Yes someone would come out with a budget system but I think the service it would provide would be awful, just like budget car insurance. You would think it's all good until you are hit with an unexpected bill the insurance didn't foot or didn't kick in what you were lead to believe.
Budget plans having budget coverage? What's next, cats and dogs living together? Anytime someone says they were led to believe they got something they didn't, but the paperwork is detailed, I blame them. It's like I am supposed to feel bad for people who got adjustable rate mortgages.
But what about the AFLAC example? They are a supplemental plan that does what nearly no others do. When you make it possible to shop plans you open up doors to more competition in both service and price.
My old car insurance company was famous for nicking me with charges that we some wild interpretation of my documents. I fought it and won most of the time but the headache of going through it was awful. It's bad with a car, but I think it would be even worse with your own health.
Sounds like you had a bad insurance company. Always, always, always use a local agent, especially if it is someone whom you may know personally. My auto/home/life agent's daughter is in dance class with my daughter, we ran into them at the zoo two weeks ago, and when he found out I was unemployed asked me to send him a resume because he was thinking of expanding.
I wonder if under more accessible regulations I could do the same with health insurance.
Plus I don't believe the health of our population should be reliant on whether or not you can afford insurance.
I don't believe my health should be reliant on your success.
I don't see it cutting into R&D at all, the only thing I see is the company making slightly less profits. By limiting the cost of drugs the company would have to invest more of its profits into it's own company rather then lining the pockets of CEO's.
Make up your mind. Are they greedy, and not caring about the public, or not? The way you describe these companies I can't believe you think your above description would be the outcome.
I do disagree. I think having socialized medicine is the right thing for the common good. I'd rather invest my tax dollars into the health and well being of the US over a useless war in a third world nation.
I'd rather we recognize the rights of individuals and the limits of our government, as set forth in our founding documents. That would include personal responsibility and not having undeclared wars in third world nations.
You are still relying on others for your care though, without people paying into the insurance company there wouldn't be any money for your care. You will be using more insurance money for you major heart procedures and follow up care than the guy who's paid in for years and have only ever had a cold.
People who chose to enter into such an agreement. Voluntary vs involuntary. Willing vs unwilling. Free choice vs forced. And over the last 18 years of my health being stable I was paying for those who were unstable and had things like cancer. It is a voluntary give and take. You want to talk about what is best about society? I choose to enter into a group agreement where I know I am paying to help those who are sick when I am healthy and vice versa. I am not forced to do it by anyone. I am free to leave the agreement if it is not in my best interest.
I've stated why I think a socialized medicine system would be good for the US and I don't see it as being a burden to society. i believe we have a social responsibility to care for our fellow citizens.
Have you gone out and met the responsibility that you believe you have? Or have you primarily just asked for the force of government to make everyone act in the way you think they, and you, should?
And as it is, I already pay money out of my cheque to go towards my insurance, it wouldn't really make any difference to me if that money was going to the employers health plan or the national health plan.
I don't know about you but I have a choice in my employer-provided plans. My wife and I spent the last week calculating the full out of pocket expenses of each of the four plans being offered. In the end we chose a plan that would only cost us 14% of our total family income, assuming I have my transplant this year. If I remain stable it will be far less. If I get a job with the state as well the cost will be significantly less (just under 10%), and individual plans would cost barely above 5% of the income of someone making what my wife does. Can any socialized system cover everyone for that small amount of their income taken in taxes?
If not, why not? The private industry can, and they are hindered by regulations that force them to have entire departments for working with out of state claims and so forth. Imagine what would happen if those staffs weren't necessary.
, at such a low percentage of income.
The only amount (in FK's example) that was quantifiable was a percent. Referring to an amount that I don't know, unless I missed his wife's income, is not the best way to sell an idea based on the undisclosed amount. So without knowing a general dollar amount it is impossible to say if most people could afford that amount, or be sufficiently covered by that amount.
