This is me, agreeing that health insurance reforms are necessary. AKA, how employers can screw you

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: You mean he needs to see/treat 6 medicare patients to make the same profit as seeing one patient with no insurance, right?

Sort of. In order to collect the same amount of money to keep his doors open, that doctor needs to see 6 Medicare patients to one patient with good insurance or cash. Medicare only pays $50/visit vs the $300 he can get from someone not on Medicare.

Ancillary problems, people can't talk to doctors in the 3 min they get seen or the reason for a bazillion tests, even when a quickstrep is all that is needed? Or how about getting into to get checked out by the doctor? Can't get in when you have to see those 6 before you. It's any wonder why ER's are PACKED with people who shouldn't be there, when they do have a primary care provider. It isn't because the doctor is off on some drug company "conference" in the Bahamas, it's he/she is seeing too many patients to keep the doors open. Ever wonder why there are so many ARNP's and PA's instead of doctors seeing patients? It is all because of the Medicare "rules" and probably only between 10-2 or 230.

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: You mean he needs to see/treat 6 medicare patients to make the same profit as seeing one patient with no insurance, right?

Yup

Ranger50 wrote:

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: You mean he needs to see/treat 6 medicare patients to make the same profit as seeing one patient with no insurance, right?

Sort of. In order to collect the same amount of money to keep his doors open, that doctor needs to see 6 Medicare patients to one patient with good insurance or cash. Medicare only pays $50/visit vs the $300 he can get from someone not on Medicare. Ancillary problems, people can't talk to doctors in the 3 min they get seen or the reason for a bazillion tests, even when a quickstrep is all that is needed? Or how about getting into to get checked out by the doctor? Can't get in when you have to see those 6 before you. It's any wonder why ER's are PACKED with people who shouldn't be there, when they do have a primary care provider. It isn't because the doctor is off on some drug company "conference" in the Bahamas, it's he/she is seeing too many patients to keep the doors open. Ever wonder why there are so many ARNP's and PA's instead of doctors seeing patients? It is all because of the Medicare "rules" and probably only between 10-2 or 230.

As an employee of the largest health insurance company in the US, i can tell you that the patient with the "good" insurance isn't making the doctor any large amount more money than the patient with Medicare. That is of course, assuming that the doctor is "in network."

If they're "out of network" then the doctor makes the same money off the patient as he would someone with no insurance at all.

There's a big difference between "billed charge" and "Usual and customary/contracted rates."

tuna55 wrote:

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: You mean he needs to see/treat 6 medicare patients to make the same profit as seeing one patient with no insurance, right?

Yup

There's really no problem with that at it's core. Medicare rarely undercuts us, and if the doctors were making no profit with insurance payouts and price slashing, they wouldn't bother trying to keep their network status.

All that means is that the one patient is getting taken advantage of, to be honest.

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: There's really no problem with that at it's core. Medicare rarely undercuts us, and if the doctors were making no profit with insurance payouts and price slashing, they wouldn't bother trying to keep their network status. All that means is that the one patient is getting taken advantage of, to be honest.

Typically it's the patient without insurance who's being charged exorbitant rates. Without medicare or private insurance to negotiate down the rate this person is on the road to bankruptcy due to one life threatening illness.

But hey, everything is fine. Just leave it the way it is. "Market forces" will work it out. Just like they have prior to this.

Xceler8x wrote: But hey, everything is fine. Just leave it the way it is. "Market forces" will work it out. Just like they have prior to this.

Hey now, that's the kind of talk that HAS NOT been around to flounder this or the Repub thread. Careful.

Notice I, the biggest free market advocate on the board (maybe) started this thread because of my issue with the current system. So your premise is wrong to start with, I don't want to leave it alone.

Xceler8x wrote:

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: There's really no problem with that at it's core. Medicare rarely undercuts us, and if the doctors were making no profit with insurance payouts and price slashing, they wouldn't bother trying to keep their network status. All that means is that the one patient is getting taken advantage of, to be honest.

Typically it's the patient without insurance who's being charged exorbitant rates. Without medicare or private insurance to negotiate down the rate this person is on the road to bankruptcy due to one life threatening illness. But hey, everything is fine. Just leave it the way it is. "Market forces" will work it out. Just like they have prior to this.

Right, and it's not... "right."

But it's all good.

Xceler8x wrote: Deny it all you want but it's a true. When you're faced with getting a physical or eating for two weeks. What choice is that?

