Is this a politics board or is it board where middle aged men can jerk each other off try to show each other how witty they are? It can be both you know.
But for it to be both, people have to actually be willing to discuss politics and not just hide behind their passive agressive Kunt acts when they start wading into deeper waters.
This is not a politics board and yes we all try to jerk each other off with witty comments (something I'm clearly shitty at). I figured race would have given you the lay of the land before the invite.
That being said, every now and then a serious debate forms and people like you are like Houston. You can't even admit you are wrong when the facts are right in front of you. So it devolves into what it is. And yes I admitted I was wrong on the 60k a couple times but your obsession won't let you read and you just want to argue. So yes I then start to troll you with bullshit cause it's funny as fuck to me. Annoying to most others around here. Enjoy the circle of the tug.
Is this a politics board or is it board where middle aged men can jerk each other off try to show each other how witty they are? It can be both you know.
But for it to be both, people have to actually be willing to discuss politics and not just hide behind their passive agressive Kunt acts when they start wading into deeper waters.
This is not a politics board and yes we all try to jerk each other off with witty comments (something I'm clearly shitty at). I figured race would have given you the lay of the land before the invite.
That being said, every now and then a serious debate forms and people like you are like Houston. You can't even admit you are wrong when the facts are right in front of you. So it devolves into what it is. And yes I admitted I was wrong on the 60k a couple times but your obsession won't let you read and you just want to argue. So yes I then start to troll you with bullshit cause it's funny as fuck to me. Annoying to most others around here. Enjoy the circle of the tug.
Is this a politics board or is it board where middle aged men can jerk each other off try to show each other how witty they are? It can be both you know.
But for it to be both, people have to actually be willing to discuss politics and not just hide behind their passive agressive Kunt acts when they start wading into deeper waters.
This is not a politics board and yes we all try to jerk each other off with witty comments (something I'm clearly shitty at). I figured race would have given you the lay of the land before the invite.
That being said, every now and then a serious debate forms and people like you are like Houston. You can't even admit you are wrong when the facts are right in front of you. So it devolves into what it is. And yes I admitted I was wrong on the 60k a couple times but your obsession won't let you read and you just want to argue. So yes I then start to troll you with bullshit cause it's funny as fuck to me. Annoying to most others around here. Enjoy the circle of the tug.
Just shut the fuck up
This bored would be great without you
When you're gone it is
You can't quit me Race. You had to bring in backup to fuck it up worse.
Is this a politics board or is it board where middle aged men can jerk each other off try to show each other how witty they are? It can be both you know.
But for it to be both, people have to actually be willing to discuss politics and not just hide behind their passive agressive Kunt acts when they start wading into deeper waters.
This is not a politics board and yes we all try to jerk each other off with witty comments (something I'm clearly shitty at). I figured race would have given you the lay of the land before the invite.
That being said, every now and then a serious debate forms and people like you are like Houston. You can't even admit you are wrong when the facts are right in front of you. So it devolves into what it is. And yes I admitted I was wrong on the 60k a couple times but your obsession won't let you read and you just want to argue. So yes I then start to troll you with bullshit cause it's funny as fuck to me. Annoying to most others around here. Enjoy the circle of the tug.
Just shut the fuck up
This bored would be great without you
When you're gone it is
You can't quit me Race. You had to bring in backup to fuck it up worse.
I didn't bring anything or need anything
The only thing fucking this bored is you. Even @CoachThomas knows it
Is this a politics board or is it board where middle aged men can jerk each other off try to show each other how witty they are? It can be both you know.
But for it to be both, people have to actually be willing to discuss politics and not just hide behind their passive agressive Kunt acts when they start wading into deeper waters.
This is not a politics board and yes we all try to jerk each other off with witty comments (something I'm clearly shitty at). I figured race would have given you the lay of the land before the invite.
That being said, every now and then a serious debate forms and people like you are like Houston. You can't even admit you are wrong when the facts are right in front of you. So it devolves into what it is. And yes I admitted I was wrong on the 60k a couple times but your obsession won't let you read and you just want to argue. So yes I then start to troll you with bullshit cause it's funny as fuck to me. Annoying to most others around here. Enjoy the circle of the tug.
