Posted on 09/25/2013 5:55:20 AM PDT by Former MSM Viewer
I don’t know if Cruz is the real deal. After the Republican Party has promoted so many phony conservatives, I view every Republican with suspicion. But I give Ted Cruz kudos for standing up for America on this issue. I just hope that no matter what happens, he will continue to focus on the reason he was elected — to represent the people — not to follow orders of his party’s liberal hierarchy.
/johnny
I think he is terrific! Reading Hoffa’s letter asking the ACA be fixed!
Your plan falls apart right there because companies will say no. They don't do it now, why should they do so in the future? My insurance benefits are a part of my overall compensation package, as my company loves to tell me. However, if I were to get married and get my coverage from my spouse's plan, my company will not add the amount they would have paid for my health insurance to my paycheck. They keep the savings for themselves. Make it illegal for companies to add insurance as part of compensation and they'll love you for it. It's just that much less they have to spend on employee costs.
2. Nobody is buying it because it is too expensive. So what do the companies do? Go out of business? Nope. The business is a cash cow. They cut costs to the point that people DO buy the insurance.
Again that doesn't make sense. People insure to tranfer risk. Healthy people get insurance because with their company paying a big part of the bill it's cheaper than accepting the risks. Increase the cost to the individual and you'll have a lot of people deciding that since they're pretty healthy then they'll accept the risk and forego the insurance altogether. What insurance companies will get are the ones who need the health insurance. The ones who file the claims and get the prescriptions and go to the hospital. Their customer pool will be the ones that they'll have to pay the bills for. Therefore the costs will be expected to go up, not down.
3. And you can bet that just as with car insurance, where your age and driving record can affect your rates, this would happen in health insurance. It means that people with pre-existing conditions or older people would pay more, which is fair.
People buy auto insurance because the law requires them to. Drop the law and people will tend to drop the coverage. Unless you're going to make health insurance required by law then you're going to find a lot of people who won't want to pay the premiums, which are a heck of a lot higher than auto insurance to begin with.
3. But wait, it gets better. Just as with car insurance, where you can choose what to protect yourself against, you could with this too. Why would a menopausal married couple need to cover pregnancy? Why would a couple where the husband has been snipped cover pregnancy? See where I am going with this.
Down a rabbit hole I think. What you're suggesting is that people will be have to pick and choose coverage. I'm not getting pregnant so I don't want to pay for pregnancy coverage. Do I also need to decide if I want cancer coverage or not? If so, do I need to specify coverage, i.e. yes to ovarian cancer coverage but no to prostate cancer? Should I accept the coverage for broken arms but not broken legs? Such a plan would be impossible for the individual and a nightmare for the insurance company.
4. Health care costs - If fewer people have insurance, more people would be walking off the street for coverage. It would become competitive just like other businesses.
It would not, for the reasons I pointed out earlier. Those unwilling to pay the higher premiums would tend to be those with the least need for insurance. Premiums would go up because companies would have a higher percentage of clients making claims and would be paying out more money. The more premiums go up the more people drop out and a higher percentage of those remaining will be those who can't afford not to have someone paying their medical bills.
Your plan falls apart right there because companies will say no.
No doubt the hits will keep on coming. They had some guy on the radio yesterday and he said that the average premium for a family of four at the insurance exchange here in Missouri would be about $850. Government credits could bring that down to about $220 a month but that depends so much on income level and number of dependents that it’s impossible to give an average amount. Most people don’t have that extra income to spend so they’re not going to do it.
People buy auto insurance because the law requires them to.
When I was younger and it was not required, there was a thriving car insurance business. It was a very prudent thing to have. But as is the case with health insurance today, not everybody had it. Some liked to fly without a net. I even did for a bit.
Lawyer talk.
Don’t know about that stuff myself, I just like what I’m hearing from Cruz.
Though our side needs to get off our butts and formulate a real, competing proposal.
Why should it? How will removing the employee contribution to healthcare premiums reduce insurance company costs? Or doctor costs? Or hospital costs? Or pharmaceutical company costs?
Admire him? Are you kidding? I want to have his baby.
Here is the current status of how each state is planning to handle the health care act. Many have
jumped in with the feds while some are going independently and others some modified approach.
http://obamacarefacts.com/state-health-insurance-exchange.php
Many do. You can argue prudence and risk, but the fact is that the state requires it. You can't get your car regisrered or your license renewed in Missouri without proof in insurance. Get pulled over and failure to show insurance results in an additional charge. Remove those legal requirements and a much larger percentage of your population will drop their insurance altogether.
Come on down to the real world. If you make it illegal to include insurance as part of compensation, as you propose, then none of the companies have to do that. So where is the competition? Why should my company up my salary to make up for the loss of benefits? Can I leave and go to work for a company that does offer benefits? No, you make it illegal. So where is the motivation? What's in it for any company to increase salaries to make up for it if none of the others do?
True. And you can bet that a far, far larger percentage of the people at that time didn't have auto insurance at all. Why? Because it was the high percentage of uninsured motorists that motivated insurance companies to push for the law requiring insurance in the first place. They were tires of paying for damage done to their clients by uninsured motorists.
Increase the cost to the individual and you’ll have a lot of people deciding that since they’re pretty healthy then they’ll accept the risk and forego the insurance altogether.
Insurance is supposed to protect you from catastrophic expenses. It is why Lloyd’s of London (arguably the first insurance company) came into existence. A shipping company would buy rather expensive insurance that would protect them from catastrophic loss.
Insurance is not supposed to be “monthly payments” for regular visits (this is very common with dental insurance). Insurance is to protect you from financial catastrophy. If you want something more than that, you should be able to buy it - if you can afford it - just like if you want a swimming pool, a yacht or a Ferrari.
It would not, for the reasons I pointed out earlier.
Fact is, health care should not be that expensive. If it were not for ridiculous government regulations and malpractice insurance premiums, health care would be very much like getting a haircut or your car fixed. My Chiropractor has done great things for me - at $25 a visit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.