Why eat? The same money can buy 100 lottery tickets or 15 bottles of Thunderbird.

There's an awful lot of bad choices involved in being poor in the United States today.

I never suggested people not eat. I was responding to your statement about "...making Emergency rooms the only option for the indigent and working poor". Nobody made these the only options.

I've spent decades working with impoverished people, and you are oversimplifying the problem and shifting responsibility when you blame the imaginary "they" who write non-existent policies forcing poor people to use the ER. Hogwash. It's another bad decision in a very long string of bad decisions that define the culture of poverty.

Drive through any inner city neighborhood, or Habitat for Humanity development. You'll see a lot of late model Cadillacs in the driveways.

Xceler8x wrote: I know you're a responsible and stand up guy so I know you did this. But there are degrees to being "poor". Some folks can't even afford the preventative care you were able to pay for. Some of those folks have no choice in the matter, aka kids of working poor parents or just deadbeat parents. The emergency room *is* their only healthcare option because they know they will not be turned away.

At the time that I referenced, I made $25 per week. That would put me pretty low on your "degree" scale. I was married with 2 kids (she also made $25 per week). Early '90's. That was significantly less than I would have made if I had collected welfare or food stamps, but I made other choices. I chose to not become a ward of the state. I chose to buy only what I could afford, and to prioritize my purchases. I chose to get over my pride and asked for help. I wanted to work my way out of that position, not get a hand-out.

I'm in a better place now. A lot of other people make different kinds of choices, some of which do not lead to them getting to a better place. Some of them can't make different choices because they do not know how.

The solution is to help them understand the other choices and enable them to succeed, not show them only one way that leads to continued bad choices.

When you suggest there are no other options, you are limiting the human spirit and taking from people the opportunity to grow out of their circumstances.

In reply to Xceler8x:

OK-Market forces ARE working it out. See the cash only doctor above. See the multiple businesses offering health care where you see the price before you are billed. See the people buying prescriptions from other countries. See HSA's etc... All this is happening while we allow a monopoly on health care by the health insurance companies. We haven't had a true "Free Market" for a long long time, and in this instance the supposed saviors (health insurance companies) are more likely the problem than the solution.

Xceler8x wrote: Typically it's the patient without insurance who's being charged exorbitant rates. Without medicare or private insurance to negotiate down the rate this person is on the road to bankruptcy due to one life threatening illness. But hey, everything is fine. Just leave it the way it is. "Market forces" will work it out. Just like they have prior to this.

That's not my experience.

As a person without insurance, I find that every medical professional and facility I have ever dealt with is completely open to discounting their fees ENORMOUSLY.

But, I don't have any statistics- only my own experiences. Can you further explain you assertion that "Typically it's the patient without insurance who's being charged exorbitant rates"? It's not my experience, but I'd like to see some data on this one.

SVreX wrote:

Xceler8x wrote: Typically it's the patient without insurance who's being charged exorbitant rates. Without medicare or private insurance to negotiate down the rate this person is on the road to bankruptcy due to one life threatening illness. But hey, everything is fine. Just leave it the way it is. "Market forces" will work it out. Just like they have prior to this.

That's not my experience. As a person without insurance, I find that every medical professional and facility I have ever dealt with is completely open to discounting their fees ENORMOUSLY. But, I don't have any statistics- only my own experiences. Can you further explain you assertion that "Typically it's the patient without insurance who's being charged exorbitant rates"? It's not my experience, but I'd like to see some data on this one.

The initial charge for a patient without insurance is the same as that for a patient with insurance. Except the person without insurance doesn't have the insurance company levying discounts for them.

Most people without insurance won't ask or try to have the rate discounted.

If a doctor charges $300 for a 30 minute consultation, that's what he charges whether you have insurance or not. The difference is that the patient that has insurance might have it knocked down to $80 automatically. Patient without? Won't.

I have the data, but i can't show it to you without being fired, unfortunately. HIPAA laws and all that.

In reply to 92CelicaHalfTrac:

My father is one of those without insurance. He gets great rates when he does go to the Dr. I can't say whether they are different than what an insurance company actually pays, but they are different than what the ins company is initially billed.

Xceler8x wrote: But hey, everything is fine. Just leave it the way it is. "Market forces" will work it out. Just like they have prior to this.

Please feel free to demonstrate WHEN, in the last 40 years, we've actually had a free market healthcare system?