You admitted that you were "wrong" by claiming that we were both wrong and by lying about the numbers I provided. It was like the guy who apologizes to his wife for beating her but says "I wouldn't have done it if you hadn't pissed me off."
You know I never did get back to you in that thread. I want to know why you believe that Federal Government should be paying for people's healthcare. Why did we go so many years in country's history where that idea would have been unfathomable and now it's just accepted and even called a "right?"
And do you really believe that we constituted a Federal government and gave it power over our lives so that it could be a retirement and health insurance operation that also has a military?
I think you're right that the scope of the federal government reaches beyond what the Founders probably imagined.
I don't mind, though.
From what I understand, a decent chunk of Americans see a danger of federal overreach and would prefer a small-c conservative approach that adheres to the limited federal government that is enshrined in the constitution. That's fair. That's reasonable. I get it.
But I think American federalism changed in response to four historical periods, and I'm glad it did:
1. Civil War and Reconstruction (with the Reconstruction-era constitutional amendments that followed)
2. The Progressive Era
3. Great Depression
4. Civil Rights era
I see no problem with American voters supporting federal social programs, including Social Security and Medicare. And I think an expansion of government-supported healthcare would be in line with the historical evolution of the federal government as well as the U.S. Constitution (although I realize you probably disagree with the Supreme Court decisions that would allow for it).
Why expand Medicare into a single-payer-type system for everyone? I want better results, as measured by percentage of GDP spent on healthcare and by health outcomes such as life expectancy, infant mortality, and maternal mortality. I think the system we have had for decades isn't working well enough. We spend more on healthcare and yet get worse results than pretty much any other wealthy nation. Every system is flawed. But those of Canada, France, and others seem better in key respects.
I also think it could be better for the economy and, in some respects, individual freedom. American employers spend too much on their employees' healthcare. Those expenditures would be better reallocated on investments and the like. And people could take more entrepreneurial risks if they didn't have to worry about healthcare. Right now, health insurance is too tied to employment. Lose your job, you're screwed, although less so than before the ACA.
I could write more, but this is probably long enough for now.
You know I never did get back to you in that thread. I want to know why you believe that Federal Government should be paying for people's healthcare. Why did we go so many years in country's history where that idea would have been unfathomable and now it's just accepted and even called a "right?"
And do you really believe that we constituted a Federal government and gave it power over our lives so that it could be a retirement and health insurance operation that also has a military?
I think you're right that the scope of the federal government reaches beyond what the Founders probably imagined.
I don't mind, though.
From what I understand, a decent chunk of Americans see a danger of federal overreach and would prefer a small-c conservative approach that adheres to the limited federal government that is enshrined in the constitution. That's fair. That's reasonable. I get it.
But I think American federalism changed in response to four historical periods, and I'm glad it did:
1. Civil War and Reconstruction (with the Reconstruction-era constitutional amendments that followed)
2. The Progressive Era
3. Great Depression
4. Civil Rights era
I see no problem with American voters supporting federal social programs, including Social Security and Medicare. And I think an expansion of government-supported healthcare would be in line with the historical evolution of the federal government as well as the U.S. Constitution (although I realize you probably disagree with the Supreme Court decisions that would allow for it).
Why expand Medicare into a single-payer-type system for everyone? I want better results, as measured by percentage of GDP spent on healthcare and by health outcomes such as life expectancy, infant mortality, and maternal mortality. I think the system we have had for decades isn't working well enough. We spend more on healthcare and yet get worse results than pretty much any other wealthy nation. Every system is flawed. But those of Canada, France, and others seem better in key respects.
I also think it could be better for the economy and, in some respects, individual freedom. American employers spend too much on their employees' healthcare. Those expenditures would be better reallocated on investments and the like. And people could take more entrepreneurial risks if they didn't have to worry about healthcare. Right now, health insurance is too tied to employment. Lose your job, you're screwed, although less so than before the ACA.
