The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: I'm skeptical

(See in situ)

I'm skeptical

You've made some excellent points but I think what you're suggesting ends up converging on something that you wouldn't like. I definitely agree that insurance tied to employment is the source of a lot of problems, so that part would be a step in a good direction -- getting rid of the tax breaks that create an incentive for employer-based insurance would make that happen pretty quickly.

But I think that once you start trying to write legislation to control rates for private insurance, with the goal of making sure that people don't lose coverage or get priced out of coverage after they get sick, you're getting into a rat's nest that isn't going to end up working well. It either ends up being bad for the insurance companies (they can't adjust their rates flexibly enough to stay profitable) or for the policy holders (the insurance company can raise their rates flexibly, and can use that to push the more costly out).

And this: The point I was trying to made is to buy an individual policy at a younger age and own that policy.

Well that's the sticking point for Obamacare isn't it? Younger people tend to only have medical insurance if it's something automatic through employment. Otherwise, when you're young and feeling invulnerable, there are lots of other things that seem more important for that money. And if they don't get it when they're young and healthy, a lot of them end up wanting to get that insurance when they're older and it's quite a bit more expensive.

I don't have a good solution in mind to suggest instead though. I don't think there's a free-market solution that gets everyone access to the medical care they need at a reasonable price.