And why is "leave everything as it is now" automatically the only alternative to socialized medicine?

I don't understand why we can't have a third choice. Make it like car insurance. Pay for your physicals, sniffles ect and when something big comes along put it through insurance. It would cut back on the people who run in for every little thing, and hopefully bring down the cost. I have a good plan that I only pay a part of and I'm paying almost $300 a month for two people. that seem a bit high since I only go once a year and my wife goes three times. Given the option I think most people would come out ahead paying cash for any vist under x amount and making it up on lower premiums.

Wally wrote: I don't understand why we can't have a third choice. Make it like car insurance. Pay for your physicals, sniffles ect and when something big comes along put it through insurance. It would cut back on the people who run in for every little thing, and hopefully bring down the cost. I have a good plan that I only pay a part of and I'm paying almost $300 a month for two people. that seem a bit high since I only go once a year and my wife goes three times. Given the option I think most people would come out ahead paying cash for any vist under x amount and making it up on lower premiums.

Wally, I agree. The tough part is (for me, anyway) how do you make that system happen? I can't think of real legislation that could be written such that health insurance is approached like that.

tuna55 wrote:

Wally wrote: I don't understand why we can't have a third choice. Make it like car insurance. Pay for your physicals, sniffles ect and when something big comes along put it through insurance. It would cut back on the people who run in for every little thing, and hopefully bring down the cost. I have a good plan that I only pay a part of and I'm paying almost $300 a month for two people. that seem a bit high since I only go once a year and my wife goes three times. Given the option I think most people would come out ahead paying cash for any vist under x amount and making it up on lower premiums.

Wally, I agree. The tough part is (for me, anyway) how do you make that system happen? I can't think of real legislation that could be written such that health insurance is approached like that.

Isn't that what catastrophic insurance coverage is for?

tuna55 wrote:

Wally wrote: I don't understand why we can't have a third choice. Make it like car insurance. Pay for your physicals, sniffles ect and when something big comes along put it through insurance. It would cut back on the people who run in for every little thing, and hopefully bring down the cost. I have a good plan that I only pay a part of and I'm paying almost $300 a month for two people. that seem a bit high since I only go once a year and my wife goes three times. Given the option I think most people would come out ahead paying cash for any vist under x amount and making it up on lower premiums.

Wally, I agree. The tough part is (for me, anyway) how do you make that system happen? I can't think of real legislation that could be written such that health insurance is approached like that.

That's what I have. It's a high deductible plan. No copays, no other BS. I pay every penny up to $2000, then 10% up to $3000, then nothing. It's cheap. I pay less than $1000 a year for this coverage (was less than $500 / year until the increases from Obamacare landed). Given that I go to the doctor about once every 5 years, it's perfect.

I'm a strategic business planner for a health system that sees millions of visits per year. I keep wanting to jump into this but I just wind up writing a never ending screed.

I do not think there's a way that a free market can provide efficient, equitable care.

There'd still be a huge trend towards consolidation as payors and payees jostled to become the biggest and thus the one who could bargain for the most favorable reimbursement rates. When the dust settled, you'd wind up at the mercy of one of the two insurers left standing and trust me, they'd make Comcast look pleasant to deal with. The smaller insurers and individuals would still pay wildly unfair prices due to their weak bargaining power. The trend would still be for an aging population, with fewer workers to support them and ever widening wealth disparities locking a gigantic minority of Americans out of the market entirely. The supply of doctors and facilities would continue to lag the market's demand. Competition among providers to go after the most high-profit patients in the best markets would leave huge disease groups completely unserved by quality providers (as it is, try to find a pediatric psych bed free within an hour of your home). The list of pitfalls goes on and on.

Though it would put me out of a job, I think we should have a single payor system and ration care. There's no reason to reinvent the wheel when we have dozens of countries to use as an example.

DILYSI Dave wrote:

tuna55 wrote:

Wally wrote: I don't understand why we can't have a third choice. Make it like car insurance. Pay for your physicals, sniffles ect and when something big comes along put it through insurance. It would cut back on the people who run in for every little thing, and hopefully bring down the cost. I have a good plan that I only pay a part of and I'm paying almost $300 a month for two people. that seem a bit high since I only go once a year and my wife goes three times. Given the option I think most people would come out ahead paying cash for any vist under x amount and making it up on lower premiums.

