This all gets back to the Obamadoesntcare health ruin atrocity. Millions upon millions who had been on private/company plans ended up on Medicaid, exploding federally funded "healthcare" costs. Budget deficits were rising by $100 billion each of Obama's final three years, just as the full force of Obamadoesntcare hit. Expenditures on "private" systems may have remained constant, but the number of people covered fell by the same millions added to Medicaid.
Proposal for a New Healthcare Plan that removes health insurance companies from the equation for a much better way to manage, pay for, and encourage better health care and overall health?
My plan combines strands of Medicare, Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), and the open market, so everyone is covered, and no one will go bankrupt because of the cost of receiving health care.
Under our current health insurance system, health insurance corporations receive 100% of premiums from employers and individuals (typically, the amount is $20,000-plus per employee annually).
Basically, workers and/or their employers pay 100% of monthly premiums to health insurance companies, and then the health insurance companies decide which treatment they will allow or pay for with the very funds the patients have provided to the health insurance companies for their care.
Instead of 100% of premiums going to the health insurance companies’ employers would pay 50% of employees’ health care premiums into individual employee HSAs and employers would pay the other 50% of the premium into a new version of Medicare (new in the sense that Medicare will provide expanded coverage for everyone and not just elders for whom Medicare is currently setup to cover).
Self-employed individuals would also contribute to HSAs and Medicare. Individuals and families not covered by an employer would also contribute to an HSA and Medicare unless they were below a certain income level then they would not be required to pay into an HSA or Medicare and would instead simply receive full Medicare coverage.
Tax credits could be included for the self-employed and individuals for their health care premiums.
With this 50/50 health care insurance, costs would be reduced and risks better managed (that is, people are still covered by Medicare even if their HSA becomes depleted). Therefore, universal coverage will be achieved with this plan including the newly-styled Medicare that will cover all people--even people who do not have an HSA and/or who have depleted their HSA funds.
This setup eliminates denials and disagreements (paperwork) with health insurance companies over treatments and encourages everyone to take good care of themselves. The result, patients and doctors decide together the services and treatments necessary, and the patient pays for services and treatments either through an HSA, or, as mentioned, if an HSA is out of funds, then payment will go through Medicare.
Additionally, this plan proposes that all preventative care be paid through Medicare to encourage everyone to maintain their health without impacting their HSA.
Americans will be encouraged not just by the prospect of better health care and all that goes with it but also incentivized to save money in personal HSAs by taking care of one's health through eating better and exercise, and preventatively through Medicare.
When going for treatments (medical, dental, etc.) payments can be as easy as swiping an HSA personal card or using an HSA phone app for services and treatments rendered at hospitals, doctors’ and dentists’ offices, and so on.
Payment and receipts will be instant with a resultant printout/text/email of the services, costs, and remaining balance of each HSA.
Furthermore, the 50/50 health care plan would repair today’s convoluted system where a person who loses a job might encounter unwieldy sums under the ironically named Affordable Care Act. Under this new 50/50 system a person who loses his/her job might have a reserve of money in their individual HSA to draw upon in addition to expanded Medicare coverage if their HSA is depleted. They will not have to worry about going bankrupt or foregoing health care if they are unemployed.
How much money could be in HSAs? Well, if health insurance premiums simply remained at current rates of around $20,000 annually per employee, and if an employee works on average 30 years, then that employee, under this plan, potentially has $300,000 available in an HSA when they retire. (Here is the quick math to arrive at $300,000: 50% of $20,000 times 30 years = $10,000*30 years = $300,000).
Currently, health insurance companies are receiving the full $600,000 from employees/individuals and then when you turn 65 health insurance companies keep the $600,000 (minus any care we have used/they have paid for) and then the government/taxpayer pays for the care of everyone 65 and older. How is this even remotely fair? Why are health insurance companies able to keep all of the money paid for health insurance over the employee's work life and then when people retire and are old and sick and their health care needs and costs are high, then the health insurance companies get to keep all of the money collected and leave the taxpayers, via Medicare, the health care bills for everyone 65 and older?
