I heard a really interesting spin on how healthcae should be in America. The idea was make it similar to auto insurance in that everyone has to have it BUT the gubbamint isnt entitled to pay it for you. I don't agree with the idea of everyone being mde to have healthcare but I do think that if you want to get treated you have to have insurance, just like you have to have insurance to drive. I think if this were to happen the price of healthcare would drasticly go down and I think the healthcre providers would actually be competing for your business. I'm sure you have all seen or heard the Geico gekko advert for auto insurance. Wouldn't it be great if they were trying so hard to get your business for healthcare insurance? Basiclly, low cost auto insurance is easy to get because the gubbamint isnt envoled in it. Don't you the think healthcare would be the same?
If you give them half an inch they will stand before Moscow in September.
What Geico calls low cost isn't always so low cost. Auto insurance also takes things into account like where you live, which isn't exactly fair. I don't think it's ok to be billed according to my zip code.
That's not the unfair part at all.
Good point. Geico ain't exactly the cheapest but you also don't have to use their service.Since auto insurance has no gubbamint involvement the rates aren't set so you can shop for the best rates.Health insurance takes things into account like body fat, tobacco use, and race because they are all factors on how healthy you are. If you live in an area with more people you probably have to pay more because you are more likely to have an accident so to me, it seems fair.
Not if you live in that area with more people. Rates are also based on the economy of the area as well, higher cost of living.
This could be a theoretically good idea, but what about the uninsurable? The man who had a heart attack and lost his healthcare, does he now have to get a fine/thrown in jail because no insurance company will take him?
Good point. If the guy had a heart attack because of bad habits I really don't feel sorry for him. Otherwise their should be some kind of way he could get treated.
The man who had the heart attack should be the same as the guy who has to get SR-22 car insurance. The rates are high, but the insurance companies are required to cover a certain amount of these drivers.
Seriously. Insurance companies are forced to cover high risk hurricane areas if they want to do business in Florida. Building a house on the beach in Florida is a lot like applying for health insurance while obese, a smoker, etc.
Yeah, I did some thinking about this again while I was at work. I really don't think anyone is uninsurable. Nobody is uninsurable as far as car insurance is concercned, the riskier drivers have to pay higher rates because they are..... risky drivers. I don't even know what SR-22 is but I'm sure its a higher rate. Just like it should be in a free market system for people who don't look out for their own health. I'm sure most of the T-Nation would be paying lower rates.
I think another option would be to outlaw health Insurance, make everybody pay cash
sr-22 blackbird, supersonic spy jet.
what about people who refuse to get insurance? lots of people drive without it.
I think you mean SR-71.
Anyway, yes you can refuse to get insurance but you should also be ready to suffer the legal ramifications of your actions.
I brought this up in another thread. I absolutely think health insurance should be run like auto insurance. And, for the record, I drive without auto insurance and I have no intention of getting auto insurance. It's not required in Wisconsin, among a few other states.
The biggest issue with this is that driving is a privilege and neither a right or even a necessity, so you can easily live without auto insurance by simply not owning a car.
I suppose that if you are willing to consider living as a privilege and not a right you could try to argue this point, but don't try to argue against abortion at the same time.
It seems questionable to me that if a driver's record is so bad that it is essentially GUARANTEED that he will have a major, costly accident in the near future that he can buy car insurance at any price affordable to most.
Similarly, if in a given person's case it's essentially guaranteed that they will have very, very major expenses in the near future, how -- other than other people being forced to pay for it -- can this person buy insurance at a modest price?
Answer: no sane company would sell a policy that they can be virtually sure will cost more money than it takes in. Not willingly. Only if forced to, and the result of that force will be money taken from other people who are blameless in the entire matter.
OK. They can make money like any other auto company by the thousands of people that pay for auto insurance and never make any claims. The people that have accidents and pay high premiums get can do it because people like me were idiots and kept insurance and paid premiums for years without ever making a claim.
Auto insurance is just like the lottery. The difference is one operates off hope and the other operates off fear.
The market will have a third-party set the price for life-saving procedures, no matter who or what is outlawed. If it is not insurance companies doing the price-setting, it would merely be banks or doctors doing it instead.
Life-saving procedures are a specific good that the market cannot effectively price if the demand for the procedure stems from those whose lives are being saved.
While it sounds grisly, the market simply must have a third-party put a dollar value on the lives of individual patients, and it will do so no matter what regulations exist.
A privilege granted by whom and where did they derive their authority from to grant that privilege?