I could write more, but this is probably long enough for now.
To add on to your last point. How many people don't leave their job and take a risk on a new venture because the cost of health Care? Cobra is there but the cost is astronomical. It's been a consideration of mine throughout my life and I was on my own a couple times contacting. Health insurance sucks when your employer doesn't pay for it.
You know I never did get back to you in that thread. I want to know why you believe that Federal Government should be paying for people's healthcare. Why did we go so many years in country's history where that idea would have been unfathomable and now it's just accepted and even called a "right?"
And do you really believe that we constituted a Federal government and gave it power over our lives so that it could be a retirement and health insurance operation that also has a military?
I think you're right that the scope of the federal government reaches beyond what the Founders probably imagined.
I don't mind, though.
From what I understand, a decent chunk of Americans see a danger of federal overreach and would prefer a small-c conservative approach that adheres to the limited federal government that is enshrined in the constitution. That's fair. That's reasonable. I get it.
But I think American federalism changed in response to four historical periods, and I'm glad it did:
1. Civil War and Reconstruction (with the Reconstruction-era constitutional amendments that followed)
2. The Progressive Era
3. Great Depression
4. Civil Rights era
I see no problem with American voters supporting federal social programs, including Social Security and Medicare. And I think an expansion of government-supported healthcare would be in line with the historical evolution of the federal government as well as the U.S. Constitution (although I realize you probably disagree with the Supreme Court decisions that would allow for it).
Why expand Medicare into a single-payer-type system for everyone? I want better results, as measured by percentage of GDP spent on healthcare and by health outcomes such as life expectancy, infant mortality, and maternal mortality. I think the system we have had for decades isn't working well enough. We spend more on healthcare and yet get worse results than pretty much any other wealthy nation. Every system is flawed. But those of Canada, France, and others seem better in key respects.
I also think it could be better for the economy and, in some respects, individual freedom. American employers spend too much on their employees' healthcare. Those expenditures would be better reallocated on investments and the like. And people could take more entrepreneurial risks if they didn't have to worry about healthcare. Right now, health insurance is too tied to employment. Lose your job, you're screwed, although less so than before the ACA.
I could write more, but this is probably long enough for now.
The 3rd party payer system is the biggest problem we have with our healthcare system. As government got more involved in healthcare taking on more of the costs that's when costs really started to explode. The graph that someone posted here in that other thread illustrated that fact nicely.
What I'd like to do is greatly expand the use of medical savings accounts so that people are contributing to them during all of their working years. Make the contributions pre-taxes, allow the money in the accounts to be invested and only allow healthcare expenditures to be made from the account. When the person dies the account is treated as a personal asset that can be willed to someone else.
If people were more directly involved with what they were paying for their healthcare you'd start to see some market pressure on price. There would be incentive to not just continue medical treatment when there little or no chance of success.
You can tell when we get to a healthy medical insurance market. We will be inundated with advertisements from health care providers and insurers. In Portland, Leif’s car repair has more advertisements than Kaiser, United Healthcare and Blue Cross combined. Let alone the ferocious competition for car insurance – State Farm, Farmer’s, Geico, Progressive, Liberty Mutual, the General and USAA all compete for your business and drive down costs.
Lasik? Not covered by medical insurance. Gets better and cheaper every year. Same with boob jobs and liposuction. Free market competition provides for lower costs and better service. You single government providers for some reason think that I want the VA to cover my families insurance. No thanks.
The 3rd party payer system is the biggest problem we have with our healthcare system. As government got more involved in healthcare taking on more of the costs that's when costs really started to explode. The graph that someone posted here in that other thread illustrated that fact nicely.
What I'd like to do is greatly expand the use of medical savings accounts so that people are contributing to them during all of their working years. Make the contributions pre-taxes, allow the money in the accounts to be invested and only allow healthcare expenditures to be made from the account. When the person dies the account is treated as a personal asset that can be willed to someone else.
