Istanbuller wrote:No one would go bankrupt if there was a free market healthcare. Demand and supply forces of market would set a price which everyone can have access to healthcare.
On the other hand, Democrats wants otherwise. They want to nationalize the entire system. They pump taxpayers money into it. You call it Obamacare in America. In every 5 to 10 years, these nationalised healthcare systems go bankrupt everywhere in the world. Poeple lose their retirement savings due to it.
Medical bills are the #1 leading cause of bankruptcy. I don't know why you believe a free market approach to health insurance would solve this, because that's pretty much what we have in America now.
I'm going to be generous here and assume you have an understanding of insurance. Do you think state insurance boards are somehow making the market less efficient, in that approved insurance providers within a state having a base level insurance contract (before riders) is inefficient? How does a free market approach handle people with pre-existing conditions, from birth or accident?
The simple fact of the matter is that people aren't free so long as health care is privately run. You are not free if you are constantly worrying about how a small accident will leave you homeless. Roughly one third of working adults in America have no savings, and an unexpected $500 expense could ruin them. The only thing an insurance market can offer these people is shitty plans with high deductibles and high copays that are absolutely ruinous.
Insurance pools are based on risk, and that risk is taken on by private enterprise. They need large pools of insureds because they operate on the law of large numbers, not unlike a casino, in order to provide insurance. For the poor, there are simply not enough people who can buy into these insurance pools because they just can't afford it. When it comes to eating or paying rent now or mitigating potential future loss (which is literally the point of all insurance; mitigating future loss) they will choose to eat now. Insurance is simply not an option for the working poor, because they do not have losses to mitigate. Why would you pay a monthly premium for a future loss you can't afford to cover, even with insurance?
I've said this before: The ACA is great if you need prescriptions or preventative care via regular doctor's visits and whatnot. But the ACA did not solve the problem of catastrophic insurance. Even if you're of moderate means and can spring for subsidized Platinum care, you are still royally fucked if you have a $5,000 deductible and then you have a 10% copay if, for example, you get mowed down by a Chud who thinks protests are gay and that it's fine to run down protesters
Even in the most generous plan, you pay $5,000 deductible and then a 10% copay for services rendered after that deductible. Let's say you require $150,000 in surgical procedures after Karen Mc'AGA runs you down in her SUV because you were holding a BLM sign and were standing between her and the McDonald's drive-thru. Your out of pocket expenses would be (($150,000-$5,000) * 0.1) + $5,000) = $19,500. That's not something the average American can afford. That's a couple years of debt, at least, if you're a severe penny pincher operating on a median salary of $50-$60K.
And then on top of that you would require long term care, which is not provided by the ACA, if you need physical therapy. Or if you need in-home care because you can't wipe your ass or cook food while you recover.
The only logical choice is Single Payer, and leveraging the buying power of the entire country to demand the best prices. And that's if you must insist that it be done under a capitalist model. One thing I have noticed with free marketeers is how they think government programs that run at a deficit operate like a business, in that they are failing if they do not generate revenue. When social programs run at a deficit that is not a loss, that is money spent on their citizenry. Every negative dollar represents an investment in the populace.