It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


What is the right-wing resolution to healthcare, anyways?

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 10:03 PM

originally posted by: zazzafrazz

What is the right-wing resolution to healthcare, anyways?

To let them eat cake.

There is vitimum C available so people should just shut up

posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 10:09 PM

originally posted by: NateTheAnimator
a reply to: deadlyhope

Are these ideas applicable?

Yup and have been since we've had a service based economy...

Will tons and tons of insurance companies pop up and compete and offer better pricing and be good for the average? Or will something like Wal-mart be created, where no one can compete if they are around, quality of healthcare, medical tools, etc decline, third world countries will start making a lot of the products, and no one can compete with some huge corporate insurance company, yet that company is not in fact creating the very environment we are advocating for?

Your referring to an oligopolistic market and sadly that would end up happening either way. However with less government intervention these types of corporations whom dominate sectors of industry have an increased risk of losing that top position in the marketplace as there would be an increase in competition between companies. It's not perfect but I don't see how government getting into bed with corporations(or vice versa)would solve the issue of decreased market competition due to oligopolies..

People forget that large companies fail all the time. Wal-Mart started off as a small company and because of their singular focus on low prices and targeting rural areas that were ignored, they quickly grew. Sears, K-Mart, JC Penny, Service Merchandise, etc all were dominant players at one time and now they are has beens. Circuit City - gone. Best Buy did it better.

Something like 2/3s of the F500 from 50 years ago don't exist anymore. They either failed or got bought out by stronger competitors.

Tons of insurance companies would quickly pop up if barriers to competition were reduced and insurance companies could access customers across state lines. Right now, the barriers to entry are why there are only a few players in each state.

The big problem imho is that health insurance needs to be catastrophic coverage like housing and car insurance. People need it for emergencies and we have to get away from thinking insurance is going to pay for routine doctor's visits.

People have insurance on their home to cover them in case of a catastrophic accident - fire, flooding, burgalry, etc. Claims can be just as expensive as health related issues. However, your housing insurance doesn't pay for your lawn care, roof maintenance, cleaning lady, etc. These are things that responsible homeowners pay for out of pocket and thus shop for value.

Health insurance needs to be similar. If you get a sniffle, pay to go see the doctor. IF you need a physical, pay for it yourself. Find the lowest price / value provider. These are not what insurance is designed for. Insurance is there to protect you if you break a leg, need major surgery, etc. Not pay for all the little misc things sniffles and stubbed toes.

posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 10:16 PM

The issue with insurance companies is that it is a risk-pool-based industry.

Their goal is to 1) minimize their own risk by having healthy people buy their insurance and creating "rules" about payouts or uninsurability (i.e. the original no pre-existing-condition clause, maternity riders so hope you don't accidentally get pregnant in your marriage, etc.), 2) bargain with providers (i.e. hospitals, docs, etc.) to bring costs down FOR THEMSELVES.

Hospitals then jack up their prices for the non-insured so that they can legitimately show how much their service costs before the negotiated strong-armed agreement from the insurance company cuts out 30% - 40% of the "cost." Hospitals do this to survive or even to keep profit of their own, though many are non-profit. That is why your tylenol pills cost $25 each at a hospital. (or whatever - they cost a ton)

Okay, so in a free market situation, what kind of insurance company will be able to provide the best prices to their consumers? A MASSIVE insurance company! One with huge numbers of people, especially healthy ones! The larger the company, the more bargaining power they have and they can then negotiate with service providers to bring down costs for their own benefit and ostensibly their consumers as well.

Something as huge as say, Medicare, could negotiate the best prices, sort of like Wal-Mart!! Wow! Oh, but wait - that would be evil and bad because Medicare means the government and not private industry...Government regulations and oversight could also insure (pun intended) QUALITY care not solely based on profit-motive. Government can also work to make sure that hospitals are not jacking up their prices.

In this case, the government can provide something that private industry cannot.

- AB
edit on 3-3-2016 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-3-2016 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 10:20 PM
a reply to: Edumakated

The cheapest doctor visit I have found was $114, for a 10 min visit. That could get pretty expensive for a family. You have to be established with a doctor to get treatment for a catastrophic event or you get ER doctors.

posted on Mar, 3 2016 @ 10:27 PM
The right wing solution is probably the same solution to every social problem:
1. Give the super rich more money and they will create more and higher paying jobs
2. For those who can not work - churches will help them

Unfortunately, this technique has been tried and has failed. It wasn't that long ago, that people simply died if they didn't have money. My mother was a coal miners daughter who was born with the help of a midwife because my grandmother couldn't afford a doctor.

