The national healthcare that I (independent) would support

ib1yysguy said:
PATIENTS CANT PAY DOCTORS IF PATIENTS DON'T HAVE MONEY. Retard. This isn't a backed up toilet or some bad break pads.
Click to expand...
Yet a plan that gives them the ability to would be better than putting the government into the loop as the middle man.
 
Damocles said:
Yet a plan that gives them the ability to would be better than putting the government into the loop as the middle man.
Click to expand...

The government is an ideal middle man because it doesn't take any profits. Paying directly to doctors for every minor ailment is unrealistic, because oftetimes you'd be hit with gobasmacking amounts for some years. Obviously, most people would just pay a monthly premium, because they have little control over whether or not they get sick anyway.
 
TheHappyHippo said:
The government is an ideal middle man because it doesn't take any profits. Paying directly to doctors for every minor ailment is unrealistic, because oftetimes you'd be hit with gobasmacking amounts for some years. Obviously, most people would just pay a monthly premium, because they have little control over whether or not they get sick anyway.
Click to expand...
my insurance company is already non-profit....so I then I already have the ideal middle man.....
 
TheHappyHippo said:
Well since everyone in this plan keeps their old healthcare except for the poor, I don't see what Chap is talking about. He is annoying the fuck out of me.
Click to expand...

so you would be in favor of amending HR 3200 to eliminate the restrictions on private companies continuing to market their current plans?.....
 
TheHappyHippo said:
The government is an ideal middle man because it doesn't take any profits. Paying directly to doctors for every minor ailment is unrealistic, because oftetimes you'd be hit with gobasmacking amounts for some years. Obviously, most people would just pay a monthly premium, because they have little control over whether or not they get sick anyway.
Click to expand...
The government is the most incapable of being an unbiased middle man because all government programs are politicized, and there is no real need for an additional layer to be added to an already complicated problem.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
perhaps because the government is still a middle man?.....why not a system where the patient pays the doctors directly.....what's the point of paying the government when it doesn't actually provide health care.....
Click to expand...



If you’re going to promote a health care system, please be prepared to provide credible evidence that it actually works in the real world. And not just on the coffee-stained senior thesis of a college libertarian. In short, please name one single developed, democratic nation on the planet that has a system that relies on patients paying hospitals and doctors straight out of their own pockets.

To save you the trouble, I’d advise against scurrying over to Google to search. Because it doesn’t exist.

I really wonder if you aren’t a 17 year old kid with no knowledge of how the real world works.

Some entity is going to pay the hospital for your medical bills, 99% of the time. No matter what developed country you live in. You're not going to be paying for knee surgury with your checking account.

You just advocated a system that had the government paying a private insurance company, and then that insurance company paying the doctor. That’s introducing two middlemen into the equation. If you like government-financed healthcare, which you claimed earlier, why not have the government pay the doctor or hospital directly? What’s the point of transitioning the financial transaction through another entity. That just adds additional complexity and cost. And the insurance company doesn’t really provide health care. They just pay bills (or deny payment, depending on their profit motive).

So, since you claimed you’re in favor of government-financed healthcare, what’s the point of having to pay transaction through two middlemen?


I don’t mind a system like Australia or Germany, where people who want supplemental insurance, can buy it on the private market.

But, I agree with you that government-financed health insurance is the most cost-effective and makes the most sense, as a basic national healthcare system.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
so you would be in favor of amending HR 3200 to eliminate the restrictions on private companies continuing to market their current plans?.....
Click to expand...

No way. The changes that are being forced upon their "current plans" are changes that nearly everyone supports - like not dropping you for a preexisting condition or denying coverage.
 
Cypress said:
If you’re going to promote a health care system, please be prepared to provide credible evidence that it actually works in the real world. And not just on the coffee-stained senior thesis of a college libertarian. In short, please name one single developed, democratic nation on the planet that has a system that relies on patients paying hospitals and doctors straight out of their own pockets.

To save you the trouble, I’d advise against scurrying over to Google to search. Because it doesn’t exist.

I really wonder if you aren’t a 17 year old kid with no knowledge of how the real world works.

Some entity is going to pay the hospital for your medical bills, 99% of the time. No matter what developed country you live in. You're not going to be paying for knee surgury with your checking account.

You just advocated a system that had the government paying a private insurance company, and then that insurance company paying the doctor. That’s introducing two middlemen into the equation. If you like government-financed healthcare, which you claimed earlier, why not have the government pay the doctor or hospital directly? What’s the point of transitioning the financial transaction through another entity. That just adds additional complexity and cost. And the insurance company doesn’t really provide health care. They just pay bills (or deny payment, depending on their profit motive).

So, since you claimed you’re in favor of government-financed healthcare, what’s the point of having to pay transaction through two middlemen?


I don’t mind a system like Australia or Germany, where people who want supplemental insurance, can buy it on the private market.

But, I agree with you that government-financed health insurance is the most cost-effective and makes the most sense, as a basic national healthcare system.
Click to expand...

my, you really are dense aren't you.....if the government takes over the role of the insurance company they are merely substituting one "middle man" for another....don't make some lame claim about getting rid of the middle man and pretend it was profound.....it was nothing but ignorant....
 
ib1yysguy said:
No way. The changes that are being forced upon their "current plans" are changes that nearly everyone supports - like not dropping you for a preexisting condition or denying coverage.
Click to expand...

so all we need to do is prevent companies from dropping you for pre-existing conditions....Hippie seems to think we can all keep our current coverage under HR3200....at least you admit we can't....explain to Hippie why he's wrong.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
so all we need to do is prevent companies from dropping you for pre-existing conditions....Hippie seems to think we can all keep our current coverage under HR3200....at least you admit we can't....explain to Hippie why he's wrong.....
Click to expand...

You can keep it. It gets grandfathered in and you can hang onto it if you really like being dropped for preexisting conditions and denied coverage. You just can't buy a new policy that allows those things after the bill takes effect. And no reasonable person would want to.
 
ib1yysguy said:
You can keep it. It gets grandfathered in and you can hang onto it if you really like being dropped for preexisting conditions and denied coverage. You just can't buy a new policy that allows those things after the bill takes effect. And no reasonable person would want to.
Click to expand...
but what if my current policy doesn't allow them to drop me (which it doesn't), but it has other things I like....what about the fact that they aren't allowed to market the program to new customers, so eventually, as people die off, the pool no longer is sustainable?
 
Superfreak said:
Obviously you are NOT familiar with Keyman insurance. Keyman policies have nothing to do with providing health care coverage.
Click to expand...

I'm very familiar with Keyman. I know it applies mainly to life insurance but some corporations use the term to cover all benefits paid to executives, not just life insurance.
 
christiefan915 said:
I'm very familiar with Keyman. I know it applies mainly to life insurance but some corporations use the term to cover all benefits paid to executives, not just life insurance.
Click to expand...

Again, you are mistaken. Keyman policies are designed to compensate the company for the loss of a critical employee. It has NOTHING to do with the benefits or salaries the employees get. It has to do with replacing the VALUE of the employee to the shareholders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top