The current push regarding replacing the ACA is to make those who are sick pay more for insurance than those who are not sick. The details are not clear or will be in flux, but it sure seems to me that it is headed toward making insurance unaffordable for those who get sick.
So what is the point of medical insurance if your rates can be jacked up when you get sick or the condition you are sick with can be removed from the coverage?
I think you need to review the proposed law. My understanding is that if you had a pre existing condition you could be charged more for one year and after a year of being covered your payments would be lowered as if you had no pre existing condition.
"Pre-existing condition" means that you are sick before you apply for insurance. Like applying for homeowners' insurance when your house is on fire.
The repubs are just doing the usual congressional thing, complex tinkering with a complex mess without addressing the fundamamentals, much less making things cheaper and simpler.
Single-payer would just dump the expensive mess onto the feds, who would borrow money to pay for it.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement
"Charged more" meaning what exactly? That's what we had before the ACA. A friend looked around for insurance and was told it would cost him $20,000 a year. Even now that makes it unaffordable for anyone who needs it.
"Pre-existing condition" includes having *been* sick at some point in the past. If you had cancer and are in remission, you are out of luck. So you have a fire and rebuild your house, now you have to pay triple premiums.
No need to borrow money. Collect insurance premiums from everyone who can afford it and make the insurance mandatory, including those who have it by other means. Employers will happily drop insurance and pay the premiums for employees as this is a *major* hassle for every company. It also takes it out of the equation for new hires. All companies have the same insurance.
PoTUS: "Who knew that health care was so unbelievably complicated?"
The overhead costs of single payer are far less than the U.S. "system". It's a big part of why the U.S. health care system (either before or after ACA) is the most expensive in the world (i.e. results/$). Many European and Asian countries get better results for less money - through a variety of approaches.
There are other approaches to making health care more efficient, but obviously they take money away from drug companies, providers, insurance companies,... all these stake-holders with big lobbying arms to prevent that kind of change.
Whether funding would come from borrowed funds or current income is a separate question (though both parties seem to collude in cutting taxes while expanding outlays, whether those outlays are for programs for right-wing or left-wing favorites). It's not really any different with Trump, his proposals, if enacts, would cause budget deficits that dwarf Obama's.
Only if you have no insurance. Why don't you have insurance?
Often, yes. But to make your analogy work, you only have to pay triple premiums for health insurance after your resurrection. IYou have no worries about that.
Now with ACA it's unaffordable for everyone. Even if you can afford the premiums, you can't afford to use it. ...and it's broke, to boot. Great system!
But most of the rich live in blue states where everyone isn't dead broke from a personal income perspective! So I thought you'd be OK with that! We're pleading to give you our money and you won't even take it!
Please describe to me in very simple terms, that an idiot can understand, what it is that health insurance companies do so efficiently. I know what fire insurance companies do. They insure against the risk of fire. I know what flood insurance companies do. They insure against the risk of flood.
Health insurance companies insure against the risk of...?
It certainly can't be that they provide healthcare efficiently - they're not in that business.
That would imply that they're finally just ordinary citizens with responsibilities and duties to people other than themselves to whom society requires them to answer.
It's deeply offensive to them that you would make assumptions like that.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.