If people were more directly involved with what they were paying for their healthcare you'd start to see some market pressure on price. There would be incentive to not just continue medical treatment when there little or no chance of success.
The problem with people being directly involved with what they are paying is the vast majority of medical expenses covered by insurance are not discretionary. You want to buy a car so you shop around and find the car and the price you want or you keep your old car. The medical world isn't like that. I had a kidney stone, I can't go call around for the cheapest place to get treated to find out why it feels like my kidney is giving birth.
The 3rd party payer system is the biggest problem we have with our healthcare system. As government got more involved in healthcare taking on more of the costs that's when costs really started to explode. The graph that someone posted here in that other thread illustrated that fact nicely.
What I'd like to do is greatly expand the use of medical savings accounts so that people are contributing to them during all of their working years. Make the contributions pre-taxes, allow the money in the accounts to be invested and only allow healthcare expenditures to be made from the account. When the person dies the account is treated as a personal asset that can be willed to someone else.
If people were more directly involved with what they were paying for their healthcare you'd start to see some market pressure on price. There would be incentive to not just continue medical treatment when there little or no chance of success.
The problem with people being directly involved with what they are paying is the vast majority of medical expenses covered by insurance are not discretionary. You want to buy a car so you shop around and find the car and the price you want or you keep your old car. The medical world isn't like that. I had a kidney stone, I can't go call around for the cheapest place to get treated to find out why it feels like my kidney is giving birth.
So the medical world couldn't advertise the prices they charge for dealing with a kidney stone? Why not?
The 3rd party payer system is the biggest problem we have with our healthcare system. As government got more involved in healthcare taking on more of the costs that's when costs really started to explode. The graph that someone posted here in that other thread illustrated that fact nicely.
What I'd like to do is greatly expand the use of medical savings accounts so that people are contributing to them during all of their working years. Make the contributions pre-taxes, allow the money in the accounts to be invested and only allow healthcare expenditures to be made from the account. When the person dies the account is treated as a personal asset that can be willed to someone else.
If people were more directly involved with what they were paying for their healthcare you'd start to see some market pressure on price. There would be incentive to not just continue medical treatment when there little or no chance of success.
The problem with people being directly involved with what they are paying is the vast majority of medical expenses covered by insurance are not discretionary. You want to buy a car so you shop around and find the car and the price you want or you keep your old car. The medical world isn't like that. I had a kidney stone, I can't go call around for the cheapest place to get treated to find out why it feels like my kidney is giving birth.
So the medical world couldn't advertise the prices they charge for dealing with a kidney stone? Why not?
Because there's no market forces needed for them to do that. The only way to make that happen is through government intervention. Which you are against.
The 3rd party payer system is the biggest problem we have with our healthcare system. As government got more involved in healthcare taking on more of the costs that's when costs really started to explode. The graph that someone posted here in that other thread illustrated that fact nicely.
What I'd like to do is greatly expand the use of medical savings accounts so that people are contributing to them during all of their working years. Make the contributions pre-taxes, allow the money in the accounts to be invested and only allow healthcare expenditures to be made from the account. When the person dies the account is treated as a personal asset that can be willed to someone else.
If people were more directly involved with what they were paying for their healthcare you'd start to see some market pressure on price. There would be incentive to not just continue medical treatment when there little or no chance of success.
The problem with people being directly involved with what they are paying is the vast majority of medical expenses covered by insurance are not discretionary. You want to buy a car so you shop around and find the car and the price you want or you keep your old car. The medical world isn't like that. I had a kidney stone, I can't go call around for the cheapest place to get treated to find out why it feels like my kidney is giving birth.
So the medical world couldn't advertise the prices they charge for dealing with a kidney stone? Why not?
Because there's no market forces needed for them to do that. The only way to make that happen is through government intervention. Which you are against.
This is beyond stupid. The changes I advocated and clearly stated would create the market forces needed to that. The government wouldn't need to intervene in order make people advertise their prices any more than the government intervenes in order make lasik providers advertise their prices.
Sometimes you need to just keep your mouth shut Hondo.
