Outlaw Health Insurance And End The Health Care Crisis In the States.

page: 1
5

log in

join

posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 07:30 PM
link   
What would happen if we made health insurance illegal in the States? Can't buy it, can't sell it . . . might sound crazy, but is it? Would it make the health care situation in the States better or worse?

If we made health insurance illegal, would some sort of medical savings account fill the gap? (without the catastrophic policy of course, after all insurance is illegal).

If we just hit the reset button on the way we handle health care in this country what would happen?

I have to wonder if costs for health care would drop. I imagine a lot of money is spent on insurance related paperwork, insurance companies make a substantial profit, there is a certain amount of fraud, and maybe the market just wouldn't bear the current costs for health care and prices would have to adjust.

Patients might be more careful with how they spend their health care dollars if they're actually their dollars. I know people that don't have health insurance, most of them self-employed, who negotiate prices with their Doctors. I've done it myself. I'm told that the Doctors are happy with it because although it's less money, it's money right now without all the hassles. (I don't think insurance companies actually pay the "retail" price for health care costs either, but they do generally take months to pay and require a mountain of paperwork, or at least that's what I'm told).

If we went to a savings account system,(again no catastrophic rider), made the contributions tax free, allowed employers to contribute and things of that nature, how much worse off would we be? Would we be better off?

If I asked you to solve the health care problem in the United States and your solution couldn't involve insurance, could you solve it? How would you go about it?

Just to be clear, I'm not necessarily advocating this, I've wondered about it for awhile and I'd like to 'test' the idea here. If you think it's dumb, feel free to say so, just please explain why.




posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 08:03 PM
link   
In the UK anyone who works pays a small percentage of their pay towards the national health service. This system gives health care to EVERYONE!!!
If we're ill we just go see a doctor, and dont have to worry about the costs!

Its free at source to EVERYONE!

We brits love our NHS



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 09:57 PM
link   
a reply to: VoidHawk

Hey Voidhawk,

Your post prompted me to do a little bit of reading about NHS. According to the figures I found, the cost of covering health care costs per individual was around 2500 per year under NHS as opposed to about 6000 per year in the U.S. (These figures were from 2009). There were people that were critical of the care provided by NHS, but it seems like is scores higher for most measurements of health care performance with the exception of cancer treatment.

I did see that private insurance is still available in the UK and that about 10% of the people there have it. Also seems that there have been some moves to increase the amount of private health care in the UK, apparently there is trouble with funding the program?

March 2014 Guardian Article

The above article makes me wonder if NHS, or a system similar to it, is economically sustainable.

It's curious to me that rather than setting up a single payer system the democrats choose to pass Obama Care. My understanding is that they didn't have/need any support from the Republicans at the time they passed Obama Care. Why didn't they enact a single payer system?



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 10:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: imwilliam
a reply to: VoidHawk

Hey Voidhawk,

Your post prompted me to do a little bit of reading about NHS. According to the figures I found, the cost of covering health care costs per individual was around 2500 per year under NHS as opposed to about 6000 per year in the U.S. (These figures were from 2009). There were people that were critical of the care provided by NHS, but it seems like is scores higher for most measurements of health care performance with the exception of cancer treatment.

I did see that private insurance is still available in the UK and that about 10% of the people there have it. Also seems that there have been some moves to increase the amount of private health care in the UK, apparently there is trouble with funding the program?

March 2014 Guardian Article

The above article makes me wonder if NHS, or a system similar to it, is economically sustainable.

It's curious to me that rather than setting up a single payer system the democrats choose to pass Obama Care. My understanding is that they didn't have/need any support from the Republicans at the time they passed Obama Care. Why didn't they enact a single payer system?









Dont believe all you read about the costs of the nhs! Costs only rose high when Maggie and those that came after her started hiring private companies to do the work that used to be done by nhs employee's.

On a recent visit to a hospital I noticed a very large portion of the building was being used as offices for the ever increasing number of NON MEDICAL STAFF, those offices used to be wards full of beds, now they represent high cost!
Since Maggie, every government has sought to privatise as much as possible, and that leads to higher costs. Evetualy they will tell us its not affordable and will have to be privatised.
Its all just a plan to introduce the same corrupt system we see in the US and many other countries around the world.
edit on 19-4-2014 by VoidHawk because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 10:12 PM
link   
a reply to: VoidHawk

You must live in some ultra bizarre, alternate universe where Government is able to operate more efficiently and cheaply than the private sector.