Wally, I agree. The tough part is (for me, anyway) how do you make that system happen? I can't think of real legislation that could be written such that health insurance is approached like that.

That's what I have. It's a high deductible plan. No copays, no other BS. I pay every penny up to $2000, then 10% up to $3000, then nothing. It's cheap. I pay less than $1000 a year for this coverage (was less than $500 / year until the increases from Obamacare landed). Given that I go to the doctor about once every 5 years, it's perfect.

I have one too, but I don't think that's what Wally was saying, at least that's not what I interpreted. What I think he meant is, say any visit for anything under $500 you pay yourself, and anything over you actually submit a claim to an insurance company. Like car insurance, where the deductible is per claim, not per year.

tuna55 wrote:

DILYSI Dave wrote:

tuna55 wrote:

Wally wrote: I don't understand why we can't have a third choice. Make it like car insurance. Pay for your physicals, sniffles ect and when something big comes along put it through insurance. It would cut back on the people who run in for every little thing, and hopefully bring down the cost. I have a good plan that I only pay a part of and I'm paying almost $300 a month for two people. that seem a bit high since I only go once a year and my wife goes three times. Given the option I think most people would come out ahead paying cash for any vist under x amount and making it up on lower premiums.

Wally, I agree. The tough part is (for me, anyway) how do you make that system happen? I can't think of real legislation that could be written such that health insurance is approached like that.

That's what I have. It's a high deductible plan. No copays, no other BS. I pay every penny up to $2000, then 10% up to $3000, then nothing. It's cheap. I pay less than $1000 a year for this coverage (was less than $500 / year until the increases from Obamacare landed). Given that I go to the doctor about once every 5 years, it's perfect.

I have one too, but I don't think that's what Wally was saying, at least that's not what I interpreted. What I think he meant is, say any visit for anything under $500 you pay yourself, and anything over you actually submit a claim to an insurance company. Like car insurance, where the deductible is per claim, not per year.

Health insurance as we know it today isn't "insurance." It's more like a lifetime limited warranty.

Your car insurance policy doesn't pay for oil changes and tire rotations. Why does health insurance pay for routine yearly physicals?

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:

tuna55 wrote:

DILYSI Dave wrote:

tuna55 wrote:

Wally wrote: I don't understand why we can't have a third choice. Make it like car insurance. Pay for your physicals, sniffles ect and when something big comes along put it through insurance. It would cut back on the people who run in for every little thing, and hopefully bring down the cost. I have a good plan that I only pay a part of and I'm paying almost $300 a month for two people. that seem a bit high since I only go once a year and my wife goes three times. Given the option I think most people would come out ahead paying cash for any vist under x amount and making it up on lower premiums.

Wally, I agree. The tough part is (for me, anyway) how do you make that system happen? I can't think of real legislation that could be written such that health insurance is approached like that.

That's what I have. It's a high deductible plan. No copays, no other BS. I pay every penny up to $2000, then 10% up to $3000, then nothing. It's cheap. I pay less than $1000 a year for this coverage (was less than $500 / year until the increases from Obamacare landed). Given that I go to the doctor about once every 5 years, it's perfect.

I have one too, but I don't think that's what Wally was saying, at least that's not what I interpreted. What I think he meant is, say any visit for anything under $500 you pay yourself, and anything over you actually submit a claim to an insurance company. Like car insurance, where the deductible is per claim, not per year.

Health insurance as we know it today isn't "insurance." It's more like a lifetime limited warranty. Your car insurance policy doesn't pay for oil changes and tire rotations. Why does health insurance pay for routine yearly physicals?

Preaching to the choir man...

Thanks for your insight!

ppddppdd wrote: I think we should have a single payor system and ration care. There's no reason to reinvent the wheel when we have dozens of countries to use as an example.

I tend to agree with this approach as long as individuals can opt-out IF they have (or will) maintain personal insurance policies. Those who choose to join the "system" can pay (or forfeit a portion of their benefits) to receive some necessary healthcare. Those who don't join get to choose personal coverage that suits their particular needs or negotiate directly with their chosen healthcare provider.

DILYSI Dave wrote:

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:

tuna55 wrote:

DILYSI Dave wrote:

tuna55 wrote:

Wally wrote: I don't understand why we can't have a third choice. Make it like car insurance. Pay for your physicals, sniffles ect and when something big comes along put it through insurance. It would cut back on the people who run in for every little thing, and hopefully bring down the cost. I have a good plan that I only pay a part of and I'm paying almost $300 a month for two people. that seem a bit high since I only go once a year and my wife goes three times. Given the option I think most people would come out ahead paying cash for any vist under x amount and making it up on lower premiums.

