0
   

Health Care Compromise

 
 
Reply Mon 29 Jul, 2019 07:22 pm
Democrats are split between eliminating private health insurance altogether and just expanding the option for public/government health insurance to more people.

Republicans, on the other hand, are busy trying to iron out glitches in the 'free' market that block competition from bringing prices down.

Could there be room for compromise where private health care remains intact and the public option is expanded to allow anyone to enroll, all the while deregulating markets to allow more competition to bring down pricing for everyone, including uninsured patients as well as insurance companies and the government/taxpayers?

That would be a win-win-win, wouldn't it?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 211 • Replies: 7
No top replies

 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jul, 2019 10:00 pm
@livinglava,
I think this is a great idea. This was discussed, but then squelched during the discussion over Obamacare because it was thought that it wouldn't have the votes.

I believe that most Democrats support the public option. I believe that most Republicans are opposed to it.

Edit: I just checked. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 91% of Democrats support an "optional medicare for all program" compare with 47% of Republicans.

https://www.kff.org/slideshow/public-opinion-on-single-payer-national-health-plans-and-expanding-access-to-medicare-coverage/
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jul, 2019 10:11 pm
Do either of you understand that "the public option" and "optional medicare for all" are two different things?
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jul, 2019 10:16 pm
@oralloy,
No, I don't.

Please explain the difference.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jul, 2019 10:26 pm
@maxdancona,
Medicare uses money provided by the taxpayers to pay medical bills.

The public option is regular old fashioned health insurance, just administered by the government instead of by a private company. Everyone pays insurance premiums (if they are enrolled in it), and the money to pay medical bills comes from those insurance premiums.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jul, 2019 11:12 pm
@oralloy,
Except Medicare is partially funded by premiums ... and the public would likely be funded partially by taxpayers.

There isn't a real clear difference between the two.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jul, 2019 12:29 am
@maxdancona,
Oh, that. . . . My Medicare B premium is 135.50/month. Then there's the matter of involuntary payroll deductions since they put the system into place.
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jul, 2019 06:31 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

I think this is a great idea. This was discussed, but then squelched during the discussion over Obamacare because it was thought that it wouldn't have the votes.

I believe that most Democrats support the public option. I believe that most Republicans are opposed to it.

Edit: I just checked. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 91% of Democrats support an "optional medicare for all program" compare with 47% of Republicans.

https://www.kff.org/slideshow/public-opinion-on-single-payer-national-health-plans-and-expanding-access-to-medicare-coverage/

Thanks. I think there may be resistance to affordability because if everyone, including the government/taxpayers spend less on health care, then the health care industry makes less money and they don't want to make less money.

So really the game comes down to excluding people from health care as a way of using fear of sickness/death to motivate people economically. Here's how:

If government subsidizes care, that keeps prices/costs inflated, just as it does when private insurance is paying the bills. Providers/pharmaceuticals/etc. don't face as much fiscal pressure to lower their prices to attract more business because the insurance funding (private and/or public) guarantees them sales at a certain price. What's more, AMA and expensive educational costs, malpractice insurance costs, etc. create barriers to entry which prevent more people/businesses from entering the market and providing health care at affordable costs.

Both parties have reasons to want to keep these costs high. The Democrats want to keep the big money rolling in the health care industry because it generates more jobs and more revenues/profits for taxation. The GOP are just placating their supporters who want to use private money to fund private health care privileges so they don't have to wait in line with the masses like in more socialized systems.

So as long as the prices are kept high, the question is who will bear the cross of health-care exclusion? In socialized systems throughout the world, non-citizens are excluded from health care, so they solve the problem of exclusion by drawing the line between citizens and non-citizens. That is where Democrats are headed by expanding public/government health care access, because only citizens are going to qualify for that coverage, the same as in other national welfare states.

Where private insurance and employer group plans put the exclusion is on people who don't work, correction: those who don't work in positions that qualify for benefits. That benefits employers by giving employees the motivation of fear of sickness/death/bankruptcy so that they are more submissive to keep their benefits.

If public/government funded health care co-existed with private insurance, but pricing/affordability wasn't achieved for the uninsured, they would become the sacrificial victims of health care exclusion. That would put people back in the situation that Obamacare put them in, which was to motivate them to all buy health insurance by threat of consequences. In Obamacare, the consequence was an additional income tax for the uninsured, but if health care pricing is kept unaffordable to the uninsured, the consequence will be worse than a fine, because if you get sick, you're going to pay an arm and a leg, so to speak, and maybe even suffer bankruptcy because insurance companies are paying prices that you can't afford as an individual, assuming your income isn't high.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Need a Hardship Exemption! HELP! - Question by Haxxtastic
About Health Insurance - Question by easyinsureme
Major Problems with ObamaCare! - Discussion by Miller
Mental health (in the USA and elsewhere) - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
Do I need a dentist? - Question by nursernfemale
I am SO mad at Obamacare - Discussion by chai2
Looking for good international health insurance - Discussion by Robert Gentel
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Health Care Compromise
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/01/2020 at 07:03:46