Citizen A wants a socialized "safety net". So he voluntarily joins together with other people that feel the same. For a low monthly fee, they purchase a policy from any one of several competing companies. People that pay in to the system receive benefits, people that don't pay in don't get benefits.
Citizen B does not want a socialized "saftey net". He does not buy a policy and receives no benefits.
So what is wrong with this solution? We use it for life insurance, car insurance, home insurance, renter's insurance, etc. Why when a conservative proposes this do liberals freak out and say stupid stuff like "you just want all old and sick people to die"? This solution gives everyone the freedom to choose whether they want to participate (a basic human right) who they want to participate with, and how much they want to participate. And since it is controlled by the private sector, there is no fear that politicians will steal the money and use it to buy votes (like they did with Social Security). I just don't understand how there is any opposition to a solution like this, please enlighten me if you can.
honkie2010-05-28T13:05:39Z
Favorite Answer
Your Idea I think is basically sound except its the unemployed and elderly that will suffer the consequences as well as the young. And the loop holes in Insurance has in the past fell real short in providing the right care needed. Especially catastrophic care. Lets face it one way or another we the people will pay through tax's some where. I do not personally mind helping those that need help. I just hate the waste the scams and the fat cats getting fatter on our tax dollars. Or my family getting refused help when they need it.Poverty begins at home as pappy yous-ed to say.
I think that the part you are not acknowledging ( this is about health care?)is the people you mentioned that will get no benefits. The truth is that no emergency room would turn away a old lady who is about to die, knowing that all she needs is some medication. If the ones who chose to not pay would follow through by not actually going to a doctor when they are sick, then,,,,,,, Controled by the private sector so the government won't steal any of the money???? dude c'mon. I see that this is hypothetical , since we are already past the point: the government already stuck their face into health care. I think that the main response to the problem should involve limiting the cost of health care and almost doing away with suing doctors..Just as silly as your idea? yeah I know. The reason that health care costs so much is because the insurance industry has it's guard up against sueing Docs, also because of the cost of research. Our system is part socialist(medicare/medicaid/federalsubsidies) and part capitolist/pharmecuetical industry is not in business to help people , they are in business to make money, same as doctors.. Very tough equation to solve. I certainly don't know how
You've obviously never dealt with insurance companies. What they do is charge ridiculously high fees, and then deny legitimate claims. They are profit-seeking, and therefore more expensive.
"Since it is controlled by the private sector, there is no fear that politicians will steal the money"?????? On what planet have you been living? Although there would be no danger of POLITICIANS stealing it, there is nothing preventing the companies from doing so.
No politician has stolen SS money. Over 95% of SS money goes to the intended beneficiaries, with less than 5% going to administrative costs. No private company is that efficient; they seek to MAXIMIZE their profits.
Social Security has been wildly successful and continues to be wildly popular. All it needs is a few tweaks.
You're trying to "solve" something that isn't a problem. As Bush found when he tried to destroy it, Social Security is VERY popular. Hard as he tried to get people behind his dismantling it piece by piece, the people rejected his plans.
If you don't want to live in a system where the will of the citizenry prevails, move.
We don't use it for anything. What happens is that "Citizen B" opts out, then gets sick, then wants the health care. Or they get in a wreck, and need insurance to cover the person's medical bills whom they hit. Everyone needs medical insurance eventually, whether they want to pay for it or not, and everyone will use it eventually. Even if you never go to the doctor in your whole life you benefit from the system that provides "herd immunity" against dozens of diseases like flu, plague, Hepatitis, and many others. In addition, when you do need care, you benefit from research and experience gained on others who have come before you.
Your system gives nobody any freedom at all, except that "B" can mooch off the system like some welfare cow while all the "A"'s pay his way.
I think your idea went nuts at the words "Low Monthly Fee"
The people who can't afford health care insurance are the ones most likely to buy into voluntary system, now using your knowledge of efficient markets have a guess what will happen?
I'll give you this example if you have a lot of rotten apples and you throw them into a pile are they any less rotten? Using your logic they are
This voluntary scheme will be oversubscribed by the low paid and sick, the scheme will not work as it will be unable to pay for itself Health care is a right not a privilege, just like education and justice
The rich have to pay for the government externalities from which they benefit, if they want a well educated work force they'll pay for it, if they want a law system to protect them they'll pay for it and if they want to benefit from a healthy society which gives dignity then they'll pay for it.
Margaret Thatcher stood beside these principals and so will I