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.

 

Why we need Government-run Universal Socialized Health Care

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck

The present plan being bantered through Congress mandates insurance coverage by every person in the US. It does not give you free health care; it gives you another bill. So if you are not insured now because you can't afford it, guess what? You now will be able to pay that bill you can't afford, even if it means you get the privilege of going without such luxuries as eating, and quite possibly you'll get to also pay a hefty fine if you're late paying that bill. In the meantime, those insurance companies will be enjoying the windfall of 100% mandated customer participation.



You've covered so many bases it would take me a year to respond to all of them. So I'll just focus on this one issue: health insurance.

Yes, if Republicans get their way, everyone will be required to have health insurance but they will have to buy it from private, for-profit corporations whose only interest is in the bottom line. These insurance companies will continue to raise their prices every year and cover fewer and fewer illnesses. They will also exclude a lot of medical conditions as being pre-existing conditions. Their profits will go up and up and the different insurers will likely fix their prices, as they do now. The insurance companies will make out like gangbusters and be forever grateful to the Republican Party. I will oppose healthcare reform if it goes in this direction.

If the Democrats have their way, there will also be the necessity for everyone to be covered by health insurance. If they like their present plan they keep it. Americans will have many insurance plans, both private and public, to choose from. However, there will be subsidies for those who cannot pay the full price or pay any at all. Also, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP and other programs for the elderly and the disabled and children and the poor would remain in place. So how is this different from the Republicans'? At this point they are pretty similar.

Here's where the public option comes in. The government will offer their own insurance plan as one of the options. As it isn't being run for profit, their prices will be low, probably lower than the rates the private insurers will charge, and they will cover almost every medical condition. The public option will provide competition for the private insurers and compel them to lower rates and cover more people and conditions in order to get customers. If healthcare reform goes in this direction and includes the public option I will support it.

BTW: The reason for requiring everybody to have health insurance is because it ultimately reduces health care costs and also the cost of health insurance. A larger pool of policyholders and a greater number of patients will result in more patients who will be paying and therefore there will still be a fair rate of pay for doctors and other health care workers. Also, the more people are covered the less we will have to pay for those who won't get insurance for themselves and end up in emergency rooms that have to treat them for free. There may not be the enormous profits that many healthcare providers are now getting, but they would be more than adequately compensated. I don't know of any doctors or hospitals that turn down Medicare now. They're still rich.





[edit on 17-9-2009 by Sestias]




posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 





To remove profit from the equation.


Is the Government providing the insurance directly? I was under the impression that they were only regulating and standardizing how insurance companies provided the insurance. Also what about the idea that every citizen would be required to have health insurance?



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Sestias
 





The reason for requiring everybody to have health insurance is because it ultimately reduces health care costs and also the cost of health insurance.


This is where I have an issue with "health care reform". No one has the jurisdiction to force me to pay insurance to someone that I do not want. If you support this ideal then you are opposed to the ideal of a free nation.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


Hunka,

I work in the non-profit world, except like today when I am sick. *cough cough*

I wanted that up front because, perhaps, I have a bias in this issue. So of the choices that they are giving us I am for the Baucus plan, and here is why:


  1. Prevents insurance companies from denying you for pre-existing conditions
  2. Tax subsidies
  3. Creates non-profit cooperatives
  4. Ensures that everyone is insured


This would be in conjunction with Obama's recent proposal to penalize frivolous malpractice lawsuits.

I recognize the need for everyone to have access to the best health care, but I don't want the controls that would be given to the government in the first three plans put forth. Non-profit cooperatives are a proven model and according to Baucus those currently in existence would be given assistance to do more.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Sestias

Here's where the public option comes in. The government will offer their own insurance plan as one of the options. As it isn't being run for profit, their prices will be low, probably lower than the rates the private insurers will charge, and they will cover almost every medical condition.

And here's where the real problem comes in. Under this proposal, the government is going to offer its own insurance policy which will cover more conditions, with better coverage, and be less expensive. Let us assume this happens.

No corporation can exist without profit. Period. End of story. It simply cannot happen by definition. You would not work at your job without pay; so why would anyone expect others to not feel the same way?

Now, under this plan, there would be absolutely no reason to spend more on insurance to get less coverage, would there? So exactly how many people do you think there would be that still carried private insurance? That's right: None. The insurance companies would stop even offering health insurance. So now we have one big happy insurer that covers everyone, the US Government.

Now, amid this utopia, we elect someone who has *gasp* pulled the wool over our eyes and who cares little to nothing about the people who elected them. Yeah, I know it sounds unlikely, but there have been a few instances I can think of: Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr., Carter, Nixon... maybe even Reagan. They now have a monopoly on the health insurance industry. You no longer have a choice where to go to buy your insurance. No one will sell you health insurance any more. It is not available anywhere except from the Federal government. And it is also mandatory you have it. So you can't drop the insurance, you can't switch insurance companies, so what choice do you have left? None.

This is a dangerous thing given our government's past record of waste and inefficiency.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 





Now, under this plan, there would be absolutely no reason to spend more on insurance to get less coverage, would there? So exactly how many people do you think there would be that still carried private insurance? That's right: None. The insurance companies would stop even offering health insurance. So now we have one big happy insurer that covers everyone, the US Government.


I believe that the Government option would be sub par and inflated. As a result people would almost be forced to use the corporate option. I believe this whole "health care reform" to be more hijacking from cooperate entities. It is becoming crystal clear that the corporations truly own and control this Country. This type of legislation nullifies the free market and forces people to support some of the most profitable corporate entities.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by harvib

You may very well be correct. But what is certain is that one of these two possibilities will happen. If the assumption in my previous post is correct, it means we will become completely and totally dependent for all health care on a government that has already managed to give us a failing Social Security system, crazy security measures at airports and docks while allowing illegal immigration to continue unimpeded, massive cost increases for energy thanks to EPa regulations that have long outstripped their original mandate, eminent domain usage to benefit land developers, long lines and miles of red tape at the DMV, corrupt police, and now two depressions.

If you are correct (which I agree is completely plausible), then we have the same situation we have now, with the additional windfall to the insurance companies of a hostage customer base who cannot simply decline to pay for an inflated service they do not think they need.

Either way, we lose.

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join