HSAs would be ‘portable’ from job to job and from employer to employer. Preventative care would be covered by the expanded Medicare, which would be funded through 50% of premiums in addition to the current payroll taxes that go into Medicare.
Funding health insurance through this 50/50 plan eliminates the unnecessary middlemen (health insurance companies). Eliminating health insurance companies would free up trillions of dollars that are currently taken from health care and used for paperwork, administration, and to pay million-dollar executive salaries, and enrich shareholders while denying care. (The original purpose of health insurance companies was to take our money and then pay for our care when we need it, but too often the health insurance companies deny our care/claims and enrich themselves with billions of dollars annually via our money/premiums.)
If Americans were healthier the burden and costs on the healthcare system would be much lower too.
Using a 50/50 health care plan can also benefit retired people. From 65 years of age, people should be able to use their individual HSAs to supplement their retirement funds, etc. Such a setup would encourage everyone to take good care of their own health and well-being. If they did then a magnificent reward would be waiting (potentially $300,000 in the example supplied above) when they reached age 65.
This plan eliminates excessive costs (trillions) eaten up by health insurance corporations and the trillions in reclaimed costs would go directly back to the patients and caretakers/doctors. This 50/50 health care plan allows doctors and patients to engage directly with each other for better health and at lower costs, and everyone is covered.
Why are we allowing Americans to be treated so poorly by health insurance companies?
Why aren’t Americans encouraged and incentivized to eat better, exercise more, develop good mental habits, and use Health Savings Accounts (HSAs)?
Do we even need health insurance companies?
Is there a better system/way for improving health care in the US? Can we create a system where Americans keep 50% of their health insurance premiums in a Health Savings Account (HSA) and the other 50% of their premium goes to Medicare instead of 100% of our health insurance premiums going to health insurance corporations? I explain this health insurance plan, which eliminates the need for health insurance companies, further down the page.
In 2023, United Health Care (UHC) made $22+ billion in profits from $387 billion in revenue, so why are patients being denied health care when UHC had $22 billion in profits? Don't we give insurance companies our money so they will take care of us when we are sick and not to maximize their profits?
Patient medical care debt is over $220 billion dollars. If patients pay for health insurance, then why are health insurance companies refusing to pay for our care? Why does the focus of health insurance companies seem to be on profits rather than patient care?
Americans pay premiums to health insurance companies, so when Americans get sick, they will be covered, but too often patients’ claims are denied by health insurance companies. Why? It is our money and health insurance companies promise to use our money to take care of us when we need care, yet often health insurance companies refuse to pay for our care with the money we have given them.
The health insurance companies are paying their executives million-dollar salaries and rewarding their shareholders rather than paying for patients' health care needs with the premiums the health insurance companies collect from patients. Health insurance companies seem more concerned that their profits are healthy rather than that their customers are healthy.
If I went to the grocery store and bought a loaf of bread and then the store said that even though I paid for the loaf, they are only going to give me one slice of bread or no bread at all, I would ask for a refund. No one would put up with stores confiscating the items you just purchased, so why do we allow health insurance companies to deny services we have paid for especially when the health insurance companies have billions in profits annually, their executives earn millions, and their stocks are some of the best performing stocks?
It seems like it should be a crime to take customers’ money/premiums with a promise to pay for their care and then when customers get sick and need care, then the health insurance companies tell the customers/patients they are not going to pay for their care.
UnitedHealthCare (UHC) employee discusses UHC training to deny patient claims
Why are UHC and other health insurance companies allowed to deny claims while making billions in profits, and paying their executives millions, and enriching their stockholders with money that should be used for customers'/patients’ care?
Former health insurance executive says health insurance companies are choosing profits over patients.
