HealthAgent, you have a valid point that the national risk pool should have solved problems of access and guaranteed issue. However, it's not attractive to those who choose to go without insurance. The enrollment in that risk pool is pathetic. The Democrats estimated that 200,000 of the millions of uninsured would enroll. (First of all, you've got to be kidding - if millions are uninsured, and the democrats even estimated only 200,000 would enroll, what's the real problem here?) But second of all, the enrollment so far is only a few thousand. In many states, less than 10 people enrolled. The highest enrollment is Pennsylvania, and they have a very low premium rate, but even then it's far, far less than Pennsylvania's uninsured roll. I agree that that risk pool should have been the answer, however, most of uninsured America isn't doing it.
If Obama Does Not Get Office Again?
- Thread starter Mark
- Start date
- 15,319
This has been a problem forever (although Irish, Italians, Jews, etc. seem to have overcome this).
Maybe the easiest way is to "dumb down" all education so that the non-minorities and non-poor can fairly compete with minorities.
Government programs have not helped poverty or educational opportunities to the "downtrodden." Perhaps if we simply increased taxes and gave the money to others (as to their need) things would be better.
Socialism (and social programs) are not the answer because there is not one example of these programs work. (However, my $159 ticket for not wearing a seatbelt is going to help society).
Rick
- 14,808
To me, it just solidifies that all we need is the national pool and the low numbers prove my point. Most people without coverage don't want coverage at any price. They'll take it only if it's free. We don't want to design any system for those people.
For for the very few who have conditions and are willing to pony up the money, it works. I have no problem with people who have conditions getting coverage if they're willing to pay the premiums.
Right now it can still be gamed. Go without coverage for more than 6 months, wait to get sick and apply. It needs open enrollment periods or pre-ex periods.
For for the very few who have conditions and are willing to pony up the money, it works. I have no problem with people who have conditions getting coverage if they're willing to pay the premiums.
Right now it can still be gamed. Go without coverage for more than 6 months, wait to get sick and apply. It needs open enrollment periods or pre-ex periods.
- 630
I love the Zappas - Frank and Moon!! Also, this thread was starting to get contentious so I was attempting to inject some humor into it. Oh well.....
Last edited:
HealthAgent, you have a good solution, and maybe you should run for office. If you combine two of the ideas you posted about on this forum it should solve the problem. First, the national risk pool as posted above, then as a solution for the voluntarily uninsured people who run up our rates when they use the ER, you could use a "get tough" solution you posted about on this thread yesterday (see copy of your post below)
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.
Those two solutions would be the most major contribution toward reform. Add some good insurance company reforms, malpractice reform, and deal with issues that drive up basic health care costs, and it could be a good solution, without needing needing extensive Obamacare.
- 7,790
With the dunderheads that the Republicans have in the wings, I can't see how Obama will not be reelected. Go Trump/Palin for 2012!
If you can't beat 'em, JOIN 'em!
If Obama gets re-elected, I might just join the crowd with their hands out.
Our country WILL implode if we keep blindly following this ***. Our savings accounts will be worthless when the dollar fails. Our homes will be worthless. We won't be able to afford to drive our cars.
I say: Plant your gold & silver in your own back yard. What else will be WORTH anything?
If Obama gets re-elected, I might just join the crowd with their hands out.
Our country WILL implode if we keep blindly following this ***. Our savings accounts will be worthless when the dollar fails. Our homes will be worthless. We won't be able to afford to drive our cars.
I say: Plant your gold & silver in your own back yard. What else will be WORTH anything?
I was under the impression that the mandate was the insurance companies' idea (since obviously GI without a mandate would be the ultimate in adverse selection) and the insurers said the only way GI would work is if everyone has to have insurance. Am I wrong? If so, whose idea was the mandate?
Similar threads
