"National health insurance:" why not just insure the poor, and let everyone else keep the plans they have?

Question

I have issues with the idea of government-run health insurance. I really don't have a definitive position - I am still trying to learn more.

But one of many questions I have is this: assuming for the moment that the government will institute a program "to make sure all Americans have health insurance," can't this goal be accomplished without going to a "single payer" system? Why can't the people relatively happy with the status quo keep the insurance they have? And if Medicaid or another program needs expansion, just address unmet needs in that or a similar program?

I'm sure I'm missing something here. Maybe there are great advantage to a complete government overhaul of the system. But it could also be that wrongheaded government regulations have distorted the market and caused (or worsened) the problems we already have!

Any knowledgable opinions or information would be helpful. thanks.

Answer 1

The simplest reason for NOT doing this is that you will essentially be creating an incentive for people not to maintain their existing coverage. I realize that liberals and feel-gooders typically feel that if they do something that sounds great and magnanimous, all will be well. But, the law of unintended circumstances typically ensures that the unintended occurs.

Answer 2

Here are a couple of reasons, in no particular order.
It costs between $1500 and $4000 a MONTH for private health insurance. How many of you can afford that?
Insurance works because the pool of the insured is proportionately larger than the amount of people who use it.
Private insurance will not insure people who have chronic illnesses, or who have had cancer, they can drop the coverage of people they deem to be risky. This is called cherry picking. So the private insurers keep the healthy ones, and leave the ill to the government, costing the government more, but, since they will still charge the same, keeping profits up for themselves.
There is benefit to a single payer system, especially for the elderly or people with multiple problems, the amounts of paperwork is daunting for someone with vision or memory problems, with lawsuits and delays in payments very common. Over fifty percent of bankruptcy in this country is the result of medical bills. Single payer would also give the government a bargaining chip in determining rates, at the same time there should be a provision that only the most egregious malpractice suits would be allowed to go forward.
Its not the man in the street who is cheating medicaid out of money, its unscrupulous doctors and hospital who routinely charge more for one kind of patient and less for another, at the same time they make getting an itemized hospital bill impossible to obtain.
It would free business from having to pay insurance costs as a benefit, and it would ensure the secrtary and the janitor have the same access as the CEO to a hospital when ill.
Recently the amount of people who have lost coverage because they no longer have benefits has increased.
We are thirty seventh in infant mortality, fourteenth in life expectancy. Surely we can do better.
We expect very little from our goverment, and I wonder why, when we once led the world are we now told that we can't run a health care plan when so many other countries can. It really just sounds stupid to say we can run a war, a country, a space program, a transportation system but we can't find a way to give working people a hernia operation.

Answer 3

Canada, England, France and so many other countries have National Health Insurance, where people pay little or nothing for medical treatments and medicines. Our Medicare Prescription Drug plan was put together by the Drug & Insurance companies to maximize their profits. The problem with Health Care in the U.S. is that it is based on profit, not your health. If our country wants to remain a great one, it should not have a health care system where so many people can't afford to get well.

Answer 4

There is absolutely no reason to not have the private health insurance companies exist alongside any kind of federal program. Nobody wants to force anyone to change their current company, or to choose only what the government provides. A national health care program would exist simply to allow an option for those who cannot afford private insurance. People will always be free to pay if they wish to.

On an IMO note: America's greatest resource is not her coal, her trees, her oil, or any of her other many products. America's greatest natural resource is her citizens. Therefore, taking care of her citizens is crucial to her strength. If all Americans have good basic health care, then it improves the quality of life for ALL of us. Cant figure out why this is so hard for so many to understand.

Answer 5

Do you actually know what the current plans are for national health car? Because most plans candidates have now don't have the government running the health care. Most plans are exactly what you describe, where most people keep their plans, and those who can't afford it get paid for by the government. The government would have no control other then they pay for a person deemed not able to pay for themselves. Look at Massachusetts as an example, the currently have a universal health care.

I think what you are opposed to is socialized health care, and no one is suggested that.

Answer 6

We're approaching 50 million Americans that have no health care insurance. Nobody can tell me that that many Americans are just lazy and don't want to work.
It's the working class that is losing their health care insurance.
Also the for profit insurance companies are pricing the premiums out of sight.
We need a one payer non profit system.

Answer 7

People do not get health coverage right now because they've come to realize that it really isn't worth it.

What's the point of having health insurance if you have a $9,000 premium? Who would ever spend that much on routine health care? The only time you ever need insurance is for emergency surgeries.

Answer 8

The "poor" are already covered by the government, assuming they filled out the "in triplicate" forms correctly, and the paperwork was not mishandled by a bureaucrat.

As for your proposition, it won't make the socialists in this country happy, because they don't want a private system to compete with a socialized system...because compared side by side, the private sector does everything better and faster (with the exception of war) than the government. The socialists want equality...which means everybody gets the same crappy healthcare.

Answer 9

the folk that are against that's conscious of how the government works and don't choose the government to have any say so whilst it includes their wellness. the government won't run it effectively or effectively. that's going to value extra advantageous than they say that's going to, it won't grant the outcomes they say that's going to. the standard public college equipment spends two times as plenty in line with student as deepest faculties yet deepest faculties get extra advantageous consequences. the US positioned up place of work loses billions of greenbacks a year on an identical time as Fed Ex and united statesdo the comparable situation and make money. Public housing is many times the worst place to stay in any city or city interior the rustic, deepest housing is plenty extra secure and extra advantageous. Medicaid and Medicare are broke and a brilliant form of medical doctors won't take the sufferers with the aid of paperwork and postpone in getting money from the government. Amtrak loses earnings line with annum. We understand that the government isn't effectual and does not grant what they declare they'll. they have an quite long music checklist of doing issues poorly and over funds, all of us who thinks Obama care would be any diverse is fooling themselves. that's going to value trillions extra advantageous than they say and it won't grant what they say, that's basically yet differently for the government to have extra administration over the every day lives of the electorate.

Answer 10

The poor already get enough hand outs to sit on their a** and do nothing when they could be flipping burgers or stocking shelves at Wal-Mart (not saying thoses are terrible jobs) but at least do something.Thats what Medicaid is for.
National Health, if they gave you a basic plan... and if you want supplements to help with if you get cancer,heart attack,stroke.. the major stuff that you could pay for that out of pocket ... Because the government is not going to set up a system that covers you fully.... They will find a way to screw you in the end where if you get one of the major deals (cancer, heart attack or stroke ) they will not cover with loop holes.. just like everything else
Then you put people out of work like our insurance sales people (the good ones that acutually help people) (not the shisters that lie,cheat and steal)

Answer 11

I'm for Universal Health Care. (universal health care is that we should be able to go anywhere to any country and get care, regardless of where we live) I'm not opposed to you having your own insurance, feel free, but for the 40 million American's that don't have coverage due to, job loss, pre-existing condition, discrimination's, or that just cannot afford it, our government should provide for them. Health Care shouldn't be a benefit, it should be a necessity.

It appalls me that we even have to question this. The insurance companies are in business to make money, not to pay out claims. If they can find a way to avoid this, they will. There more interested in their bottom line...then your bottom!