Would you be happy if YOU owned your own healthcare coverage, NOT your employer and NOT federal government?

Question

What if OBAMACARE is repealed or struck down by Supreme Court....

And then what if "leaders" in Washington finally abolished employer-based healthcare insurance and transitioned to YOU owning your own healthcare insurance policy?

And what if instead of an expensive comprehensive healthcare policy it was a much less expensive catastrophic healthcare insurance....it covered you and your familiy in the event of a low probability event that triggered catastrophically high healthcare expenses.

And then imagine if you simply paid your doctors the cost for every visit as you went. Doctors in smaller rural communities might have to adjust costs to accomodate the ability to pay of their communities, like grocery stores do....like plumbers do...like everyone else already does.

Once the present increasingly dysfunctional healthcare system was replaced with this fundamentally sound healthcare system, the safety net programs of Medicare & Medicaid could be re-built leveraging the sound market in place.

Poor could receive "food stamps" vouchers to buy healthcare and enrolled in catastrophic healthcare insurance. People with pre-existing conditions would be forced to live under Medicaid programs but with a more sound market-driven healthcare system available would definitively receive better care.

What do you think of THAT vision?

Lower rates for following simple preventative measures.

ANYTHING BUT linking healthcare to employment, OR WORSE having federal government control us.

Answer 1

Severing the tie between employers and health care is the only answer. Employers don't insure your home, your care, etc. Why should they insure your health?

Answer 2

i'm no longer incredibly in prefer of enterprise based scientific wellness insurance because it would not incredibly conceal that many human beings at present. each time a enterprise is going abdomen up or receives bought up or the cost consistent with worker is going up...there is going the scientific wellness insurance. In modern history further and extra employers are dropping wellness insurance for their workers besides, or charging the worker further and extra of the top type value. Then there is the thousands and thousands of uninsured. in certainty, a honest % of the uninsured ought to pay in some thing, nevertheless there is not any modern venue for them to pay in something. Medicaid covers incredibly a number of those human beings, yet getting onto Medicaid in maximum states now's a now and back element. In Arizona 3 hundred,000 human beings have been thrown off the Medicaid rolls final twelve months, yet none of those human beings stopped having wellness issues. So who pays? ..and a severe tax at that. Given the above a extra rational thought is to have Medicare for all. every physique pays, no one pays too plenty and all and sundry is roofed. all the scientific costs are at last paid via somebody....frequently that's what padded scientific costs do, or tax money at some point. the two those expenses are paid, or scientific centers will close down. At that factor in case you have insurance or no insurance, funds or credit or no longer, you may discover the community wellness center close down...then no one wins and all and sundry loses. end: Years in the past cities had inner maximum police forces and private fireplace companies. via the mid nineteenth century that concept replaced into got here across awkward and not helpful. those applications have been taken over via countless cities, yet no longer with an spectacular volume of opposition from the accepted public.....you may seem this up. Mass scientific insurance is a made from the mid twentieth century....it replaced into much less high priced as a results of fact scientific technological know-how replaced into constrained. in the present day it value plenty extra as a results of fact scientific technological know-how and technologies can do extra. it incredibly is why we choose a transformation to a countrywide coverage. The inexpensive Care Act is a commence, even nevertheless it incredibly is neither fish nor rooster...it would not swim nicely or fly nicely and in time it incredibly is going to get replaced with a countrywide plan...the two that or hospitals will close their doorways and we are going to all go through!

Answer 3

OK, since I live in a rural area I can tell you that you forgot one of the rules of economics...scarcity.

In a city, despite having wealthier patients, they'd need to lower their prices because there is a glut of doctors in cities especially near hospitals. Where I am, which isn't totally out there, there are two hospitals about thirty miles in opposite directions and in town there is, at present three doctors for about eight thousand people. And no one is in on weekends, they tell you to go to the ER, so they aren't about to lower their prices. They know they are in high demand. I did own my own healthcare private policy, across state lines.

A catastrophic plan. I didn't have a catastrophe, I had a seven thousand dollar four month long pain in my stomach that they only paid a thousand dollars. Leaving me with six thousand dollars to pay...a whole other kind of pain. It ran three hundred a month and I couldn't wait to get on Medicare, where I now pay a hundred a month for part B and have and Advantage plan. If I had wanted regular medical coverage as I had under my husbands plan five years ago, it would have been, back then twelve hundred a month for the two of us. Recently we spoke to a man who had our plan, and he's now paying nine hundred a month for one person.



I've seen the medical system close up for years now. we have excellent care, and lousy delivery.

You've got the whole mess backwards, we don't need to have several different systems for delivery.