It is our money that we give to health insurance companies because they promise to pay for our care. How is paying high salaries and enriching stockholders even part of the health care equation? Why have we allowed this horrible system of “health care insurance” to happen in the US?
When church groups and other health care collectives pool their money to cover the health care of their group/members, they do not expect a few group members to become insanely wealthy while denying claims of sick members, but this is what we have allowed health insurance corporations to do.
The money health insurance corporations receive from customers should be used for their customers' care. A company denying over 1/3 of customer/patient claims should not have $22 billion in profits.
Our health insurance premiums also pay for 4 health insurance lobbyists for every member of congress. Why isn't this money going to pay for customers' health care?
And Newt Gingrich said, he was looking at a study of how much paperwork there is in healthcare and it's absolutely staggering. The study shows that 25% ($1.2 trillion) of US health care spending is in administrative costs. Why is so much paperwork involved and could some of the savings come from a reduction in paperwork, via my healthcare plan described below. Could the savings be passed on to the doctors and patients resulting in better care and lower costs?
Conspicuous in its absence, you offer no viable alternatives... because there is none. A gaggle of biased YouTubes doesn't help make your case.
Of course, health insurers make profits. Every business is designed to do so. If they did NOT make money, your costs would INCREASE. Government interference and control of health care markets most certainly failed miserably to reduce costs (as Obamadoesntcare had promised), it also failed to improve health care: life expectancy FELL during the first three years of full-bore Obamadoesntcare.
What don’t you like about my 50/50 health care plan where Americans keep 50% of their health insurance premiums in a Health Savings Account (HSA) and the other 50% of their premiums go to Medicare instead of 100% of our health insurance premiums going to health insurance corporations, who often decline to pay for the care we paid for?
Isn’t giving 100% of our premiums to health insurance companies/central planners, who decide what they will pay for with our money, closer to communism than capitalism?
I would think if you were for capitalism that you would embrace my health care plan over our current health care system, since my health care plan encourages people to take care of themselves by judiciously using their health savings account (HSA). My health care plan encourages patients to be more engaged in their care, be more price conscious, and take better care of themselves.
The YouTube videos you dismiss are doctors and/or insiders accounts of what they witnessed in our current health care system as well as a YouTube video of a senate hearing, which is below
I am all for businesses making money, but it should be a crime to take customers’ money/premiums with a promise to pay for their health care and then when customers get sick and need care, then the health insurance companies decline to pay for the very care the health insurance companies said they would pay for.
Where did the customer’s money go and why can’t health insurance companies pay for the health care they promised to pay for when they took their customers’ money? Are these the “profits” you refer to when you say, "of course, health insurers make profits. Every business is designed to do so." By stealing their customers money and not delivering the services that were promised to the customer.
Would it be okay with you if you paid a roofer to put a roof on your home and then the roofer said he is not going to put a roof on your home because it was too expensive and he needs to keep the moony you paid him so he can make billions in profits? You would probably sue him civilly and try to get his roofing license taken away.
If health insurance companies cannot pay for the customers’ health care that the health insurance companies promised to pay for, then why do health insurance companies have billions in profits as well as money to pay multi-million-dollar salaries?
I think it should be illegal to take a customer’s money whether a roofer, contractor, health insurance company, etc., and then not deliver the service.
When church groups and other healthcare collectives pool their money to cover the healthcare of their group/members, they do not expect a few group members to become insanely wealthy while denying claims of sick members, but this is what we have allowed health insurance corporations to do.
What Wendell Potter, a former health insurance executive, witnessed is very compelling. This is an interview that is on CNN’s YouTube channel.
I don’t know of any business, other than health insurance, that can take customers’ money and then deny the customers the service they paid for and claim the “profits” are justified.
If I went to the grocery store and bought a loaf of bread and then the store said that even though I paid for the loaf, they are only going to give me one slice of bread or no bread at all, I would ask for a refund. No one would put up with stores confiscating the items customers purchased, so why do we allow health insurance companies to deny services customers have paid for especially when the health insurance companies have billions in profits annually, their executives earn millions, and their stocks are some of the best performing stocks?