Fundamentally, the degree of information asymmetry between the buyer (the patient) and the seller (the provider) prevents health care from conforming to the theoretical tenets of free-market economics. Kenneth Arrow famously contended that the uncertainty intrinsic to health care makes it unique from other goods and services. The health economist Bob Evans has argued that not only has there never been a pure free market in health care but that “inherent characteristics of health and health care make it impossible that there ever could be.” On the contrary, he argues, attempts to inject market mechanisms into health care are fundamentally about redistribution. As health-care costs are shifted from public to out-of-pocket sources, those with higher incomes invariably benefit.
Fundamentally, the degree of information asymmetry between the buyer (the patient) and the seller (the provider) prevents health care from conforming to the theoretical tenets of free-market economics. Kenneth Arrow famously contended that the uncertainty intrinsic to health care makes it unique from other goods and services. The health economist Bob Evans has argued that not only has there never been a pure free market in health care but that “inherent characteristics of health and health care make it impossible that there ever could be.” On the contrary, he argues, attempts to inject market mechanisms into health care are fundamentally about redistribution. As health-care costs are shifted from public to out-of-pocket sources, those with higher incomes invariably benefit.
First off the argument about a "pure free market" is a red herring that's not what I'm advocating and you could never achieve it on account of the number of poor and disabled people that would still need some kind of public care option.
Yes, people with higher incomes would benefit. Just like they benefit now. They get to live in bigger houses, drive nicer cars and take better vacations but they also improve the goods and services for the non-wealthy over time. It's not as if the wealthy don't have better access and healthcare right now.
The 3rd party payer system is the biggest problem we have with our healthcare system. As government got more involved in healthcare taking on more of the costs that's when costs really started to explode. The graph that someone posted here in that other thread illustrated that fact nicely.
What I'd like to do is greatly expand the use of medical savings accounts so that people are contributing to them during all of their working years. Make the contributions pre-taxes, allow the money in the accounts to be invested and only allow healthcare expenditures to be made from the account. When the person dies the account is treated as a personal asset that can be willed to someone else.
If people were more directly involved with what they were paying for their healthcare you'd start to see some market pressure on price. There would be incentive to not just continue medical treatment when there little or no chance of success.
The problem with people being directly involved with what they are paying is the vast majority of medical expenses covered by insurance are not discretionary. You want to buy a car so you shop around and find the car and the price you want or you keep your old car. The medical world isn't like that. I had a kidney stone, I can't go call around for the cheapest place to get treated to find out why it feels like my kidney is giving birth.
So the medical world couldn't advertise the prices they charge for dealing with a kidney stone? Why not?
Because there's no market forces needed for them to do that. The only way to make that happen is through government intervention. Which you are against.
This is beyond stupid. The changes I advocated and clearly stated would create the market forces needed to that. The government wouldn't need to intervene in order make people advertise their prices any more than the government intervenes in order make lasik providers advertise their prices.
Sometimes you need to just keep your mouth shut Hondo.
No there are no market forces causes medical providers to advertise prices because they are not elective. Elective procedures like invisiline and plastic surgery, prices are up front and open. There's no need to advertise Cancer Care or the cost of a CT scan or whatever. Cause if you need one you need it. Now.
But keep calling me stupid. Weren't you just arguing for an end to the name calling and wanting actual discussion?
First off the argument about a "pure free market" is a red herring that's not what I'm advocating and you could never achieve it on account of the number of poor and disabled people that would still need some kind of public care option.
Yes, people with higher incomes would benefit. Just like they benefit now. They get to live in bigger houses, drive nicer cars and take better vacations but they also improve the goods and services for the non-wealthy over time. It's not as if the wealthy don't have better access and healthcare right now.
Fair enough. And along the lines of your point, in the Canadian system, the wealthy are still free to obtain healthcare from a parallel private system.
Health savings accounts are interesting. I see some problems that may or not be solvable:
1. They create financial disincentives for people to obtain preventative care, which has been shown by research to be the best way to reduce costs and improve outcomes.
