@Randomizer
"Forcing health care on everyone was the only way that private health insurance companies would accept people with preexisting health conditions without insanely high premiums. "
insurance companies shouldn't cover preexisting conditions.
insurance companies are companies, and at the end of the day they are there to make profit. What does this mean in relation to their business?
1. analyze the risk factors a person has, and estimate their medical costs up until death.
2. charge them a monthly/annual/quarterly rate marginally higher than the risk they're taking
3. the 'marginally' part of that changes due to competition, and demand for healthcare coverage.
So if someone with a condition comes in an wants insurance, the risk matrix is at 100% t-0 days estimated. i don't buy car insurance after it's rolled 50 feet down some ditch.
the ONLY way for the company to stay in business, and not fail and lay off thousands of employees, and default on THOUSANDS of other insured citizens, is to make a profit. so they charge higher rates, BECAUSE THE RISK IS 100%.
If everyone with preexisting conditions had the gov't force insurance companies to pay for them WITHOUT HIGH PREMIUMS: insurance companies would have net losses.
The insurance company now either closes up shop, or accepts a bail out from the gov't. the gov't along with their subsidy now is funding healthcare, and picking up the tab.
congratulations, you have socialized healthcare via deficit spending.
(PS insurance companies in general are sleazy and get out of paying claims through loopholes and paying off judges etc. but this only requires better policing of companies, and is disconnected from the issue of preexisting conditions. i hate insurance companies, but for reasons outside of this context)
"If the Republicans had been willing to have a government insurance program, then healthy people could opt out"
but under Obama's healthcare, opting out requires a fine. 'Pay health insurance, pay the fine, or you'll be put in jail'. not entirely dissimilar to Muhammad's 'worship Islam, pay a fine, or die" (which was a pretty smart tactic) but i digress
"and we wouldn't have areas with only one company insuring it."
the lack of competition in healthcare isn't solved by government taking it over. that is the OPPOSITE of a solution for lack of competition. our lack of competition stems from
1. laws requiring insurance companies staying within state lines (FEDERAL GOV'T)
2. extreme state and federal regulation of insurance companies (i do support some regulation, but at some point it hurts small start-ups)
3. corruption... with government! [the solution to this is 'more gov't' don't ask me how that one works
"What's funny is Obamacare was based upon the Republican alternative to Hilary Clinton's proposed plan."
What's funny with a bunch of power hungry Republicans? that's what like half of them do
"The Republicans wrote it and then rejected it when the Democrats agreed to it."
hehehe that's funny
"Lots of countries use a government covers everyone plan."
bad argument. we're not Sweden, our demographics are way different, our economy and culture are each structured quite differently, and lastly i don't like high suicide rates. Also I'd say "we're not Britain" but the NHS covers a lot less than what people think, and is far from purely socialized healthcare, and they have a 33% poverty rate to our 14% but are we really surprised from socialism creating poor people?
I've already had a conversation like this, and i'm going to post my response to it from like August of last year down below this line, it uses quotes that don't apply to you but it's an overview of why the NHS isn't completely practical for the USA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.cms.gov/research-statistics-data-and-systems/statistics-trends-and-reports/nationalhealthexpenddata/downloads/highlights.pdf
ok, I can see how you'd think that but there are some things you should know:
NHS does not provide for dental healthcare, US does: as of 2013
"Spending for dental services increased 2.8 percent in 2014 to $113.5 billion"
Nursing care is much less covered under NHS, while USA: 2014 to $155.6 billion
Another market is prescription drugs, which is an industry in the USA, rather than state funded, producing great scientific advances: growing 12.2 percent to $297.7 billion (these advances were allowed to occur due to competition for getting a better product)
Many health residential and person series are at 150 billion $ in the US, our privatized medical equipment sales are at 46 billion $ on their own,
SO WHAT ON EARTH IS GOING ON!!!
You're comparing two different things. The NHS budget, to ALL USA SPENDING ON HEALTHCARE.
If you take just the services NHS offers in Britain, then what do you get for the USA:
Spending on physician and clinical services increased 4.6 percent in 2014 to $603.7 billion
I'm not grouping in hospital care because the NHS offers:
accident and emergency services – but not emergency treatment once you've been admitted to hospital
family planning services – but not termination of pregnancy or infertility treatment
treatment for most infectious diseases, including sexually transmitted infections (STIs)
treatment required for a physical or mental condition caused by torture, female genital mutilation, domestic violence or sexual violence – this does not apply if you have come to England to seek this treatment
as there "free" services, that are all also basic treatments in the US. While US Hospital spending is at 971 billion, it is privatized, and in Britain, that does not fall under NHS budget guidelines.
PLUS The United States doesn't only offer treatment to our own citizens, but ethical codes allow it for anyone who comes in. In the NHS, this is not on budget, because people have to pay.
@Yanik, were one of the wealthiest mightiest powers in the world with military bases on every continent. We have enough nukes to destroy every planet in the solar system. I refuse to beleive we cannot come up with a pathway to a NHS."
Our military budget is 603 billion $
Britain's NHS is 103 billion £ (115.28 billion USD)
318.9 million people in USA/ 64.1 million people in Britain = 4.975
115.28 billion USD X 4.9751 = 573.518 BILLION USD
While it's true Britain has a 33% poverty rate compared to our 19%, claims work on a threshold level, and we have 45 million people in poverty over twice that of there 19.3 million. PLUS Britain's poverty rate already FACTORED IN NHS! that means that our claims would be significantly higher - the exact number is up for debate, but all of them have an increase, the lowest numbers from liberal economists at 8% from what i remember, but that was last year i'll double check now. so 8% for last year assuming that's held 573.518X.08=45.88
thus the adjusted claims would be 619.398
IN CONCLUSION: If we could make NHS here as efficient as it is in britain at 573 Bil. USD, we'd have to cut our military down by 95%, which will have a huge social consequence worldwide, weaken national security, and destroy one of the greatest social programs in the US.
but at least we'd have a shaky socialized system. that is IF www can get it to work as well, which is a preposterous claim even for many liberal economists who factor in poverty rates.
conclusion: NHS is currently not viable in the USA, ESPECIALLY when a trite argument like "lower the military" comes into play.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Convoy confusion
)
)
)
)
)
)