Would you argue that stores have a right to confiscate items that customers have purchased because the stores need to make a profit? (I think that is called theft.)
I am fine with stores becoming insanely wealthy selling goods to their customers, but I am not okay with stores becoming insanely wealthy by confiscating goods sold to customers just to make a profit. If stores did confiscate/steal goods that customers paid for then I think the store executives would be arrested for theft and the store would go out of business for lack of customers. So, why do you think it is okay for health insurance companies to take customers’ money/premiums, with the promise to pay for their care when they get sick, and then deny the customers the care the customers have paid for?
Finally, how much money could be in HSAs? Well, if health insurance premiums simply remained at current rates of around $20,000 annually per employee, and if an employee works on average 30 years, then that employee, under my health care plan, potentially has $300,000 available in an HSA when they retire. (Here is the quick math to arrive at $300,000: 50% of $20,000 times 30 years = $10,000*30 years = $300,000).
And, health insurance companies currently receive the full $600,000 from employees/individuals and then when you turn 65 health insurance companies keep the $600,000 (minus any care customers have used) and then the government/taxpayer pays for the care of everyone 65 and older. How is this even remotely fair? Why are health insurance companies able to keep all of the money paid for health insurance over the employee’s work life and then when someone retires and when they are old and sick, and their health care needs and costs are high, then the health insurance companies get to keep all of the money collected and leave the taxpayers, via Medicare, the health care bills for everyone 65 and older?
It seems you are ignoring facts and do not want to address a really great solution to solving access to health care as well as the high cost of health care.
This all gets back to the Obamadoesntcare health ruin atrocity. Millions upon millions who had been on private/company plans ended up on Medicaid, exploding federally funded "healthcare" costs. Budget deficits were rising by $100 billion each of Obama's final three years, just as the full force of Obamadoesntcare hit. Expenditures on "private" systems may have remained constant, but the number of people covered fell by the same millions added to Medicaid.
Proposal for a New Healthcare Plan that removes health insurance companies from the equation for a much better way to manage, pay for, and encourage better health care and overall health?
My plan combines strands of Medicare, Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), and the open market, so everyone is covered, and no one will go bankrupt because of the cost of receiving health care.
Under our current health insurance system, health insurance corporations receive 100% of premiums from employers and individuals (typically, the amount is $20,000-plus per employee annually).
Basically, workers and/or their employers pay 100% of monthly premiums to health insurance companies, and then the health insurance companies decide which treatment they will allow or pay for with the very funds the patients have provided to the health insurance companies for their care.
Instead of 100% of premiums going to the health insurance companies’ employers would pay 50% of employees’ health care premiums into individual employee HSAs and employers would pay the other 50% of the premium into a new version of Medicare (new in the sense that Medicare will provide expanded coverage for everyone and not just elders for whom Medicare is currently setup to cover).
Self-employed individuals would also contribute to HSAs and Medicare. Individuals and families not covered by an employer would also contribute to an HSA and Medicare unless they were below a certain income level then they would not be required to pay into an HSA or Medicare and would instead simply receive full Medicare coverage.
Tax credits could be included for the self-employed and individuals for their health care premiums.
With this 50/50 health care insurance, costs would be reduced and risks better managed (that is, people are still covered by Medicare even if their HSA becomes depleted). Therefore, universal coverage will be achieved with this plan including the newly-styled Medicare that will cover all people--even people who do not have an HSA and/or who have depleted their HSA funds.
This setup eliminates denials and disagreements (paperwork) with health insurance companies over treatments and encourages everyone to take good care of themselves. The result, patients and doctors decide together the services and treatments necessary, and the patient pays for services and treatments either through an HSA, or, as mentioned, if an HSA is out of funds, then payment will go through Medicare.
Additionally, this plan proposes that all preventative care be paid through Medicare to encourage everyone to maintain their health without impacting their HSA.
