Is limited coverage coupled with insurance abolition a good solution?

Asked by: MasturDbtor
  • Yes. This will encourage people to stay healthy and lower health care costs.

    I support limited coverage in certain cases where the person disregards his/her health. In the current health care system, the healthy people subsidizes people who willingly disregard their health such as smokers and people who are reckless. There is no incentive for people to be healthy or stay safe. If certain coverage is limited, we can lower the cost of health care and make people who don't care about their health pay more out of pocket.

  • I say yes

    I think that it is a very good idea, and I would support such a system very much so, if I may say so myself. We need to come up with some kind of a system that is better than the one that we currently have, so I am all for this./

  • No, this would be a disaster for the poor.

    The insurance industry is in desperate need of reform, but this solution would be a disaster for the poor and the sick. Limited coverage carries with it additional cost, which the poor and those with catastrophic or chronic health issues can least afford. We need a national health care plan that is modeled on Medicare that does away with the highly profitable insurance INDUSTRY, not the concept of insurance itself.

  • It is not

    I don't think that it is ever going to be a good idea to take something as well ingrained as the USA healthcare system, and turn it on its head by doing something completely different. Such a plan is a very poor one and would not be a good idea.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
MasturDbtor says2013-04-05T01:20:03.357
Huh? My comment is gone. You can look under the Should Insurance be Illegal question to see my argument.