Corruptbuddha
Governor
Either we have a market-based solution, free of government intervention, or a government-based solution free of market forces. We can't have both. Nor can we have a "six of one, half-dozen of the other" solution that tries, in vain, to merge the two together.
In a government solution such as Medicare for All or a Single-Payer model, everyone would have coverage. From the shiniest newborn to the wrinkliest senior. From a broken finger to Stage IV cancer. Primary positive: no one is uninsured. Everyone is covered. Primary negative: Costs and quality tend to suffer when government provides anything. This is the future.
In a market-based solution, only those who want to be covered have insurance. And those that do only have coverage that suits them. A 60 year old man doesn't pay for pre-natal care. A 25 year old woman doesn't pay for Viagra. You get what you pay for and insurers must compete for your business. Primary positive: Competition reduces prices and increases quality. If a provider has a bad name, with no government support, it will go out of business. This option is, effectively, dead.
It seems to me, as a market supporter, that the GOP has blown it's one and only chance to divest the government of it's role in healthcare and return to a true market-based model. They are terrified that any change to existing programs such as Medicare/Medicaid will get them tossed out on their ear. Once people get a 'benefit' from the taxpayer, they are loathe to surrender it. I am convinced that we will never see a market-based healthcare system again.
I predict that the parties involved will try to continue the current ObamaCare, TrumpCare, YomamaCare, shenanigans until the nation is exhausted and Single Payer becomes the law of the land.
In a government solution such as Medicare for All or a Single-Payer model, everyone would have coverage. From the shiniest newborn to the wrinkliest senior. From a broken finger to Stage IV cancer. Primary positive: no one is uninsured. Everyone is covered. Primary negative: Costs and quality tend to suffer when government provides anything. This is the future.
In a market-based solution, only those who want to be covered have insurance. And those that do only have coverage that suits them. A 60 year old man doesn't pay for pre-natal care. A 25 year old woman doesn't pay for Viagra. You get what you pay for and insurers must compete for your business. Primary positive: Competition reduces prices and increases quality. If a provider has a bad name, with no government support, it will go out of business. This option is, effectively, dead.
It seems to me, as a market supporter, that the GOP has blown it's one and only chance to divest the government of it's role in healthcare and return to a true market-based model. They are terrified that any change to existing programs such as Medicare/Medicaid will get them tossed out on their ear. Once people get a 'benefit' from the taxpayer, they are loathe to surrender it. I am convinced that we will never see a market-based healthcare system again.
I predict that the parties involved will try to continue the current ObamaCare, TrumpCare, YomamaCare, shenanigans until the nation is exhausted and Single Payer becomes the law of the land.