Wally, I agree. The tough part is (for me, anyway) how do you make that system happen? I can't think of real legislation that could be written such that health insurance is approached like that.

That's what I have. It's a high deductible plan. No copays, no other BS. I pay every penny up to $2000, then 10% up to $3000, then nothing. It's cheap. I pay less than $1000 a year for this coverage (was less than $500 / year until the increases from Obamacare landed). Given that I go to the doctor about once every 5 years, it's perfect.

I have one too, but I don't think that's what Wally was saying, at least that's not what I interpreted. What I think he meant is, say any visit for anything under $500 you pay yourself, and anything over you actually submit a claim to an insurance company. Like car insurance, where the deductible is per claim, not per year.

Health insurance as we know it today isn't "insurance." It's more like a lifetime limited warranty. Your car insurance policy doesn't pay for oil changes and tire rotations. Why does health insurance pay for routine yearly physicals?

Preaching to the choir man...

OK, so once again the question becomes "How do you legislate this type of system?" Is it just a matter of us all writing letters to ins companies to petition this type of service?

tuna55 wrote:

DILYSI Dave wrote:

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:

tuna55 wrote:

DILYSI Dave wrote:

tuna55 wrote:

Wally wrote: I don't understand why we can't have a third choice. Make it like car insurance. Pay for your physicals, sniffles ect and when something big comes along put it through insurance. It would cut back on the people who run in for every little thing, and hopefully bring down the cost. I have a good plan that I only pay a part of and I'm paying almost $300 a month for two people. that seem a bit high since I only go once a year and my wife goes three times. Given the option I think most people would come out ahead paying cash for any vist under x amount and making it up on lower premiums.

Wally, I agree. The tough part is (for me, anyway) how do you make that system happen? I can't think of real legislation that could be written such that health insurance is approached like that.

That's what I have. It's a high deductible plan. No copays, no other BS. I pay every penny up to $2000, then 10% up to $3000, then nothing. It's cheap. I pay less than $1000 a year for this coverage (was less than $500 / year until the increases from Obamacare landed). Given that I go to the doctor about once every 5 years, it's perfect.

I have one too, but I don't think that's what Wally was saying, at least that's not what I interpreted. What I think he meant is, say any visit for anything under $500 you pay yourself, and anything over you actually submit a claim to an insurance company. Like car insurance, where the deductible is per claim, not per year.

Health insurance as we know it today isn't "insurance." It's more like a lifetime limited warranty. Your car insurance policy doesn't pay for oil changes and tire rotations. Why does health insurance pay for routine yearly physicals?

Preaching to the choir man...

OK, so once again the question becomes "How do you legislate this type of system?" Is it just a matter of us all writing letters to ins companies to petition this type of service?

Doubt that would work. As an insider, i bet the companies would be glad to turn into "real" insurance. It's the general public that wants this. We're the minority. The general public just says "Ooooo!!!!! $20 office visit! Me likey!!!" and then doesn't think any further than that.

tuna55 wrote:

Xceler8x wrote: But hey, everything is fine. Just leave it the way it is. "Market forces" will work it out. Just like they have prior to this.

Hey now, that's the kind of talk that HAS NOT been around to flounder this or the Repub thread. Careful. Notice I, the biggest free market advocate on the board (maybe) started this thread because of my issue with the current system. So your premise is wrong to start with, I don't want to leave it alone.

Sorry chief! Wasn't trying to make it personal or rile you. I was just parroting what I hear some folks saying in response to Obamacare. It seems they don't like the legislated option but when asked for their alternative....you hear nothing but crickets. Which leads me to believe that it's more about saying "No!" than it is about finding a solution.

That or you have people, posters here excluded, yammering about "free markets" like we haven't had deregulated markets that got us into this. If you don't regulate or direct insurance companies and health providers they then collude against us to their benefit.

We didn't get to this point of extreme healthcare costs because the government was running healthcare for eons. We got here precisely because the government WAS NOT involved in healthcare for eons. Again, my opinion. I'm sure at least 50 - 70% of you disagree.

