Security over your lifetime is not.
That's correct, the total benefit you will receive is an unknown, and some may receive nothing while others may receive much more than they paid in, unlike a preexisting health condition where the insurer knows in advance the payout which SHOULD if anything set a baseline minimum cost of insuring that person. Insurance is bought prior to the need while charitable aid is provided after the fact.
its closer to capitalism so its a great plan. With full on capitalism prices would come down 80%. Imagine the effect of people shopping with their own money, published prices, and providers competing on basis of price and quality.
insurance does not seem very efficient given that it has to cover a 1000 things and most will only need a few things. If you want a rock bottom market price for an appendectomy, for example, is has to be separately priced all over America and you have to shop for it with your own money. If its covered on an insurance policy its limped in with 1000 things and we never learn the true cost. thus the best plan is self insurance with perhaps a govt assist in the beginning
What will happen is that people without a condition will start dropping out which will raise the cost, and this cost increase will result in more dropping out, and will keep spiraling until only a small percent is covered for each condition and coverage for each is many times higher than previously. This will make it impossible for everything to be covered and people will be forced to be only covered for a small subset of conditions because of cost. Health problems are unpredictable and if you get an unexpected thing you are basically screwed. Also poor people and sick people with high bills will be forced into even smaller subsets of coverage and be at higher risk. This spiral will also happen for preventative care and currently it is mostly covered by default because of Obamacare but now it will be far more expensive to add and less people will get it and get more serious expensive conditions. The point is that people are far more likely to do the preventative care if it is really cheap than if it is expensive, especially if they think they might be at risk and we need to be encouraging people to be solving their problems the cheap way as much as possible. Thats the key to lowering costs, getting more people to solve their problems cheaply before they get expensive. That makes sense but what do you do about the people who couldn't afford insurance for two years and now can't get covered for what they need ever? Also what do you do about people who cheat the system by adding and dropping repeatedly? Also initially I and a lot of people will just not be covered for the first two years since we can just jump on when we get sick and will be catastrophic for the getting this new system started. About 6 states are doing this and insurers simply aren't going for it and there are no provable cost decreases. Healthcare tends to be local anyway and the costs are local. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/01/...health-insurance-across-state-lines.html?_r=0 I am fine with that but don't see the cost savings from doing this. This is just a different grouping of care and doesn't seem to me to address the actual costs. A lot of Paul's ideas are improvements but I don't see any which will actually reduce the cost of care itself and addresses the specific things that are making care in the US more and more expensive.
What about life insurance? A child is born to a couple who is found to have an untreatable terminal condition. Should they be able to insure the childs life, and at the same cost as someone who is in perfect health?
