socialized healthcare implications, reality, and solutions

[raulrodri602]

Your Hot!

[josephdupont]

Mandatory Health Insurance is uncontitutional! Obama lied.. he was elected on a lie. he said that he was not for mandatory health insurance.

[Frettsy]

we have not seen a truly free market in a century or two, but if we returned to one, costs would have no choice but to return to normal levels (this is why insurance companies lobby for MORE regulations - more taxpayer money for them). I have read the article on Lee Einer before, and certainly, corporate corruption is despicable - I am no "fan" of corporations per se. let me remind you that any individual is free to start their own insurance company

[Frettsy]

should the existing options not fulfill the needs of the public (ah, capitalism), AND, no individual is forced into any contract with any insurance company (YET). let me also remind you that your solution is to take power from one group of greedy men and give it to another group of (not greedy?) politicians. I would like to return fire a suggestion to read "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" by John Perkins, if you have not already.

[Frettsy]

it is a brilliant example of how we must never rely on corporations nor government, as both are ruled by greedy, powerful, and corrupt men. the responsibility of the individual is infinitely more important than the responsibility of the state. this is key to the health of our Republic.

[jsantos22]

May I suggest that you read up on Mr. Lee Einer and what he was hired by health insurance companies to do.

[Frettsy]

I apologize for just getting around to replying, YouTube never notified me there were new comments. the problem I have with your logic is that it takes all responsibility away from the courts. if the contract between the individual and the insurance company stated that the insurance could be terminated due to such a circumstance, the individual should have taken the responsibility of a) being informed and b) meeting any preexisting stipulations so this situation could not lawfully arise.

[Frettsy]

now, if the courts do not lawfully enforce the contract, then they are at fault, and the problem is not with the healthcare system but with the inability of the insurance companies to be held accountable to the individual. if on the other hand the courts DO uphold the contracts, then the fault is on the individual for not fully understanding the contract they willfully signed. creating a government safety net serves only to accelerate the latter circumstance,

[Frettsy]

as well as to rob people of their property. a co-op plan would make the most sense to me, however, NOT a state-run one. people should be free to voluntarily enter any co-op (across state lines) and do business with any insurance companies they please. the state does not need to be involved in order for this to be effective (quite the opposite in fact), there are numerous non-public nonprofits. this is why the answer is not MORE government, but less.

[jsantos22]

The Government.

[lerock1000]

@jsantos22 -Thats great, Sir, and for those that have no other option, that would be acceptable. What is not acceptable is forcing all people to be subject to what the government provides or severely restricts through legislation. The restrictions being proposed would make our private healthcare system, in essense, government healthcare. I wish you the best.

[jsantos22]

Not enough of you have had this experience, but if and when you do, youll be happy know that theres an indiscriminate insurance provider that will offer you coverage even if youve had cancer before.

[jsantos22]

That, sir, is the epitome of our health insurance crisis. Youre very fortunate not to have experienced the worse of the health care industry, but thats the problem. While many have found themselves in situations where they developed an illness while insured (by lets say their job) then lose that coverage (lets say they were laid off or moved), now they run the risk of being denied treatment or even coverage because they couldnt stay with their old provider.

[jsantos22]

. They reply that they cant insure a pre-existing defect on your car (e.g. bumper), they go on to say that upon reviewing the facts regarding the accident from three years ago, theyve concluded that most claims, similar to yours, report damage to the radiator and you should have had your radiator inspected for damage prior to your new claim. Therefore, theyve concluded that these were pre-existing conditions which they cannot pay for.

[jsantos22]

You explain to them that all that was damaged before was the bumper cover and that was replaced, furthermore, that doesnt explain why they wont pay for the radiator.

[jsantos22]

As it turns out, Company Z isnt really happy about reducing its profit to pay for your repair costs (they consider that a loss) and especially an expensive new radiator, so they want YOU to pay for it. When you call Company Z, they explain to you that your car had already suffered damage to this particular area once before, according to your application, and they have reason to believe that these are pre-existing conditions that occurred prior to your policy with Company Z.

[jsantos22]

One Sunday morning you awoke to find that your car had been stolen and involved in a head on collision with a light pole, damaging your front bumper, headlights, and radiator. Company Z pays for the repairs, but 6 months later you receive a bill for a new bumper cover and radiator.

[jsantos22]

Not long afterwards you find Company Z, a new insurance provider that offers a lower premium, and you stay with them for the next three years. Of course, prior to purchasing your coverage with Company Z, you had to disclose the minor traffic accident in your application which theyve kept on record. After three pleasant years with Company Z, you have to file a claim.

[jsantos22]

Heres a good car insurance metaphor for you: Imagine that youve just rear ended some guy in traffic because he stopped short. You call your insurance, Company X, and they cover the repairs which consisted of replacing your front bumper cover for $75 (not taking into account the other cars repairs). Your premium goes up slightly, but at least its all been taken care of.

[Lineperson]

I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment in the description.