It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

All required Insurance Should Be Public.

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: nwtrucker

What?!?!

Kind of I guess....

Except they are just trying to break even rather than make a 30+% profit margin...

Plus The government doesn't need to make more of a profit every year to make this years investors a profit either..

The only real argument against going public is corruption, but we have the ability to track every dollar now..


Break even?? Really? Show me where Gov't programs break even. If you can find one, it'll be the exception that proves the rule.

Even your corruption point I'd take exception to. Plenty of corruption in both the private and public sectors.

The real argument against public insurance is quality. Of either auto or health.

The only argument for it is no or little 'direct' cost.




posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 12:10 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

That's means more services..

We can track every dollar with modern technology..

We would just trading one set of for profit buearicrats for a new set of nonprofit buearicrats..

Oh and I'm pretty sure social security has at least broken even..

It has just been robbed repeatedly by politicians long before these..

The government can break even doing it because insurance companies are doing it and make a profit..



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 07:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated
The problem is you have government interfering with the market.


I'm entirely with you on that point.

Insurance has its place. If the government pulled their meddling fingers out, then insurance companies would eventually need to start offering a service that people want and on terms that make it attractive to paying customers. Mandatory insurance and little-to-no effective alternatives will only make things worse.

For that to work, hospitals will also need to be in a better bargaining position as well. The insurance companies need some incentive to provide prompt and full payment for services, which seems to be one of the big issues for the system at the moment. I believe a truly free market will provide that incentive.

The other leg of the stool is tort reform. Defensive medicine not only foists unnecessary (and sometimes intrusive) tests on people but drives up the costs.

If you really wanted to kill the system slowly but surely... link doctors' pay to patient satisfaction surveys. Remember, everyone now googles their illness before seeing the doctor and google always tells them they have cancer. Any doctor who dares to disagree with the patient's self-diagnosis... won't get good feedback so they won't get paid. As stupid as this sounds, I've actually seen people on this very board suggest it as the way forward.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 08:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: nwtrucker

That's means more services..

We can track every dollar with modern technology..

We would just trading one set of for profit buearicrats for a new set of nonprofit buearicrats..

Oh and I'm pretty sure social security has at least broken even..

It has just been robbed repeatedly by politicians long before these..

The government can break even doing it because insurance companies are doing it and make a profit..




I can't buy into profit as automatically 'evil'. Gov't specializes in removal of individual choice. I, and many others, hold that loss of choice/freedom more dear than stopping other's profits.

I repeat, giving us both seems to satisfy both views. Nationally, apply the tenth amendment. Let each state decide which way to go. I will buy the insurance I want or not, as I choose. Not by your imposition on my options. Fair, yes?



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: EvillerBob

How does a variable that does not preform a medical function, yet takes 30%+ off every dollar spent on healthcare "have its place??"


It is a totally unnecessary middle man...

If they did ANYTHING medically I would agree, but they don't...

They are paper pushers who just move money around.. and for that take a bigger cut than ANYONE else involved...

No country has been able to make private insurance work..none..

It wasn't working for America which is where the ACA came in..

The democrats choosing the closest right wing position to single payer...


Healthcare requires doctors, nurses , pharmaceutical companies and all that.. it diesnt require a middle man taking a bigger cut than the doctors do.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

Profit is not automatically evil.. that's just a talking point... no one thinks profits are evil..


Profit is neutral..

Sometimes it's great, sometimes it is predatory..

Imho allowing a middle man to make more of a percent than the people who actually preform the service isn't evil.. it is just unsubstantiable inefficient..

The only evil thing about it is the lives lost..

The let each state do what it wants is code for "let some states rape and pillage their population without any consequences..

How people can realize the federal government can be bought and paid for, but not realize the state can as well only cheaper. I have no idea...


If the state is going to require us to buy a service.. that service shouldn't be based around some fat cats profit margin..



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox


The last sentence I can agree with.

Your 'let some states rape and pillage their population without any consequences' is pure garbage. I have yet to see any state anywhere near approach that level of leftist rhetoric.

In fact, I see more with the panels in gov't health care that decide whether the amount spent on a treatment is 'worth it' based on life expectancy. Sorry, that wouldn't happen is a competitive market.

You cite middlemen and profit. I cite the bureaucracy inherent in gov't controlled health and auto insurance 'services'. Equally, if not more expensive.

Neither is perfect, option is my requirement.

I will not permit you and your like minded allies to remove my choice. Simple.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

About 50% of traffic tickets..

Most of the segregation type laws..

Any code violation..

Imho the reason republicans want the states to be autonomous is so they can get away with more..

If the government does something shady in clarksburg county Illinois (I made that up lol) we likely never hear about it, but federally it is national news..

By every measurable variable it is easier to to get more done with less money if you recnonprofit..

That isn't hard math..

It's just a trust issue, and I don't find the insurance companies board of directors more trustworthy than our politicians ..

Which is a very low bar..



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: nwtrucker

About 50% of traffic tickets..

Most of the segregation type laws..

Any code violation..

Imho the reason republicans want the states to be autonomous is so they can get away with more..

If the government does something shady in clarksburg county Illinois (I made that up lol) we likely never hear about it, but federally it is national news..

By every measurable variable it is easier to to get more done with less money if you recnonprofit..

That isn't hard math..

It's just a trust issue, and I don't find the insurance companies board of directors more trustworthy than our politicians ..

Which is a very low bar..


'Get away with more'? Judged by you? You are arrogant beyond belief. You typify the blind, left mentality. Only your way is the 'right' way. There is no latitude or 'diversity' whatsoever in your thought process.

Thank you for reinforcing my view that the IS no compromise with the left, merely win or lose. I, for one, intend to win.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox
I was mostly talking about auto insurance, but you bring up a good point about health care. Prevention is so underrated. So underrated I believe there could be a motive behind lack of preventive care. I don't believe it's in the health care's interest for a cheaper fix.

Why hasn't an insurance company developed (or required) people to slap on a couple monitors at home and plug them into your USB once a week so your vitals are assessed?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join