I've never heard of such a thing.
edit on 19-4-2014 by FuZe7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 10:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: FuZe7
a reply to: VoidHawk

You must live in some ultra bizarre, alternate universe where Government is able to operate more efficiently and cheaply than the private sector.


I've never heard of such a thing.


Well, we had DECADES of it being run just fine under the nhs model. As I said, it only became expensive when they introduced the private sector, what more can I say!



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: FuZe7


originally posted by: FuZe7
You must live in some ultra bizarre, alternate universe where Government is able to operate more efficiently and cheaply than the private sector.


I've never heard of such a thing.

The trick is to make both compete against each other = lower costs, higher quality, better service.

That's what we do here and it works excellent.
edit on 19-4-2014 by ColCurious because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 10:41 PM
link   
a reply to: imwilliam

German here.

Healthcare isn't necessarily bad, you just have to organise/set up the system properly. That's where you messed up IMO.

We also have the choice to leave the public healtchcare system for optional private insurance, which provides excellent coverage for reasonable prices.
I pay ~300€/month for full private insurance (which is already more than average here)... and no additional costs ever.
Both systems work on a high quality level here, side by side in good competition.
edit on 19-4-2014 by ColCurious because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: ColCurious

Hey ColCurious,



you just have to organise/set up the system properly.


You know I don't think the United States has ever really organized or set up a comprehensive health care plan. Our "system" for lack of a better word, has just grown organically and we've tried to patch and repair it. In some way's it's like a field full of weeds. Maybe it's time that we cleared that field and re landscaped it, but this time with a comprehensive plan.



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 09:44 AM
link   
FuZe7 & VoidHawk,

I think both government and private run institutions have their drawbacks. In my opinion, as private cooperation's grow larger they include more and more of those less than motivated individuals that the government is known for and as they grow larger some of the competition that would theoretically keep them 'sharp' disappears. There is also the issue of over reaching greed as demonstrated by the latest financial melt down.

Fuze7 it troubles me that we've basically come to accept that government run institutions are going to be full of waste and inefficiency. (And they most certainly are, it's the acceptance of this as a fact of life that troubles me) I think we need to find a way to hold their feet to the fire.



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Maybe we should just go by the law of the land where the preamble states in one part that the government is charged with promoting the general welfare and control the prices and businesses which provide things to the citizenry which are vital to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Nope, we'll probably be funneled into WW3 to avoid that if anyone in a position of influence would realize the truth of the matter and address the ridiculously corrupt and tyrannical nature which any entity seeking profit over everything else assumes as a matter of course.

Those who run this whole mess would be considered criminals if they were not allowed to write laws to justify today, that which yesterday was considered a crime.

edit on 20-4-2014 by MyHappyDogShiner because: bla bla bla bla



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: imwilliam
FuZe7 & VoidHawk,

as private cooperation's grow larger they include more and more of those less than motivated individuals that the government is known for and as they grow larger some of the competition that would theoretically keep them 'sharp' disappears. There is also the issue of over reaching greed as demonstrated by the latest financial melt down.


Exactly what I was refering to when I mentioned the hospital that I visited that had so much space being used as offices, they used to be wards!
Each of those offices represents great expense in the form of salaries for people that never used to be needed! They also represent the loss of greatly needed beds!

The government should butt out of it. We need to go back to the old system of Matrons who prowled the wards and removed anything not desirable or usefull!



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Here is an article.

Why Health Care Costs Are So High

The article states that administrative costs are "astronomical" about 1/4 of total health care cost. The article quotes, David Cutler, a medical economist from Harvard, who says that the costs are lower in single payer systems because they have less administrative needs.

Back to the premise of my thread, wouldn't administrative needs for a society without health insurance be even lower? No complicated paperwork, just send me a bill and I send you a check out of my medical savings account. Discount the bill by the 25% that you won't have to pay in administrative costs and I'll probably write you the check before I leave the building.

Cutler also mentions that the best guess is that 1/3 of health care costs aren't associated with improved outcomes, he refers to this as waste. Again, if there is no insurance and I'm paying out of my medical savings account, paying with my dollars, wouldn't I be more careful? Maybe bring my own aspirin to the hospital instead of paying 10 bucks a pill? Maybe I'd book an appointment with my physician for Monday instead of going to the emergency room for a sore throat Sunday night?

I still don't see a good reason for not outlawing insurance.















edit on 22-4-2014 by imwilliam because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
5

log in

join