5 steps to fixing our healthcare system

[figner]

You would not required to have coverage under what was noted. However, if you do not purchase a policy and then seek care for pre-existing conditions, you would pay a penalty for that. If you have not had any coverage for a full year, the penalties would double if seeking care for pre-existing conditions.

The issue I see with this is the penalties would have to be pretty high to avoid the incentive to go without insurance. At the ballpark penalty levels you listed, I would be willing to not insure at all until I developed a medical issue costing over $25k or so. If I require treatment costing around $100k (not all that uncommon), I'd come out way ahead by saving premiums for many years and then only having to fork over $10-20k or so once I get sick.

Granted, I'm probably not a typical American in terms of being willing to self-insure up to $25k, but if I'm tempted, I'm sure many others would be too. Then you have the adverse selection problem again.

 

[dgoldenz]

The issue I see with this is the penalties would have to be pretty high to avoid the incentive to go without insurance. At the ballpark penalty levels you listed, I would be willing to not insure at all until I developed a medical issue costing over $25k or so. If I require treatment costing around $100k (not all that uncommon), I'd come out way ahead by saving premiums for many years and then only having to fork over $10-20k or so once I get sick.

Granted, I'm probably not a typical American in terms of being willing to self-insure up to $25k, but if I'm tempted, I'm sure many others would be too. Then you have the adverse selection problem again.

That would still be better than what the new law states. Like I said, the numbers are not the key, the concept is. The numbers could be figured out later, perhaps even with less than 2700 pages.

 

[lets-retire]

That would still be better than what the new law states. Like I said, the numbers are not the key, the concept is. The numbers could be figured out later, perhaps even with less than 2700 pages.

That's one of the big problems with presenting ideas on this topic. Many people get hung up in examples of specifics and throw the whole idea out, instead of looking at the concept and coming up with better specifics. Or they just simply dismiss the idea for lack of specifics. Either way it is a no win. I do like some of the ideas you presented.

 

[explanade]

So how likely is it to throw out the passed law and how likely is it to pass a new one?

How likely is both to happen?

 

[Rustic23]

The problem with starting over is the little things that got into the 2,700 pages. Like all gold sales over $600 have to be reported. A new bill would have just as many of these type of things in it, plus pet projects.

 

[travelover]

So how likely is it to throw out the passed law and how likely is it to pass a new one?

How likely is both to happen?

You may recall that when the party that hates the health care reform law had the opportunity, they were not successful in reforming heath care, either. Just sayin'

 

[Purron]

You may recall that when the party that hates the health care reform law had the opportunity, they were not successful in reforming heath care, either. Just sayin'

Oh yeah. In the spirit of bipartisanship, I propose a new bumper sticker...

Heath Care: The Issue Both Political Parties Don't Get and Screwed Up.

 

[Rustic23]

I hearken back to the old statement 'How do you eat an elephant?' One bite at a time!' I am amazed that they did not break this up into several smaller bills. Hey think of the pork that could have gone into each one!