Americans will be encouraged not just by the prospect of better health care and all that goes with it but also incentivized to save money in personal HSAs by taking care of one's health through eating better and exercise, and preventatively through Medicare.
When going for treatments (medical, dental, etc.) payments can be as easy as swiping an HSA personal card or using an HSA phone app for services and treatments rendered at hospitals, doctors’ and dentists’ offices, and so on.
Payment and receipts will be instant with a resultant printout/text/email of the services, costs, and remaining balance of each HSA.
Furthermore, the 50/50 health care plan would repair today’s convoluted system where a person who loses a job might encounter unwieldy sums under the ironically named Affordable Care Act. Under this new 50/50 system a person who loses his/her job might have a reserve of money in their individual HSA to draw upon in addition to expanded Medicare coverage if their HSA is depleted. They will not have to worry about going bankrupt or foregoing health care if they are unemployed.
How much money could be in HSAs? Well, if health insurance premiums simply remained at current rates of around $20,000 annually per employee, and if an employee works on average 30 years, then that employee, under this plan, potentially has $300,000 available in an HSA when they retire. (Here is the quick math to arrive at $300,000: 50% of $20,000 times 30 years = $10,000*30 years = $300,000).
Currently, health insurance companies are receiving the full $600,000 from employees/individuals and then when you turn 65 health insurance companies keep the $600,000 (minus any care we have used/they have paid for) and then the government/taxpayer pays for the care of everyone 65 and older. How is this even remotely fair? Why are health insurance companies able to keep all of the money paid for health insurance over the employee's work life and then when people retire and are old and sick and their health care needs and costs are high, then the health insurance companies get to keep all of the money collected and leave the taxpayers, via Medicare, the health care bills for everyone 65 and older?
HSAs would be ‘portable’ from job to job and from employer to employer. Preventative care would be covered by the expanded Medicare, which would be funded through 50% of premiums in addition to the current payroll taxes that go into Medicare.
Funding health insurance through this 50/50 plan eliminates the unnecessary middlemen (health insurance companies). Eliminating health insurance companies would free up trillions of dollars that are currently taken from health care and used for paperwork, administration, and to pay million-dollar executive salaries, and enrich shareholders while denying care. (The original purpose of health insurance companies was to take our money and then pay for our care when we need it, but too often the health insurance companies deny our care/claims and enrich themselves with billions of dollars annually via our money/premiums.)
If Americans were healthier the burden and costs on the healthcare system would be much lower too.
Using a 50/50 health care plan can also benefit retired people. From 65 years of age, people should be able to use their individual HSAs to supplement their retirement funds, etc. Such a setup would encourage everyone to take good care of their own health and well-being. If they did then a magnificent reward would be waiting (potentially $300,000 in the example supplied above) when they reached age 65.
This plan eliminates excessive costs (trillions) eaten up by health insurance corporations and the trillions in reclaimed costs would go directly back to the patients and caretakers/doctors. This 50/50 health care plan allows doctors and patients to engage directly with each other for better health and at lower costs, and everyone is covered.
Why are we allowing Americans to be treated so poorly by health insurance companies?
Why aren’t Americans encouraged and incentivized to eat better, exercise more, develop good mental habits, and use Health Savings Accounts (HSAs)?
Do we even need health insurance companies?
Is there a better system/way for improving health care in the US? Can we create a system where Americans keep 50% of their health insurance premiums in a Health Savings Account (HSA) and the other 50% of their premium goes to Medicare instead of 100% of our health insurance premiums going to health insurance corporations? I explain this health insurance plan, which eliminates the need for health insurance companies, further down the page.
https://youtu.be/y8rsUomDiHw
In 2023, United Health Care (UHC) made $22+ billion in profits from $387 billion in revenue, so why are patients being denied health care when UHC had $22 billion in profits? Don't we give insurance companies our money so they will take care of us when we are sick and not to maximize their profits?
https://youtu.be/zzkvciytDSQ
Patient medical care debt is over $220 billion dollars. If patients pay for health insurance, then why are health insurance companies refusing to pay for our care? Why does the focus of health insurance companies seem to be on profits rather than patient care?