The super rich are making more than ever and they are NOT creating jobs and churches have never been able to raise enough money for health care.

edit on March 3rd 2016 by Daughter2 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 05:22 AM
I'm currently off work. Have been for 3 weeks due to cellulitis (bacterial infection) on my leg. Lovely puss filled blisters like something out of a horror film. I have been to the doctors 4 times, hospital twice (change in treatment required), two sets of blood tests, heart monitored, more anti biotics than I have ever had in my 57 years to date!

Cost to me : BIG FAT ZERO.
Effect on future treatment (i.e. insurance driven "too many claims") : BIG FAT ZERO

It has all been paid for through National Insurance to our government from my wages at a cost significantly less than US health insurance. Every citizen is covered by the way not just those in work.....imagine that !!!

God help us if it ever went private with market driven exclusions, no claims bonus , etc etc

You US folks haven't a clue about how damned beneficial a state driven healthcare system is. Too damned obsessed with 1950's anti commie/state/socialist attitude.

posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 05:55 AM
Trump's healthcare still wont reduce the cost of other healthcare issues in America.

-Having and giving birth babies costs you more.
-paying for everything. Operations,Medical Scans.
What are trump's solutions for those issues again?

posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 05:57 AM
a reply to: Daughter2

You nailed it, the right wing solution is basically this. The Poor and middle class will still have to pay for there health care no matter what the right wing solution might be about.

The Americans should follow Canada's solution and example to Healthcare. When it comes to healthcare America is far behind on. Here in Europe there are some European countries that have free health care.
edit on 4-3-2016 by TaleDawn because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 05:58 AM
I'm more of a moderate, but would like to answer your question anyway, if I may.

I say if people are required to have healthcare coverage or pay a penalty to the IRS, that in my mind makes health care costs a tax by default.

As such, any of your own money spent on healthcare costs of any kind (premiums, services paid for out-of-pocket, prescriptions, etc) should all be able t serve as a deduction from your tax liability.

Otherwise, that part of your income is double-taxed.

Further to that, any money you spend pursuing a healthy lifestyle (gym membership, weight loss programs, alternative therapies, nutrition counseling) should also be deductable from you tax liability.

This whole paradigm of 'work people crazy long hours, make crap food the most convenient option, then jack up the price of healthcare to 10 times what competitive market forces would allow for' amounts to a conspiracy against the citizenry, IMHO. It's making people sick then charging them to treat the sickness. (Notice I didn't say 'make them well'... very little about modern healthcare is designed to make people well).

Don't get me wrong... I am glad that some millions of people who had no coverage now have coverage. I am glad these folks have some protection against future penury caused by one medical emergency.

posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 06:24 AM

originally posted by: MOMof3
You know what will happen with the open state lines, free market sounds good idea? The insurance companies will form an alliance and set prices with no consumer representations. How do you think that evil "pre-existing" clause came about?

Price fixing is illegal.

posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 06:25 AM
A firm belief in the Christian God will heal all ailments, failing that don't get ill and if you do, die on your own time
edit on 4-3-2016 by woodwardjnr because: (no reason given)

Here's a horrific article about an American who dared use Britain's NHS system. A socialistic system that is free at the point of delivery. Paid for by taxation, but open to all men women and children rich or
edit on 4-3-2016 by woodwardjnr because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 06:36 AM
a reply to: burgerbuddy

I am not dumb. They have conventions and conspire.

posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 07:22 AM

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: burgerbuddy

I am not dumb. They have conventions and conspire.

There are serious penalties for getting caught.


In the United States, price fixing can be prosecuted as a criminal federal offense under section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.[2]

Criminal prosecutions may only be handled by the U.S. Department of Justice, but the Federal Trade Commission also has jurisdiction for civil antitrust violations. Many state attorneys general also bring antitrust cases and have antitrust offices, such as Virginia, New York, and California.

