You're right, every analogy breaks down eventually.
I'm not sure how this would be dealt with. Obviously there would need to be something in place to cover the "uninsurable".
Perhaps the government stipend for those people is higher, at a level in which the insurance companies would agree to accept them. There could a number of acceptable resolutions. But whatever it is, since the alternative is that the government is paying all their health insurance expenses, we can find one in which the cost is less than or equal to the socialized solution.
since the alternative is that the government is paying all their health insurance expenses, we can find one in which the cost is less than or equal to the socialized solution.
Well, except arguing the financial equivalency of government healthcare and government funded private insurance means assuming that the private insurers would accept the same fiscal efficiency as the government. Put another way, I believe the government will do this not-for-profit. I’m relatively sure Humana will not.
When you remove billion dollar annual salaries (not discussing whether they were earned just noting that they effect the amount of funds available for claims) there’s a lot more ability to carry those who are a bad insurance risk.
Also, raising the premiums can't be the answer, since the insurance companies can do that now and they still refuse to insure many people. If the market has across the board decided that flat denial, not higher premiums are the answer, I don;t see how you can help these people without denying the free market
( ... )
Well, except arguing the financial equivalency of government healthcare and government funded private insurance means assuming that the private insurers would accept the same fiscal efficiency as the government.
I'd have responded sooner, but it took me a while to stop laughing. You see, you actually used fiscal efficiency and government in the same sentence without the word not and without a hint of sarcasm. Since when has the government EVER had more fiscal efficiency than the private sector?
Anyway, back to the point, perhaps the uninsurable go on Medicare. Perhaps a law is enacted to force insurnace companies to cover them, but the government pays their costs. There could be a lot of possibilities that we could try. Ones that specifically do not A) bankrupt an entire industry (which the government does NOT have the constitutional authority to do) and B) take competition and market forces completely out of the health care market.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PLAN?
Well, for starters, the shoe company will refuse to sell you shoes if you work in an area dangerous to feet.
Reply
Reply
Reply
I'm not sure how this would be dealt with. Obviously there would need to be something in place to cover the "uninsurable".
Perhaps the government stipend for those people is higher, at a level in which the insurance companies would agree to accept them. There could a number of acceptable resolutions. But whatever it is, since the alternative is that the government is paying all their health insurance expenses, we can find one in which the cost is less than or equal to the socialized solution.
Reply
since the alternative is that the government is paying all their health insurance expenses, we can find one in which the cost is less than or equal to the socialized solution.
Well, except arguing the financial equivalency of government healthcare and government funded private insurance means assuming that the private insurers would accept the same fiscal efficiency as the government. Put another way, I believe the government will do this not-for-profit. I’m relatively sure Humana will not.
When you remove billion dollar annual salaries (not discussing whether they were earned just noting that they effect the amount of funds available for claims) there’s a lot more ability to carry those who are a bad insurance risk.
Also, raising the premiums can't be the answer, since the insurance companies can do that now and they still refuse to insure many people. If the market has across the board decided that flat denial, not higher premiums are the answer, I don;t see how you can help these people without denying the free market ( ... )
Reply
I'd have responded sooner, but it took me a while to stop laughing. You see, you actually used fiscal efficiency and government in the same sentence without the word not and without a hint of sarcasm. Since when has the government EVER had more fiscal efficiency than the private sector?
Anyway, back to the point, perhaps the uninsurable go on Medicare. Perhaps a law is enacted to force insurnace companies to cover them, but the government pays their costs. There could be a lot of possibilities that we could try. Ones that specifically do not A) bankrupt an entire industry (which the government does NOT have the constitutional authority to do) and B) take competition and market forces completely out of the health care market.
Reply
Leave a comment