SVreX wrote: Why eat? The same money can buy 100 lottery tickets or 15 bottles of Thunderbird. There's an awful lot of bad choices involved in being poor in the United States today. I never suggested people not eat. I was responding to your statement about "...making Emergency rooms the only option for the indigent and working poor". Nobody made these the only options. I've spent decades working with impoverished people, and you are oversimplifying the problem and shifting responsibility when you blame the imaginary "they" who write non-existent policies forcing poor people to use the ER. Hogwash. It's another bad decision in a very long string of bad decisions that define the culture of poverty. Drive through any inner city neighborhood, or Habitat for Humanity development. You'll see a lot of late model Cadillacs in the driveways.

Sure. There are some people who make bad choices and buy lotto tickets, 40's, and Cadillacs instead of healthcare. There are plenty of folks who make bad choices and run up credit cards buying SUV's, fashionable clothes, and sending their kids to questionable private institutions for supposed educations. I see that too. But why punish the guy who's working his 40+ a week and still can't afford healthcare? What if he's made all the right decisions and is still behind the 8-ball when it comes to taking care of his kids?

What I get from your statements is that you feel that people must have earned or choosen their way into poverty. It couldn't have happened because they lost their jobs, went to substandard schools, or have already suffered a medical crisis they could not afford. Is this your point? That most poor people have made choices dictating their financial status?

I think this is possible. Some have made poor decisions and ended up destitute from it. I think there are also people who are poor due to circumstance. The people suffering from misfortune deserve our help. WWJD? Turn people away because he disagreed with their choices or help the hungry because they were hungry?

SVreX wrote:

Xceler8x wrote: I know you're a responsible and stand up guy so I know you did this. But there are degrees to being "poor". Some folks can't even afford the preventative care you were able to pay for. Some of those folks have no choice in the matter, aka kids of working poor parents or just deadbeat parents. The emergency room *is* their only healthcare option because they know they will not be turned away.

At the time that I referenced, I made $25 per week. That would put me pretty low on your "degree" scale. I was married with 2 kids (she also made $25 per week). Early '90's. That was significantly less than I would have made if I had collected welfare or food stamps, but I made other choices. I chose to not become a ward of the state. I chose to buy only what I could afford, and to prioritize my purchases. I chose to get over my pride and asked for help. I wanted to work my way out of that position, not get a hand-out. I'm in a better place now. A lot of other people make different kinds of choices, some of which do not lead to them getting to a better place. Some of them can't make different choices because they do not know how. The solution is to help them understand the other choices and enable them to succeed, not show them only one way that leads to continued bad choices. When you suggest there are no other options, you are limiting the human spirit and taking from people the opportunity to grow out of their circumstances.

I'm curious. You said " I chose to get over my pride and asked for help." Where did that help come from? No doubt your were in a tight spot. I commend you for making your way out. I don't see how anyone could live on $200 a month here in VA.

From reading between the lines here I think we agree in that most people do have the ability to "grow out of their circumstances." I think this is completely doable assuming they have the right help and education. To expect someone who is down and out to just change their ways, their habits, their outlook enough to magically transform on their own? I don't see that. I think some folks need financial education as well as financial help that may not be available to them from other sources.

Duke wrote: Please feel free to demonstrate WHEN, in the last 40 years, we've actually **had** a free market healthcare system? And why is "leave everything as it is now" automatically the *only* alternative to socialized medicine?

When have we haven't had a free market system for healthcare? Has healthcare costs and care been heavily regulated in the past? I don't see it. Premiums go up as the insurance company demands. Care is denied enough so that it's a public concern with citizens demanding laws against denial of care. If a law needs to be made, regulation isn't there. Maybe we're defining a free market differently.

Socialized medicine isn't the only option. It's the best option imo. Some things just don't work as for profit ventures. Fire fighting is an example. This social service was socialized for a reason. Check out the history of NYC fire dept's for a primer. They used to show up, see your house on fire, and ask you how much you were willing to pay - right F'in then - for them to put it out. You didn't pay enough? They left. "Good luck with your house fire pal!" If two fire companies showed up, they'd sometimes get into a fist fight over who was going to fight the fire and charge the owner INSTEAD OF putting out the fire. Come to think of it, a lot of this policy does sound like healthcare now.

Today we pay taxes and fire fighters are paid from those taxes for the benefit of us all. When your house is on fire they show up and put it, again, to the benefit of us all. Socialism in this case works. Socialism in the case of modern healthcare works in other countries as well. It will work here.