Americans pay premiums to health insurance companies, so when Americans get sick, they will be covered, but too often patients’ claims are denied by health insurance companies. Why? It is our money and health insurance companies promise to use our money to take care of us when we need care, yet often health insurance companies refuse to pay for our care with the money we have given them.
The health insurance companies are paying their executives million-dollar salaries and rewarding their shareholders rather than paying for patients' health care needs with the premiums the health insurance companies collect from patients. Health insurance companies seem more concerned that their profits are healthy rather than that their customers are healthy.
If I went to the grocery store and bought a loaf of bread and then the store said that even though I paid for the loaf, they are only going to give me one slice of bread or no bread at all, I would ask for a refund. No one would put up with stores confiscating the items you just purchased, so why do we allow health insurance companies to deny services we have paid for especially when the health insurance companies have billions in profits annually, their executives earn millions, and their stocks are some of the best performing stocks?
It seems like it should be a crime to take customers’ money/premiums with a promise to pay for their care and then when customers get sick and need care, then the health insurance companies tell the customers/patients they are not going to pay for their care.
https://youtu.be/2MSvbSuwOow
UnitedHealthCare (UHC) employee discusses UHC training to deny patient claims
Why are UHC and other health insurance companies allowed to deny claims while making billions in profits, and paying their executives millions, and enriching their stockholders with money that should be used for customers'/patients’ care?
https://youtu.be/gFRyFsMydis
Former health insurance executive says health insurance companies are choosing profits over patients.
It is our money that we give to health insurance companies because they promise to pay for our care. How is paying high salaries and enriching stockholders even part of the health care equation? Why have we allowed this horrible system of “health care insurance” to happen in the US?
When church groups and other health care collectives pool their money to cover the health care of their group/members, they do not expect a few group members to become insanely wealthy while denying claims of sick members, but this is what we have allowed health insurance corporations to do.
The money health insurance corporations receive from customers should be used for their customers' care. A company denying over 1/3 of customer/patient claims should not have $22 billion in profits.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1906621/
Our health insurance premiums also pay for 4 health insurance lobbyists for every member of congress. Why isn't this money going to pay for customers' health care?
And Newt Gingrich said, he was looking at a study of how much paperwork there is in healthcare and it's absolutely staggering. The study shows that 25% ($1.2 trillion) of US health care spending is in administrative costs. Why is so much paperwork involved and could some of the savings come from a reduction in paperwork, via my healthcare plan described below. Could the savings be passed on to the doctors and patients resulting in better care and lower costs?
The following is a link to my health care plan
https://open.substack.com/pub/paulepeterson/p/americas-looming-medical-cliff?r=37esjn&utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=112694977
Conspicuous in its absence, you offer no viable alternatives... because there is none. A gaggle of biased YouTubes doesn't help make your case.
Of course, health insurers make profits. Every business is designed to do so. If they did NOT make money, your costs would INCREASE. Government interference and control of health care markets most certainly failed miserably to reduce costs (as Obamadoesntcare had promised), it also failed to improve health care: life expectancy FELL during the first three years of full-bore Obamadoesntcare.
Did you read my health insurance plan in the comment above? If not, the following link goes to my comment/health care plan
https://open.substack.com/pub/paulepeterson/p/americas-looming-medical-cliff?r=37esjn&utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=112694977
What don’t you like about my 50/50 health care plan where Americans keep 50% of their health insurance premiums in a Health Savings Account (HSA) and the other 50% of their premiums go to Medicare instead of 100% of our health insurance premiums going to health insurance corporations, who often decline to pay for the care we paid for?
Isn’t giving 100% of our premiums to health insurance companies/central planners, who decide what they will pay for with our money, closer to communism than capitalism?
