Not quite. The insurance companies’ analogy was, if I got in a car wreck, my insurance would be canceled. If I was even able to get insurance from another company, that insurance company would never pay for any car wreck ever again, whether or not it was my fault. In fact, I’d be lucky if the insurance company would even pay a claim for hail damage to my car.
Freedom. lower prices. state lines. consumer driven.
What isn’t to love.
“4) Permit health-insurance companies to discriminate on the basis of pre-existing conditions”
Nope. Deal breaker.
This is insurance that covers what single-payer doesn’t. Single payer coverage means everyone gets treated with the basics. Insurance layers on top of that in countries like the UK and Canada. Got breast cancer? Single payer pays for the tumor removal and treatment, insurance may pay for a semi-private hospital room instead of a bed in the ward or it may pay some of the cost of breast reconstruction or alternative post-surgery therapy. Insurance companies smaller, but are alive and thriving in countries with single-payer systems.
So basically, it’s a single-payer anti-abortion bill that includes Death Panels for old people and removes the coverage for per-existing conditions (which included pregnancy, don’t forget) that doesn’t actually pay bills for poor people, just “defers” them to snowball indefinitely. And breast cancer victims won’t get reconstruction surgery, they just got to walk around with one boob.
No wonder Republicans hate talking about their health care plans.
I agree with other posters that the OP’s list is internally contradictory.
I wish Velocity would explain what he thinks “single-payer health care” means.
I think one of the “big deals” about ACA is, an insurance company can’t say, “Sorry, but we’re not insuring you for trying to treat a disease you were born with.” (And if it turns out that the only known treatment costs God’s Own Amount Of Money per year, the government’s response is, “Well, then count what you spend against the 80% minimum of what you take in that you have to spend on actual medical care.” Presumably, if a company spends more than 80% of its income on care, then it can raise its rates to reach the 80% point.)
Besides, just as insurance companies are supposedly in the Republicans’ back pockets, lawyers are in the Democrats’, so there’s no chance of limiting any awards. They tried putting a limit on the ballot in California, to which the lawyers responded with ads along the lines of, “If this passes, then you won’t have the access to lawyers that the insurance companies do.”
No.
The proposed ‘plan’ seems to be a jumble of ideas that match no functioning healthcare system in the world.
Only one person in the country can afford to pay cash for his health care. Everyone else is SOL.
So you are going to give the federal government the authority to take away the the power of the states to regulate the sale of health insurance within their own borders? Isn’t that big government?
So far so good.
The pre-existing exclusion was never for people attempting to purchase insurance post-arm breaking, it was to exclude people with expensive and especially chronic conditions. You want to bring that back? Seriously? So some born with a birth defect can be excluded from insurance? That sort of thing? WTF?
So… garnish wages. Who decides what “afford” means? Can the entity you owe money to take every asset you own until you are reduced to living on, oh, say $15,000/year?
Are there really people who go to the doctor for fun?
Don’t these already exist?
How about we just do an X percent tax on payroll? Everyone pays 5% or whatever, just cut out the middle-man.
If we have single-payer why do we need health insurance companies?
Cite on the “millions for broken finger” thing.
Not workable - between that and the stupid allowance to deny pre-existing conditions your pool of paying individuals would be too small to make this work. You need everyone paying in to reduce the risk to the most manageable levels overall.
Why?
Congratulations - you’ve just given people a DISincentive to work hard and get a better job.
While you have some good points this just isn’t a good idea overall.
You use as an example something minor and possibly preventable. The real problem is when someone without insurance all of a sudden finds he has cancer and the insurance companies say tough luck.
13 is a common ploy to eliminate abortion rights, so no.
And letting insurance be written across state lines is fine if they are all regulated by the feds so that they don’t all flock to states where lobbyists make sure the laws are written so the customers will get screwed.
Really, your points make the Republican mishmash of alternatives seem coherent.
I’m in favor enough of the first three to say yes and we’ll work out the rest from there.
Velocity I’m sorry but I gotta fight the hypothetical on this one. What you posted in your OP is well, gibberish isn’t the right word, but, gibberish to me. I’d take what Sampisceramos has. maybe it isn’t the best but it sounds good and at least its sane compared to the “ACA”
btw sorry about showing up late and not reading the whole thread, the “ACA” and discussions revolving around it bring out a little bit of the crazy and stupid in me.