Perhaps you can make amends by sending him a roll of toilet paper for his verbal diarrhea in time for Christmas:-)

He is such a putz... I tire of wanting to hand him a hanky...

Are these bills forgiven? What happens to them? If people get away without paying it will continue to be a problem. In my opinion, this is one of the biggest factors of high costs getting passed on, higher ins. rates etc. When the gov decided hospitals HAD to treat whoever came through the door regardless of ability to pay. Gov intervention. The people KNOW they won't have to pay...they don't pay for anything to begin with. WE pay it via higher costs...to the point that WE can't afford to go to a dr. when we need to. Another form of slavery.....

Yes...and we all better start calling it that without fear...

Not so much an exemption as a declaration that their expense-sharing plan is good coverage, according to law.

Don't hold your breath waiting for the GOP. John Boehner has called it "settled law" several times.

Yes it's called slavery.

Was this group and its members given an exemption from Obamacare?

And, because people know they can get away with it, they take advantage of it.

That's right the AMA is no different than the guilds in Medieval Europe 5 to 10 centuries ago.

While not in the Stone Age, when I was a little boy the doctor made house calls. He charged different fees based on perceived income;.less for blue collar and more for bank presidents.

This monstrosity is going to fail under its own weight. The GOP better be waiting in the wings with free market options and a transition plan to offer, or they are fools. For the transition, aside from other measures, give people a choice to stay on it or not, so the whole society is not upended again.

While I agree that an arbitrary maximum is onerous, I hope you would also agree that the basis for some suits is so flimsy they should not be allowed to clog the docket. Perhaps "loser pays" is a tort reform you would find agreeable.

Agreed.

Yes, a law or series of laws that require one person to provide another person their services/products without mutual consent is a problem.

Interesting. Thank you for some good material to think about.

Jan

Ben Carson seems to be inconsistent and unsure of his philosophy. I wish he'd put some time and thought into providing us some insight as to what a Carson Administration would look and act like.

I work for a collection agency that deals with mostly medical bills. You wouldn't believe the number of people that continually have "service" at the ER without paying because they know the doctor will see them. Thousands of dollars in bills for gas, upset stomach, and coughs...it is ridiculous.

For the last twenty years, a group calling themselves Christian Care Ministries has run a program called Medi-Share. Medi-Share is not insurance, in the sense that you go to a bookie (and that's exactly what an insurance company is: a gambling racket) and work out a bet. Medi-Share says: Every household must shoulder its own "portion" (read "deductible" in insurance lingo), and after that we'll share expenses. Everyone will then pay in a standard share (called "premium" again in insurance lingo), and we'll share that out to those who need it. (They've gotten really slick these days: you go on-line and take part in the sharing, even to kicking in something extra for expenses normally regarded as "not eligible.") All this is strictly voluntary.

And more than that: if, when you sign up, they find you're not exactly on the right road, they'll enroll you in a coaching program to get you on the right road. Result: better health for you, less strain on their system.

When the debate was in progress, CCM and several other faith-based expense-sharing groups like them, all pressed hard for a provision in the law that as long as anyone enrolled in one of their plans, they could be considered "adequately insured" as a matter of federal law.

And they got that provision.

Now the only thing objectionable is: no one can start a new group. Whatever groups existed when the law was passed, that's it. But they won't object to having the expense-sharing model opened up.

The point is: if you can find such a plan, you'll probably find it costs half as much as the equivalent "silver" plan available on the federal exchange. Better still, they'll give you an incentive to stay healthy.

Tort reform isn't free market. I cannot imagine some medical provider negligently killing one of my loved ones, and then being told their life was only worth some arbitrary maximum amount, like $500,000.

Why is the system broken in the first place? Government regulations. If you want to fix it, you have to get the original problem out of the way - government!

Temlakos -

Can I entice a bit more elaboration from you on this excellent topic?

Jan

Nice concise summation.

Jan

Another huge issue is onerous licensing requirements for doctors and other practitioners, medical schools and health care facilities. Licensing restricts supply, dictates the type of care that is "allowed" to be offered, and drives up medical costs to the point that many people are forced to do without. With or without Obamacare, today's U.S. health system is a giant cartel that is in dire need of a complete free-market overhaul.

Yes. And I also agree with whomever suggested (different thread) that corporate insurance merely underwrite an individual's personally-selected policy (at a rate decided by the corporation) which is what is 'portable' and moves with the individual the way life insurance does.

Jan