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.
originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: carewemust
I can't see this being solved in washington by the repubs (or dems).
It will be solved when the American public flip the system the bird and not pay the insurance premiums anymore. It would collapse the system in 2 months.
originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: seasonal
Perhaps, then let it fail. Something innovative will take its place, that's how this works.
Government doesn't have the answers. It can't be covered with partisan stances.
“They shouldn’t have to worry about wrapping their kid in a bubble wrap for 2018 because they can’t get health insurance and they can’t afford to have their kid break an arm on the playground,” Petersen said during a news conference at the statehouse. “It’s just simply wrong. We need answers.”
originally posted by: XanderGray
The free market is not the answer. The free market cares only about profit -- it doesn't care one iota about whether people who can't afford to help them generate a profit are covered.
originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Logarock
The goal should be access to affordable healthcare for all. We shouldn't be pitting the middle-class against the poor but isn't that always the case?
What you seem to be missing is that health insurance premiums have been increasing since way before Obama was even elected.
"Obamacare" wasn't a solution in search of a problem.
Let's be honest. Obamacare was the biggest step the insurance lobby would allow toward the sort of universal healthcare system that we should have. It was never meant to be more than a step. Fix it or replace it with something better. Returning to the previous status quo is not a viable option and not just because millions will lose healthcare — because if you follow that readily apparent trend line, premiums wouldn't be any better.
I would also like to mention that the talk of not paying out the subsidies and the uncertainty it's wrought have actually contributed significantly to worsening the problem, prompting insurers to further raise premiums and pull out of additional markets.
Anyway, it's not one or the other. Just like the rest of the First World, we don't have to choose between healthcare for the middle and the bottom.
originally posted by: GeauxHomeYoureDrunk
a reply to: Logarock
You would be amazed (or not) at the difference between paying cash for medical services and using medical insurance. I went for about a month and a half without insurance and had to go to a doctor appointment which cost me $60 cash. A few months later I had another appointment when I had insurance and just my co-pay was $117 with the total bill before co-pay being $350. The reason insurance is so expensive is because doctors and hospitals jack up the prices for the insurance companies. I understand somewhat why hospitals do it (to compensate for those who do not pay their bills) but considering a doctor in his office will not see you at all unless you pay it makes absolutely no sense that they should be able to charge $350 for a big whopping 10 minutes of their time.
originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: carewemust
The only way this works is to have no insurance and let the free market take over. This would lead to monopolies and collusion.
Or a single payer system where tax payers pay another tax, but are covered. Like in Australia, Canada, England, Singapore........
There is no easy answer, the system was already failing before the ACA, but it is in it's final profitable death throes. I fear we will have to see a crash before anything is fixed.