We need what every other country has, single payer universal coverage, and buy extra if you want or need it. Without that we have something no other country has... a layer of profits that does not go to pay for patient care, but does go to making the executives richer. When we talk about CEO's of health insurance companies getting thirteen million dollars in compensation we're talking that's got a lot to do with costs.

Answer 4

so your solution is to force the poor to accept a subservent version of healthcare?



your solution actually creates more government intervention in healthcare, the only difference is that instead of helping the lower class have affordable healthcare, you would force them to live under Medicad, which will somehow magically become better under the free market, even though medicaid is a government run system



you seem to have some dilusion that insurance companies actually care about the people they insure,



also this "food stamps" voucher system you have is ridiculous, to properly cover the costs of healthcare, a voucher system would end up costing the government far more then the healthcare system Obama created, and with far more complications



also, you admited yourself "Doctors in smaller rural communities might have to adjust costs to accomodate the ability to pay of their communities, like grocery stores do....like plumbers do...like everyone else already does."



this is an unbelievably offensive statement, doctors go through four years of medical school, plus 4 to 7 years of residency



to compare a doctor, which basically requires a genius IQ and half a lifetime of schooling to a plummer who doesn't even need to graduate college or a grocery store personel who doesn't even need to graduate highschool is so offensive I don't even know how to put it in words properly



also "doctors may have to adjust costs" I can tell you this, last year, hospitals were forced to pay over 60 billion in uncompensated healthcare costs due to free healthcare, this bill is just as much for them as the uninsured, it is completely unfair that they have to cover that burden, doctors are facing higher and higher malpractice costs, lower insurance payouts, and lower and lower paychecks





this has forced many doctors to bend the law, and sometimes break it, filling out fradulent or unnecessary prescriptions just to make a decent living, and while this is unexcusable, to put a stronger burden on doctors to cover healthcare costs that they shouldn't have to is so offensive and shows your ignorance on the matter



also, let me go back to your idea to give families "low cost catastrophic coverage", you are like one of those scam artists who try to sell this to low-income families



As someone who works in pharmacy, let me enlighten you on what catastrophic coverage is



catastrophic coverage is a several thousand dollar deductable policy that serves only to save you from bankruptcy in the event you have a serious accident





Let me paint you a few scenarios, Dave Johnson is a diabetic, he has to take Metformin for his diabetes, Atrovastatin for his cholesterol, and Metopropol Tartarate for his blood pressure, every month under his catastrophic coverage which caries an individual deductable of $10000 he is forced to pay the full amount of $1000 a month for 10 months until his deductable is paid off. Once it is paid, his insurance only covers 75% of his coverage because the Metropolol is considered a non-preffered medication and under the catastrophic coverage, they only cover partial payments for tier 1 maintanence medications. So now his copay is $250 a month, down from the $1000, but after the year is over, he has paid $10,500 in medication costs, and the year starts anew with a brand new 10,000 deductable.



Now lets see Mary and John Smith, they have a family of 3, under your catastrophic family coverage, there is a total deductable of $25,000. Their daughter gets into a car accident and breaks several bones, one of which requires surgery. The total cost of the hospital visit is $50,000, of that the $20,000 deductable + $5000 in copays costs the family $25,000. The oxycodone is not covered under the insurance and costs the family another $600.



This is the reality of catastrophic coverage, under it no one would be able to afford maintanence medication and just regular medication would cost hundreds of dollars.







Individual coverage would only lower standards, and raise costs of insurance premiums, deductables, and copays. Of this I am certain.









the only and I mean ONLY statement I agree with is that our healthcare system is broken, Obama's healthcare bill is merely a bandaid, but do not be fooled, it is a relief that ultimately LOWERS healthcare costs for the average consumer while giving healthcare for the uninsured







You dont understand the market at all, the bundeling of insurance policies is what makes healthcare affordable, when a company creates a contract with an insurance company it gets a huge discount on healthcare costs which is what makes it possible for employers to cover part of the costs



You have no idea how Obamacare works, no idea how government intervention works on the part of Medicare or Medicaid, and no idea how economics works

Answer 5

Yes!



Ron Paul 2012

Answer 6

I don't think you have researched into healthcare at all beyond the superficial dribble you hear. The healthcare issue has been evident for almost a century and it's complexities are such that if you looked into any of it, you would have understood that your question is completely assanine.

Answer 7

That would be amazing, but liberals like to be controlled by the government and will always put up a fight...

Answer 8

I already do...I pay my dr bills. Most people don't know you an just pay the bill.

Answer 9

At three times the price





No

Answer 10

Sounds good to me.