I would think if you were for capitalism that you would embrace my health care plan over our current health care system, since my health care plan encourages people to take care of themselves by judiciously using their health savings account (HSA). My health care plan encourages patients to be more engaged in their care, be more price conscious, and take better care of themselves.
The YouTube videos you dismiss are doctors and/or insiders accounts of what they witnessed in our current health care system as well as a YouTube video of a senate hearing, which is below
https://youtu.be/y8rsUomDiHw
I am all for businesses making money, but it should be a crime to take customers’ money/premiums with a promise to pay for their health care and then when customers get sick and need care, then the health insurance companies decline to pay for the very care the health insurance companies said they would pay for.
Where did the customer’s money go and why can’t health insurance companies pay for the health care they promised to pay for when they took their customers’ money? Are these the “profits” you refer to when you say, "of course, health insurers make profits. Every business is designed to do so." By stealing their customers money and not delivering the services that were promised to the customer.
Would it be okay with you if you paid a roofer to put a roof on your home and then the roofer said he is not going to put a roof on your home because it was too expensive and he needs to keep the moony you paid him so he can make billions in profits? You would probably sue him civilly and try to get his roofing license taken away.
If health insurance companies cannot pay for the customers’ health care that the health insurance companies promised to pay for, then why do health insurance companies have billions in profits as well as money to pay multi-million-dollar salaries?
I think it should be illegal to take a customer’s money whether a roofer, contractor, health insurance company, etc., and then not deliver the service.
When church groups and other healthcare collectives pool their money to cover the healthcare of their group/members, they do not expect a few group members to become insanely wealthy while denying claims of sick members, but this is what we have allowed health insurance corporations to do.
https://youtu.be/gFRyFsMydis
What Wendell Potter, a former health insurance executive, witnessed is very compelling. This is an interview that is on CNN’s YouTube channel.
I don’t know of any business, other than health insurance, that can take customers’ money and then deny the customers the service they paid for and claim the “profits” are justified.
If I went to the grocery store and bought a loaf of bread and then the store said that even though I paid for the loaf, they are only going to give me one slice of bread or no bread at all, I would ask for a refund. No one would put up with stores confiscating the items customers purchased, so why do we allow health insurance companies to deny services customers have paid for especially when the health insurance companies have billions in profits annually, their executives earn millions, and their stocks are some of the best performing stocks?
Would you argue that stores have a right to confiscate items that customers have purchased because the stores need to make a profit? (I think that is called theft.)
I am fine with stores becoming insanely wealthy selling goods to their customers, but I am not okay with stores becoming insanely wealthy by confiscating goods sold to customers just to make a profit. If stores did confiscate/steal goods that customers paid for then I think the store executives would be arrested for theft and the store would go out of business for lack of customers. So, why do you think it is okay for health insurance companies to take customers’ money/premiums, with the promise to pay for their care when they get sick, and then deny the customers the care the customers have paid for?
Finally, how much money could be in HSAs? Well, if health insurance premiums simply remained at current rates of around $20,000 annually per employee, and if an employee works on average 30 years, then that employee, under my health care plan, potentially has $300,000 available in an HSA when they retire. (Here is the quick math to arrive at $300,000: 50% of $20,000 times 30 years = $10,000*30 years = $300,000).
And, health insurance companies currently receive the full $600,000 from employees/individuals and then when you turn 65 health insurance companies keep the $600,000 (minus any care customers have used) and then the government/taxpayer pays for the care of everyone 65 and older. How is this even remotely fair? Why are health insurance companies able to keep all of the money paid for health insurance over the employee’s work life and then when someone retires and when they are old and sick, and their health care needs and costs are high, then the health insurance companies get to keep all of the money collected and leave the taxpayers, via Medicare, the health care bills for everyone 65 and older?
It seems you are ignoring facts and do not want to address a really great solution to solving access to health care as well as the high cost of health care.