2. They siphon funds away from insurance funds. Less money would be available to pay for care for the sick people using healthcare.
3. A disproportionately large amount of healthcare is devoted to a small percentage of the population. (I've seen 69% goes to 10%.) For sick people, HSAs wouldn't be enough.
4. In many rural areas, there is not much choice of healthcare provider. There's one local doctor, one nearby hospital, etc.
I need to figure out why this board eats a number of my posts when I try to edit the content.
Oh well.
I want actual discussion and I don't give a crap if you call me a name. I'm just going to respond in kind. How about this, what you're saying is stupid.
There are literally thousand of medical procedures that are entirely elective. My youngest just had his tonsils taken out. The entire thing was elective. I had no incentive to search for someone to do it for a cheaper price because I wasn't paying for it and I never saw a bill.
Hip replacement, Achilles tendon repair, knee replacement, you name it. Hell I used to take my kid in for strep throat, (thus the tonsil removal) all the time to see the doctor. I never cared about what that doctor was charging the insurance company because I wasn't paying the bill directly. All of these are elective. And of course there is a need to advertise the cost of a CT scan, it people were actually paying the cost out of their own Medical Savings Account. If you needed a CT scan and you were paying for it why wouldn't you go to the place that was $300 less than the place across town? There is no need to advertise now, because most people aren't paying directly for their medical care.
The 3rd party payer system is the biggest problem we have with our healthcare system. As government got more involved in healthcare taking on more of the costs that's when costs really started to explode. The graph that someone posted here in that other thread illustrated that fact nicely.
What I'd like to do is greatly expand the use of medical savings accounts so that people are contributing to them during all of their working years. Make the contributions pre-taxes, allow the money in the accounts to be invested and only allow healthcare expenditures to be made from the account. When the person dies the account is treated as a personal asset that can be willed to someone else.
If people were more directly involved with what they were paying for their healthcare you'd start to see some market pressure on price. There would be incentive to not just continue medical treatment when there little or no chance of success.
The problem with people being directly involved with what they are paying is the vast majority of medical expenses covered by insurance are not discretionary. You want to buy a car so you shop around and find the car and the price you want or you keep your old car. The medical world isn't like that. I had a kidney stone, I can't go call around for the cheapest place to get treated to find out why it feels like my kidney is giving birth.
So the medical world couldn't advertise the prices they charge for dealing with a kidney stone? Why not?
Because there's no market forces needed for them to do that. The only way to make that happen is through government intervention. Which you are against.
This is beyond stupid. The changes I advocated and clearly stated would create the market forces needed to that. The government wouldn't need to intervene in order make people advertise their prices any more than the government intervenes in order make lasik providers advertise their prices.
Sometimes you need to just keep your mouth shut Hondo.
No there are no market forces causes medical providers to advertise prices because they are not elective. Elective procedures like invisiline and plastic surgery, prices are up front and open. There's no need to advertise Cancer Care or the cost of a CT scan or whatever. Cause if you need one you need it. Now.
But keep calling me stupid. Weren't you just arguing for an end to the name calling and wanting actual discussion?
Comments
That being said, every now and then a serious debate forms and people like you are like Houston. You can't even admit you are wrong when the facts are right in front of you. So it devolves into what it is. And yes I admitted I was wrong on the 60k a couple times but your obsession won't let you read and you just want to argue. So yes I then start to troll you with bullshit cause it's funny as fuck to me. Annoying to most others around here. Enjoy the circle of the tug.
This bored would be great without you
When you're gone it is
The only thing fucking this bored is you. Even @CoachThomas knows it
You weren't "trolling" you were lying.
I don't mind, though.
From what I understand, a decent chunk of Americans see a danger of federal overreach and would prefer a small-c conservative approach that adheres to the limited federal government that is enshrined in the constitution. That's fair. That's reasonable. I get it.