Private individuals or organizations may file lawsuits for triple damages for antitrust violations, and depending on the law, recover attorneys fees and costs expended on prosecution of a case.[3][4][5]

Under American law, exchanging prices among competitors can also violate the antitrust laws. This includes exchanging prices with either the intent to fix prices or if the exchange affects the prices individual competitors set. Proof that competitors have shared prices can be used as part of the evidence of an illegal price fixing agreement.[6] Experts generally advise that competitors avoid even the appearance of agreeing on price.[7]

Since 1997, US Courts have divided price fixing into two categories: vertical and horizontal maximum price fixing.[8] Vertical price fixing includes a manufacturer's attempt to control the price of its product at retail.[9] In State Oil Co. v. Khan,[10] the US Supreme Court held that vertical price fixing is no longer considered a per se violation of the Sherman Act, but horizontal price fixing is still considered a breach of the Sherman Act. Also in 2008, the defendants of United States v LG Display Co., United States v. Chunghwa Picture Tubes, and United States v. Sharp Corporation heard in the Northern District of California, agreed to pay a total sum of $ 585 million to settle their prosecutions for conspiring to fix prices of liquid crystal display panels, which was the second largest amount awarded under the Sherman Act in history.[8]

imagine if it was health insurance.

posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 09:00 AM
a reply to: woodwardjnr

Oh that sounds awful! How dare Bernie Sanders want to emulate this system, we will all die and go to hell for sure!

Sarcasm aside, Americans would have to develop a mentality not to be seen for the cold and flu and the like for it to have any chance.

I'd actually be for charging for a cold flu visit, if it would help keep everything else running from taxes.

posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 09:05 AM
a reply to: yorkshirelad

Your statements are not wanted by the American right wing. They say it will be bad for everyone and could never work, anywhere. Somehow when European and Canadian examples are given, they take it as a score for themselves...

See! Told you it didn't work!

Yet all of the European horror stories I've seen... Come from uneducated Americans that take one isolated story. As if an American doctor has never once misdiagnosed anything.

I haven't seen many Europeans actually complain as bad. And the Canadians I've seen are rather proud of their system.

posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 09:08 AM
a reply to: deadlyhope

The Right Wing Can ask Ted Cruz why was he born in Canada and not in America? after all the birth of a child in Canada and some places in Europe is free.

posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 09:22 AM
a reply to: deadlyhope

Better yet, Why are even talking about Healthcare solutions with the people that created the mess we have and are benefiting from it?

posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 09:23 AM
a reply to: burgerbuddy

How do you think they all came up with the same idea of "pre-existing" conditions. Not exactly price setting, but beneficial to all the health insurance companies.

edit on 4-3-2016 by MOMof3 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 09:44 AM

originally posted by: deadlyhope
I've read a lot of things on this forum, one of the biggest complaints of the right is against universal healthcare.

Okay, so what is your better idea?

The reason hospitals cost so GD much is "capitalism" - Don't tell me it's government this or that or taxes.

We have to pay hundreds of millions of dollars, even billions to insurance companies, lawyers, price-gouging big pharma... All of these costs GET PASSED ONTO THE CONSUMER.

So what the hell is your better idea, right-wing people?

Universal health-care raises the debt but saves lives...

Your way has put a lot of people in debt, likely even led to the death of people.

Let's forget the LIFE part of life,liberty, and happiness - It seems we are intruding too much on the "liberty" of billionaires and price-gougers, that we owe our servitude to lawyers, bankers, pharmacy companies, and insurance companies.

Yeah, let's keep it up with this great system, good job conservatives, you've made yourselves proud!

First ask yourself, what problems are you trying to solve with Healthcare? I'm not trying to speak for you, but I assume these are the two primary things:

- High Costs of healthcare
- Provide (Force?) coverage for uninsured Americans

Did Obamacare solve either of those issues? I suppose forcing people by law to buy health insurance sort of accomplishes the 2nd item. Unless the reason they didn't have it was because they couldn't afford it. But nonetheless there were still 33 million people in 2015 without health insurance. I'd say that's qualifies as a failure. As for the high costs I believe it's a general concensus insurance premiums rose for a majority of the population, and a few states saw a decline. And that's ignoring Obama's "promises" that my family would see a decrease of $2,500, I could keep my doctor, and if I liked my plan I could keep it also. Oh, except for the fact that the small print in Obamacare made most insurers have to cancel their existing plans. Like the one I was on.

So I'm still waiting for healthcare in America to be fixed. Obama and the Democrats got everything they wanted, and it's still broke.

posted on Mar, 4 2016 @ 09:46 AM

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: burgerbuddy

How do you think they all came up with the same idea of "pre-existing" conditions. Not exactly price setting, but beneficial to all the health insurance companies.

Why would an insurance company provide coverage for something they know exist? Insurance is to protect you from the unknown. You can't buy homeowner's insurance to cover your fire damage AFTER you've had the fire. You can't buy life insurance AFTER you've died.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in