If Obama Does Not Get Office Again?

[VolAgent]

That is pretty rough, and those are the people you do want to help, the question is just how.

And as to your soup kitchen analogy. There is a stigma in going to the soup kitchen when you can afford a meal. The stigma for being a freeloader when it comes to health care is gone. There are a lot more freeloaders on the health care system than the soup kitchens.

 

[Crabcake Johnny]

To me some of it can be solved by getting tough. For example, if someone ends up in the ER or hospital without coverage we can absolutely have a system where an assessment is made over whether or not they simply chose to go without coverage.

If it's ascertained that they chose not to be covered, then they pay the entire bill on the spot. If not, it's treated much like theft of service if you can't pay for your dinner. Call the police. And trust me, if you can't pay for a meal and they call the police likely you'll be arrested.

So the total charged are 6K. You owe it now...before you leave. Charges are 40K? You owe it now...before you leave. You have a house? Sell it. Upside down? Lien on the house, then sold at public auction. Have a job? 25% of wages garnished.

I wonder how many would get covered then.

 

[briko3]

To me some of it can be solved by getting tough. For example, if someone ends up in the ER or hospital without coverage we can absolutely have a system where an assessment is made over whether or not they simply chose to go without coverage.

If it's ascertained that they chose not to be covered, then they pay the entire bill on the spot. If not, it's treated much like theft of service if you can't pay for your dinner. Call the police. And trust me, if you can't pay for a meal and they call the police likely you'll be arrested.

So the total charged are 6K. You owe it now...before you leave. Charges are 40K? You owe it now...before you leave. You have a house? Sell it. Upside down? Lien on the house, then sold at public auction. Have a job? 25% of wages garnished.

I wonder how many would get covered then.

I agree, but that takes money as well. And then people will say that the big bad government is taking their house away and putting them on the street. Prison is too expensive, but there does need to be something to deter people from taking advantage of the system. Right now the consequencse just don't have teeth.

 

[Crabcake Johnny]

Think about this. In my state getting caught driving uninsured means your car gets impounded and no ticket - it's a mandatory court appearance.

With that, stats show around 14% of all MD drivers are uninsured. This is 14% risking a 1 year jail sentence and it's very common to get night or weekend jail if caught.

If jail time doesn't deter these people then NOTHING will work for national health care unless the penalties are extreme.

 

[Frank Stastny]

Think about this. In my state getting caught driving uninsured means your car gets impounded and no ticket - it's a mandatory court appearance.

With that, stats show around 14% of all MD drivers are uninsured. This is 14% risking a 1 year jail sentence and it's very common to get night or weekend jail if caught.

If jail time doesn't deter these people then NOTHING will work for national health care unless the penalties are extreme.

They probably don't care because it gives them a chance to talk to their friends and free meals. The get a break from holding up the sign that says, "Will work for food."

 

[somarco]

When my brother in law lost his job (before her accident) he declined COBRA due to the expense which means she had no coverage.

Sorry, but this was a conscious choice to go bare. The risk pool is not for situations like this.

Her situation is no fault of "the system". This kind of thing goes on all the time and will continue to do so ever after the . . . change.

I am not empathetic to the circumstances leading up to her accident and issues that followed, but this is not an example of why we needed change.

 

[Crabcake Johnny]

It was a choice for her father to drop the policy but did she have a voice in that decision? And I'm sorry but it is indeed exactly why we needed change.

 

[HealthGuy]

But John: Change like we got? I don't think this health bill is through and through change you can believe in. There were and was and will continue to be better ways to 'change' the system. What they did is butcher the system for changes sake.

 

[Crabcake Johnny]

No...not change like we got. But the national pool? Yes. Remember, the free market had no solution and most states didn't offer a risk pool. The free market's solution for my mild (and mild doesn't even cover it. Super mild) case of acne rosacea was a rate up.

Really? A rate up? My treatment is soap. Yes...soap without perfumes. The UW asked about my treatment and I said "Dove." She DRILLED me about it for 10 solid minutes hoping and praying she could come up with something. Nodda. I use soap.

However, the kiss of death? What had all the UW's fainting? I tried Metrogel for a week 6 years ago which is a prescription and ditched it. HOLY SH*T? I used a $30 drug for a week 6 year ago? Well screw that - policy rated. Justifiable? No. But that's our free market answer.

So when the free market craps out and the states crap out then it's up to the government. However, why can't we simply stop at the risk pool. Seems to solve pretty much everything.

 

[Full Throttle]

Minnesota has a decent system with two programs:

Minnesota Comprehensive Health Association (MCHA): guaranteed access for those unable to find coverage through a private carrier. Premiums can not be more than 25% above the average market rate for a similiar plan. HIPAA eligible, no waiting period. Not HIPAA eligible, 6 month wait unless you have one of the presumptive conditions (severe, expensive aliaments). Major part of the funding is a tax on private carrier premiums.

Medical Assistance: income subisidized, no rejection for health issues.

That solves the access to care issue if you are too poor or have health issues. The same thing could have been done on a national level without bringing down the entire system by disallowing pre-existing conditions as of 2014.

This however, does not address the cost of care issue. But neither does the current legislation and in fact, will increase insurance premiums substantially more than the above solution. No one has the balls to address this issue.