But I think American federalism changed in response to four historical periods, and I'm glad it did:
1. Civil War and Reconstruction (with the Reconstruction-era constitutional amendments that followed)
2. The Progressive Era
3. Great Depression
4. Civil Rights era
I see no problem with American voters supporting federal social programs, including Social Security and Medicare. And I think an expansion of government-supported healthcare would be in line with the historical evolution of the federal government as well as the U.S. Constitution (although I realize you probably disagree with the Supreme Court decisions that would allow for it).
Why expand Medicare into a single-payer-type system for everyone? I want better results, as measured by percentage of GDP spent on healthcare and by health outcomes such as life expectancy, infant mortality, and maternal mortality. I think the system we have had for decades isn't working well enough. We spend more on healthcare and yet get worse results than pretty much any other wealthy nation. Every system is flawed. But those of Canada, France, and others seem better in key respects.
I also think it could be better for the economy and, in some respects, individual freedom. American employers spend too much on their employees' healthcare. Those expenditures would be better reallocated on investments and the like. And people could take more entrepreneurial risks if they didn't have to worry about healthcare. Right now, health insurance is too tied to employment. Lose your job, you're screwed, although less so than before the ACA.
I could write more, but this is probably long enough for now.
What I'd like to do is greatly expand the use of medical savings accounts so that people are contributing to them during all of their working years. Make the contributions pre-taxes, allow the money in the accounts to be invested and only allow healthcare expenditures to be made from the account. When the person dies the account is treated as a personal asset that can be willed to someone else.
If people were more directly involved with what they were paying for their healthcare you'd start to see some market pressure on price. There would be incentive to not just continue medical treatment when there little or no chance of success.
You can tell when we get to a healthy medical insurance market. We will be inundated with advertisements from health care providers and insurers. In Portland, Leif’s car repair has more advertisements than Kaiser, United Healthcare and Blue Cross combined. Let alone the ferocious competition for car insurance – State Farm, Farmer’s, Geico, Progressive, Liberty Mutual, the General and USAA all compete for your business and drive down costs.
Lasik? Not covered by medical insurance. Gets better and cheaper every year. Same with boob jobs and liposuction. Free market competition provides for lower costs and better service. You single government providers for some reason think that I want the VA to cover my families insurance. No thanks.
Sometimes you need to just keep your mouth shut Hondo.
Yes, people with higher incomes would benefit. Just like they benefit now. They get to live in bigger houses, drive nicer cars and take better vacations but they also improve the goods and services for the non-wealthy over time. It's not as if the wealthy don't have better access and healthcare right now.
But keep calling me stupid. Weren't you just arguing for an end to the name calling and wanting actual discussion?
Health savings accounts are interesting. I see some problems that may or not be solvable:
1. They create financial disincentives for people to obtain preventative care, which has been shown by research to be the best way to reduce costs and improve outcomes.
2. They siphon funds away from insurance funds. Less money would be available to pay for care for the sick people using healthcare.
3. A disproportionately large amount of healthcare is devoted to a small percentage of the population. (I've seen 69% goes to 10%.) For sick people, HSAs wouldn't be enough.
4. In many rural areas, there is not much choice of healthcare provider. There's one local doctor, one nearby hospital, etc.
I agree with the other arguments here (PDF).
Oh well.
I want actual discussion and I don't give a crap if you call me a name. I'm just going to respond in kind. How about this, what you're saying is stupid.
There are literally thousand of medical procedures that are entirely elective. My youngest just had his tonsils taken out. The entire thing was elective. I had no incentive to search for someone to do it for a cheaper price because I wasn't paying for it and I never saw a bill.
Hip replacement, Achilles tendon repair, knee replacement, you name it. Hell I used to take my kid in for strep throat, (thus the tonsil removal) all the time to see the doctor. I never cared about what that doctor was charging the insurance company because I wasn't paying the bill directly. All of these are elective. And of course there is a need to advertise the cost of a CT scan, it people were actually paying the cost out of their own Medical Savings Account. If you needed a CT scan and you were paying for it why wouldn't you go to the place that was $300 less than the place across town? There is no need to advertise now, because most people aren't paying directly for their medical care.