Let's say you want to keep your Private Insurance. You could choose to "opt out" of the Universal Health Care and go with whatever provider you wished. Those of us who want government coverage can remain in the federal system. If you opt out, of course, no HC tax is take from you, and you could invest in a tax free HSA (Health Savings Account) to cover any premiums ect.
The Universal Health Care insured pool would be smaller, but so would the cost associated with maintaining it, as well as payouts.
2007-07-19 04:10:40 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Brian - If you have ANY kind of health insurance, you are paying for other's health costs by association. That's the point of 'pooling' which every insurer bases their business off of. The only way around this is to pay your bills in full out of your own pocket.
2007-07-19 04:36:38 · update #1
That is the program being offered by Barack Obama. Under the progam he proposed, people who are currently covered can choose to keep their coverage and it will remain unchanged. They will also have the option of buying coverage from affordable plans, as will the people who are currently uninsured.
2007-07-19 04:15:00 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your plan is not possible. Optional/universal is an oxymoron. It cannot be. You are really suggesting that government get into the health insurance business. Besides not being practical, it is not legal. Government cannot set up businesses that compete with private sector enterprises. When the government taxes anyone, they have to tax everyone.
2007-07-19 04:16:57 · answer #2 · answered by regerugged 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It's the same for Social Security and Medicare. Why are these programs not optional? I don't want the government taking money from me every month for some crap retirement fund that will never amount to the funds they've taken (stolen?). But see these programs rely on the people that don't need them in order to fund them. If the people who didn't need them didn't participate, then there wouldn't be enough in the pot.
2007-07-19 04:18:11 · answer #3 · answered by smellyfoot ™ 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Although on the surface your plan may seem reasonable, the overall changes to the industry itself would be horrific...even with private insurance the waiting periods would be excessive...then there is corruption...who is to say we won't end up with private insurance opting to use some of the health care laws that are sure to follow ,that would enable them to decide your too old or too sick to treat? Leave socialism out of it, it can only make it worse.
2007-07-19 04:18:31 · answer #4 · answered by Erinyes 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I am suspect of any program where you say I don't have to pay. They will get my money perhaps not from a direct deduction but they will hide somewhere else. I am totally against any government sponsored health care other than what we currently have. It is less expensive and a better solution to fix the problem with this one.
2007-07-19 04:18:28 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Sure. And as soon as they figure out that they're in debt up to their necks, they'll raise gas taxes or something similar for ALL of us to cover it.
I don't believe the government should get it's hand on health care at all. There must be other alternatives.
End of report.
2007-07-19 04:16:27 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
This is the problem (although I like the idea) . . . social security (medicare) will not be solvent without universal health care. We need six to eight healthy people paying in to support one elderly sick person . . . when you look at the demographic make up of the US the only way to save social security is to go to universal health care
2007-07-19 04:17:51 · answer #7 · answered by CHARITY G 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
As long as I am not paying for other people's health care, great, sounds like a plan.
2007-07-19 04:26:54 · answer #8 · answered by Brian I 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As long as I have the option not to pay for it with my tax dollars.
2007-07-19 04:15:13 · answer #9 · answered by booman17 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Our founders were NOT for the Nanny State. Sorry!
You want it - You pay for it!
2007-07-19 04:14:19 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