Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: who_would_fardels_bear
Any real insurance policy involves pricing for risk. This is why any law or regulation that does the following:

1. Requires everyone to have insurance, and requires insurance companies to accept every client.
2. Forces insurance companies to cover "pre-existing" conditions.
3. Uses legal/political force to mandate certain treatments and procedures.

... isn't really insurance at all. If you can't price and control risk, then you're not an insurance carrier. You're just collecting premiums from everyone and then paying them out to others under some kind of bureaucratic mandate.

23 posted on 07/09/2014 8:08:16 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("What in the wide, wide world of sports is goin' on here?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]


To: Alberta's Child
I agree. But I also believe that insuring one's health and/or very existence, i.e. if I don't get the treatment I need in a timely fashion then I'm dead, is a far different proposition than insuring one's property such as car or house or business.

I'm in favor of making all health insurance illegal and requiring people to pay cash for all medical procedures. Those people who don't have the funds to pay could use their credit cards, take out loans, etc.

Those who are still unable to pay would have the government come in as a loaner of last resort. The government would provide funds for allowable procedures (i.e. no cosmetic breast enhancements) and create a payment plan. The payment plan would require the complete repayment of the loan with interest, but would have a max on how much the person would have to pay each year based on income and wealth.

The only cost to the government would be the portion of those loans that went unpaid when the person died.

This would severely limit the government's footprint in the health providing economy. The government could provide tax breaks for HSA's or health 401k's in order to encourage people to save for future health expenses, but besides that I see no need for any further government engagement in the health industry except in support basic science research.

I know it is anathema to conservatives, and libertarian conservatives in particular, to completely ban an entire industry, but I think that it would be a much simpler and better solution to say "Thou shalt not provide or receive health insurance" rather than what the government is currently saying: Thous shalt purchase health insurance through a corrupt and inefficient system.

24 posted on 07/09/2014 8:33:48 AM PDT by who_would_fardels_bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson