Socialized Medicine - Who has it - What do you think?

Central planning increases prices and drives down quality.

I don't believe "the US" if you mean the government can design a system that will work, because it has been proven that socialism (or public goods) are impossible to manage both collectively and efficiently.

However "we" like you and me and some other people, could probably come up with a system that not only works for us, but might work for others as well. And we might even get so crazy as to come up with a system that helps the disadvantaged without stealing through tax or inflation, but by voluntary charity.

Do you know why it is so expensive? Because the government pays for services like this, for some people. And the government, never pays the minimum, it always pays the maximum.

So in essence, the government eats up available MRI resources, and pays top dollar for them, pricing out everyone who has to pay privately.

It's the same thing with education. Because the government supplies student loans, schools can charge whatever they want. But if private students and their parents had to pay, then schools would have to price their programs accordingly.

That's the problem with public/private systems. The Public system always gets resources before the private system, and the public system always pays more than the private system, making competition and entrepreneurship impossible.

 

So the argument is: People in the US system die. And people in a socialized system die as well. I fail to see any improvement.

The problem with the system right now is that there is no menu. People do not know how much a service will cost, nor do they care. Insurance takes care of it. Or it's billed later. Put prices in front of people, let them compare and prices will go down.

Ever since pharmacies (walmart, grocery stores, et al) started advertising "low price prescriptions" and "free antibiotics" among other things, you see lots more stores doing it. It's amazing what a little bit of price conscious shopping can do. The market works; just let it.

Of course they do. You can go anywhere and pay for a service. Some offices don't accept patients without insurance, for some reason - never quite got that - but that's an entirely different matter.

 

The free market could sort it out if it weren't for the AMA restricting the supply of MDs. In the past a general practioner could treat someone on a budget and even deliver a baby.

 

I've listened to your position carefully. I suspect your vision of how it would work is idealized. I don't believe it would be as pretty a picture as you paint. You haven't provided any examples of other systems that have worked the way you describe, so to me it's just theory. And I don't believe that there is ONLY ONE WAY to do health care for all, we are resourceful, and I have confidence that there are several ways to accomplish health care for all.

Referring to the past is unrealistic because of the technological advances in medical treatment in the last 50 years, causing significant price increases that cannot be solely attributed to government or insurance company expansion.

And interspersed throughout this thread are the recurring anecdotes of why socialized care in other countries doesn't work. Except I don't see any actual statistics that validate those anecdotes. I believe despite some problems, in the UK & Canada & France, etc., the vast majority are taken care of promptly and well. Where here in the US, thousands are neglected until death.

You denigrate government regulation with too wide a brush. Some regulations are better than others. Some regulations are corporate welfare, inspired by or influenced too heavily by lobbyists, and ought to be eliminated. Some regulations exist because people needed protection from unscrupulous practices. You shouldn't assume that a single payer system would involve only bad regulations, and no good ones. I don't advocate more government, I advocate better government.

My earlier post mentioned the twins of which Aetna only paid for one. You stated the parent could have a case for sueing Aetna. But she doesn't need to, Medicaid is going to pay the bill. If the parents tried to pay it, they would be paying for decades, no ordinary person can afford to pay for neonatal intensive care for a couple of months. Oh, btw, the uncovered baby was released from the hospital much sooner than the covered baby. I think the government regulations on insurance companies reneging on their responsibilities ought to be harsher, and the state attorney general out to sue Aetna for trying to stick Medicaid with the bill. Since you are for no regulations, what do you think should happen to Aetna?

 

If someone isn't getting basic health care through a general practioner and has to pay $500 for someone to write a prescription what good is bionics and cloning?

 

just curious but has anyone who lives somewhere where there is socialized medicine actually posted to complain about it?

 

Extremely well put, Kaethy. This is where I'm at as well. The real world issues at stake require real world considerations, and it isn't anathema to me that we consider many alternatives that do not involve a hands-off approach, a theoretical laissez-faire market solution.

 

Ok, don't take this as hostile.

It is idealized, in that you want solutions, you are open to ideas, and these are ideas. If you only want ideas that have been tried before, then you are restricting yourself to the realm of what exists, and thus complaining that people are attacking other systems, seems unfair to me.

I have provided an example. Pre-AMA America, and pre-1960s America.

Again, if you are not willing to look at theory, then I don't feel you are being completely open to any and all solutions.

Yes, there is not only one way. Yes, there are several ways to accomplish health care. That is exactly what I am promoting. A system where you have MORE OPTIONS, there are MORE PROVIDERS, providing MORE levels of service, with MORE price differentiation in the market....

And from all of this MORE, individual health care patients/clients can select what they can afford, and what works best for them.

I don't necessarily believe this. It's consistent with the line of thinking that inflation happens because.... it does. My cross example of education is very solid and yet your defense for medical pricing doesn't hold up in that industry.

Unfortunately, that's the propaganda line.

I posted dissatisfaction statistics with sources about 20 or so posts ago. Did you see that?

Better government is smaller government. It is self government. It is personal responsibility.

You're talking the same way everyone does, every electoral cycle. Trying to reform a system that is so corrupt, short of a revolution, it might be impossible.

How many members of the House (535) do you really believe are principled individuals, who do not take money from lobbyists, or compromise the welfare of the Union or their own constituents? 5%? 2%?

It's not about "some good regulations". It's that all regulations reduce choice. Good or bad are subjective, like you might think chocolate ice cream is good, and I might think it is bad. It's still chocolate ice cream.

It's been shown, time and time again, that regulation reduces competition (harder to get into an industry, more costs to manage regulatory compliance). Less competition, means less consumer choices on everything from service, business model and price.

I respect where you are coming from, but sadly, I believe that it is the same flawed idea, that if we keep giving Washington money, and we keep giving Washington power, and we keep looking to Washington for answers, we are going to get more of what we have been getting.

YOUR answers are going to come from you, your household, your neighborhood, city and state. They can't be given to you by corporate cronies like McCain, Obama or Clinton.

Ok, don't take this personal. You haven't understood at all what I am talking about based on this paragraph.

Yes, Medicaid subsidizes the insurance company, by paying for it's short on coverage, by using taxpayer money. Medicaid means EVERYONE PAID for the twin.

"No ordinary person can afford to pay for neonatal intensive care" of course not. It's priced out of the market for "ordinary people". Here is the thing about economics. Such a thing is a sort of monopoly, the likes of which cannot occur in a free market. If there is demand for neonatal care, entrepreneurs will start businesses to provide it (they can't, regulated). More neonatal care providers will increase supply, and thus lower price (competition, again, regulated...).

But the system caps who can provide neonatal care, and that drives prices up because it is scarce.

What do I think should happen to Aetna? In a free market, they would have to improve their coverage to handle twins, or someone would come along with "multiple birth coverage" and steal their business. I think that if they have treated their clients badly, they should go out of business and lose all of their money. If they violated the contract, they should be sued and forced to compensate the child and mother or whatever settlement the plaintiff deems fair, within the realm of reasonable damages.

But that won't happen. While you look at the short term benefit of Medicaid stepping in, you're overlooking the long term consequences of bailing out a bad insurance company with taxpayer money, and allowing them to profit at the expense of everyone, rich, poor and middle class.

And of course, they kick back our politicians some money for helping them fleece everyone. So the drug companies get rich, the politicians get rich, the twins are delivered, and everyone is poorer.

And you think we should add more regulations, which further strengthen the insurance companies, and profit both them and The gang of 535?

 

What real world issues?

Who is advocating a hands off approach?

I'm advocating a politicians hands off approach, and a patient/client hands on the throat approach. I'm talking about power to the people, strict enforcement of contract, no barriers to competition, and market efficiency by free choices.

This recent discussion reminds me of that thread where people wanted to elect their "betters" through intelligence screening, and allow themselves to be ruled by self-elected technocrats.

I can't believe humanity, particularly in the West, has this sort of deathgrip Stockholm Syndrome going on with their government and corporations...

 

Guerilla, "don't take this personal," but you're an ideologue who cannot apparently debate honorably, demonstrated time and again on this and other threads. Here, you're preaching nothing that I don't know already, and it has been demonstrated, yet again, that you are not interested in a good faith exchange. I will continue the discussion with those with whom I may not agree, but with whom I can pursue an edifying discussion.

 

That's truly an abomination, Lorien. Thanks for the link.

But again, there isn't one "socialized medicine." There are many solutions out there that may bring a better result than we have now. For instance, I had two ER visits this year - both due to an ongoing spinal disc herniation, causing excruciating pain. One of the times I was in the middle of PT, the pain was bad enough to cause intense vertigo, diaphoresis, and a spike in my BP to 170/110. The bottom line is that for a total of about 3 hours in the ER, between the two visits, the costs involved approach $20,000. Thank god it's covered, as were we to have to pay on a fee basis, well, you get the picture.

The issue in your story is that Britain doesn't provide for "co-payments," or opting for private care, apparently, outside of the NHS system. You will note that among the models Klein poses, for example (see post 147), the British example is used as a "negative example." In other words, the British system isn't discussed as a great system, but because it's a helluva lot cheaper, and the results, at least according to the stats used by Klein, aren't concomitantly worse. I would like to see further stats than those already provided - the instance of your example is horrible, but by the argument provided by Klein, I'd like to compare overall dollars/Euros spent for overall healthcare delivered.

That aside, it seems to me that there are other solutions that do not forbid a two-tier arrangement, such as France. Much of the theoretical downside to a single payer system, namely, the limitation of choices, seems to me to be avoided by this idea of a mixed system that allows for a national system of decent, basic healthcare, with an option to pursue other options by one's choice:

I reiterate my concurrence with Kaethy, here - I think there are lots of options available that incorporate many of the things we in America expect - freedom of choice, for example - while addressing the needs of millions for affordable healthcare.

I reiterate my earlier thoughts, and ultimately I think it comes down to this:

A nation where millions live in unnecessary misery is not what I believe America is about, and, by my code, simply posing a theoretical, purely market solution on a laissez-faire basis is not something we can stomach, pun intended.

 

Wow, that is a long drawn out excuse for a retreat from the argument.

Is it because you can't thrive outside of semantics and histrionics, or because there really isn't a good reason to fight against freedom for the people, strict contract enforcement and competition?

I suspect it is a little of both.

If I am guilty of being an ideologue because I will fight for the consumer, for everyone equally and I will not tolerate corruption or theft, then so be it. I'll stand guilty of that charge.

 

You will have to construct whatever helps to continue the illusion, Guerilla.

Much like your utter abandonment of another, lost argument, you will frame things however you need to to continue what I would call a gross overestimation of your views.

As the above post attests, I am interested in continuing the dialogue with others; I just find, as usual, that the exchange with you is an utter waste of time. Others may find differently, and you may find something useful in an exchange with them. Sorry.

 

What illusion? If you could disprove my position, you would. That you knowingly engaged in semantic chicanery yesterday, claiming one thing while you had previously claimed another, is dishonest.

But this works out good. I couldn't figure out how to shake you, and I think I have now. You can't engage in a fact based argument comfortably.

Rob is back, but if you check his profile, he is still not accepting PMs or emails. Once I get an answer on harassment from him, I will post the new thread. I do want to engage people here and discuss free markets and liberty, I simply do not want to suffer attacks, lies and harassment from you and Earl when I choose to do so. As a mod has advised me to simply report posts, which I am loathe to do, I feel it's necessary to talk to Rob about the pattern of harassment across several posts that may not individually cross the line, but collectively show behavior none of us would or should tolerate offline.

 

Hahahah - priceless. You feel harassed, do you, and want to talk to Rob about it? Specifically, want to talk to Rob about creating a duplicate thread in order to carry on a conversation with Iul, that prohibits my participation, presumably Earl's, presumably anyone else's that you have some kind of personal issue with? Knock yourself out, buddy. I see you are no longer "thwarting commies" but are "surrounded by statists," in your "location." Given how you feel - that anyone saying that government can serve a function is a "statist," I would think this has got to be a scary place indeed.

I would really like to part ways here, Guerilla, but since you continue to engage, the illusion I am speaking of is manifest to me. For example, in http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=658803&page=3, it was yourself that bumped my 5-month old, dead thread in a personal snit with me. You then raised a stink, saying you wanted to continue the conversation with Iul, in particular, and would start a duplicate thread in order to carry on a conversation with Iul. In that thread, Iul posted, disagreeing with your stated views. He has done the same here. Respecting Iul, as an example, rather than dealing with the fact there are many people with a good amount of grey material between the ears, who might in fact have good points to make that happen to disagree with yours, the usual tactic is:

This, in response to a guy whom you appraised;

(Threw Iul in your face? Saying he and I shared some similar views on the issue of society, public good, etc.? This is one reason why I would say your view is grossly overblown, G). And this is something I've seen quite a bit, of recent memory, Rebecca, Kaethy, further back, now, myself, many others. In other words, things are cool, until you are disagreed with. Then it's "harassment," "bad faith," "you know nothing," etc. One example of a legion, really, in my experience, of what I call an illusion.

From what I and others have apparently learned, the illusion that always exists - it seems to me you see this board as a place to "own" others in debate, over exchanging ideas based in good faith, and the sad fact is that you "own" nothing except an illusion, in my opinion. Therefore, you will resort to any number of tactics - such as yesterday's ridiculous waste of time and energy over "who" defined "what" and "when" they defined "it." Countless others, for months now, and I finally realized, what the hell am I doing?

Anyway, again, construct what you need to in order to continue, Guerilla. I wish you peace. From my experience, I have finally and unequivocally learned you aren't interested in a good faith dialogue, and that is a sheer, stupid waste of my time. Yes, please do find a way to get a hold of Smyrl, Rob, or anyone who can "rule" on your issue of a concerted campaign of "harassment," "lies," and "attacks" by myself and Earlpearl, so we can all move on.

 

I do have to say that this example bothers me quite a bit. I don't know if it's because it shows just how Americans are so unwilling to take responsibility for our own healthcare, or because it could also show massive flaws in the current system.

Let me explain. While going through college, I held many call center jobs because of the flexible hours. I worked for SEVERAL of the major health insurance companies taking calls on claims for patients and physicians. I had to know the claims process, how they were approved, denied, etc. I have NEVER once seen a situation in multiple births where it was stated, per contract, that only one baby, or a certain number, would be covered. The only way one would be covered and the other not would be if the baby was never officially added to the plan by the parent(s) or there was a screw up by their place of employment. I have never seen coverage that would do this. There is coverage out there will specifically state that maternity and anything related will not be covered, but that is usually individual insurance you DON'T get through your employer so costs can be kept down.

I will however state that there were flaws in the claims process that would deny multiple babies. Most insurance companies will allow the computer system to process claims automatically, not touched/seen at all by human hands unless it couldn't understand something on the claim (corporations trying to save money by cutting employees). When the computer sees the exact same claims/charges for 2 babies, it is "programmed" to automatically deny any duplicate claims. So, in essence, the 2nd baby is seen as a duplicate of the first and something that was already paid/processed. Almost every single multiple birth claim I came across had this issue.

And since no human employee ever looked at the claims, the issue would only be resolved when the hospital called in to see why they didn't get paid. Sometimes, the hospital would get lazy, and instead of checking into it, they would just bill the parents for gazillions of dollars. Now if I got a bill for a gazillion dollars, you bet I would be calling everyday until the issue was resolved. And I will be the first to admit, sometimes it takes WEEKS of calling the insurance company to find someone compotent and caring enough to make sure your claim gets reprocessed. But, with the current system and the flaws, it is still my personal responsibility to make sure my claims are processed correctly so I can continue to get the healthcare I need.

So I really believe that someone along the line dropped the ball, and we all ending up paying for a baby that should have been covered in the first place. Now I cannot say who dropped the ball, but it obviously shows weaknesses in our current system, and as Americans because we always want someone else to do the work for us instead of taking responsibility for ourselves.....

 

thanks for making me feel special

 

You are very, very special. Wanna cookie?

I'm pretty special too - I get the privilege of having an admin review the entirety of my history here, to see if indeed there is in place a campaign of "lies, attacks, harassment."

Wanna be even "specialer?"

 

I AM open to ideas. I listened to your ideas over several days, thought about them, asked a few questions, thought some more, and discussed your ideas. I finally reached a conclusion.

1. Your ideas on this topic are theory
2. Your idea of how a free market would work are idealistic, and therefore subject to reality intruding
3. After all the discussion, questions, and pondering, I am still of the belief that we can do better, and that we as a nation have an obligation to do better.

I didn't "complain" that people attacked other systems, I offered a contrary point of view. I'm for a full and open discussion, that includes your ideas, opinions, and mine, and others too. But I won't promise to agree when I disagree, and won't keep my opinions to myself.

I don't agree that your example of pre-AMA, pre 60's is realistic, and I've already said why, it ignores the significant technological medical advances in the last few decades. I can't shrug off the cost of research and development, manufacture of complex machinery, and the teaching and learning involved in using all the new knowledge and technology.

I DID look at your theory, I DID listen to your ideas. Just because I don't agree, doesn't mean I'm not open. And I'm just not convinced that your ideas would result in "MORE OPTIONS, there are MORE PROVIDERS, providing MORE levels of service, with MORE price differentiation in the market"

You say in your system, people can choose what they can afford. But what if what they need is more than what they can afford???

I'm not following any propaganda line, I'm here, discussing the issue with you and others who are interested. I haven't made a proposal really. I've only stated that I believe we should do SOMETHING about health insurance. I never advocated "socialized" medicine, or that a single payer system was best, because unlike you, I am not certain exactly what the solution should be. I am leaning to a mixed system, where some people get insurance thru work, some buy a supplement to that, some buy it directly, and some are subsidized.

I'm sure I did see the statistics you posted, because I've read the entire thread. Sorry, I don't recall it though! LOL, I have a lot on my mind.

I don't agree that all regulations reduce choice, as I said before, some regulations protect the public from unfair practices, and other regulations seem to be written for the benefit of the insurance companies. Depends on which regulation.

I don't know how you infer that I want to give Washington more money from my posts. I keep saying this, we need to solve the crisis of uninsured people and astronomical costs, SOMEHOW. I never said we should solve it by giving Washington more money. You are oversimplifying the issue, and trying to portray it as "my way" or "your way", when I have repeatedly stated, I don't know how to solve the problem for sure.

I FULLY understand what Medicaid is, that's why I posted the story about the twins. I am outraged that Aetna did this, and that they feel so arrogant.
Who do you think should sue them, not in your theoretical world, but now, in real life? Should it be the parents, who happen to be quite busy right now, caring for the twins. Or should the state sue them?

I think in a free market, without regulations to require such coverage, the insurance companies will find a way to NOT cover premature babies. And who will say they want to pay extra for a premature baby rider, no one EXPECTS to have premature babies. I'm not looking at the "benefit" of Medicaid stepping in, I'm pissed Aetna is weaseling out.

NO, I never said regulations are needed to strengthen insurance companies. I want regulations to protect people from companies that try to avoid their responsibilities.

Expecting people to sue, or change insurance companies when they are in the midst of a medical crisis is unrealistic and cruel. In an unregulated system, insurance companies would refuse to adequately cover dying people, and the victims will be irretrievably dead when people start bad mouthing the insurance company. Sorry, gotta have SOME regulations. And the insurance companies would refuse to cover new customers who are in a medical crisis, effectively canceling out choice completely.

 

Kaethy, I apologize if I was rude earlier.

I think I've said nearly all I can on this topic, I'll address a few points.

1. Idealism. It's idealistic to believe that a government that spends recklessly, won't diagnose it's own veterans with PTSD, has thousands of said veterans living on the street, and colludes with the FDA to control the drug trade, is somehow going to magically adopt a working medical system. If I'm dismissed as an idealist for believing in the power of people to find their own solutions, absent a Hillary, Obama or McCain, then we're in deep crap.

2. Theory. This is not true. Yes, a perfect free market is theoretical, but I was really hoping to point out how far we have taken the decisions for care from the citizen, and put it in the hands of the government and corporations. We have had care without government insurance. We have had care without the AMA. To lean on "technological advancement" is a fallacy, because TVs, stereos, computers etc get radically cheaper. In fact, it is much cheaper to mass produce drugs today, than it was 100 years ago when Bayer sold Aspirin and Heroin.



3. "You say in your system, people can choose what they can afford. But what if what they need is more than what they can afford???"

Well for starters, people will be able to afford more, because there will be competition. They will be able to get service from the doctor, or care worker on credit or negotiate based on what they can pay. You won't have insurance and government conspiring to drive up prices against the lower end of means patients and clients, through protectionism, inflation and subsidization.

Again, I can't promise you everyone will be covered, any more than another system can. But this system provides the opportunity for the maximum in freedom, meaning that people have the choice to get insurance or not. They have the choice to use natural medicine and experimental drugs/procedures, or not. The control is in the users hands.

I can only try and explain so well, given that I am neither an expert economist or philosopher, and my habit of getting drawn off on side conversations undoes my credibility and disrupts any flow I might have.

This is the sort of thing, that makes these discussions difficult. For example, do you know how the government finances it's deficit? Do you know how that debt is "monetized"? Have you ever thought about why air is free, but why water is not? Why we have a debt of $9 trillion, but unfunded liabilities of $60 trillion (and what that means)?

Seriously. Because I worry that many people have this endless faith in government, because they don't actually know how government does anything, that it is one big magic show, and government can produce goods and services, produce wealth and happiness, by passing a bill in the Congress or opening a new department.

4.

I've said it before, but when I'm preaching like some sort of heretic, it just don't sink in. We only need a couple laws. Thou shall not steal, be aggressively violent and a few others.

Why would you need regulation, if companies had to live up to their contract? That's why I say we need strict contract enforcement. If you're insured, they have to cover you or pay damages.

All regulations do reduce choices, and the most clever ones are written by the lobbyists, specifically to look like a boon for the consumer, but are really a Christmas party for the corporations.

5.

In a free market, if it's in the contract, they have to honor it. Or they will lose their business. It's really that simple. So the only way a person won't be covered, is if they sign a contract that doesn't cover them.

But that's on them. I mean, it's crazy to think we should have to bail out people who intentionally put themselves in bad situations through negligence. I can see an argument for the poor, I can see the argument for people who are caught in an Act of God like Katrina, but people who buy $650,000 houses and can't make the payments by working at McDonalds? or people who buy insurance but don't even read what the coverage is?.....

Sure no one expects to have premature babies. But you can bet damn sure that in a competitive free market, I'm going to include them in my plans. Parents are neurotic about their kids. I should be able to sell them every kind of child coverage imaginable under the sun.

6.

Because costs keep going up and you refer to less government interference as idealistic and theoretical. You've avoided getting stuck defending one system, but you are definitely trending towards a government based solution. And it's going to cost an arm and a leg, it will cause shortages, it will lower care, and eventually, it will require people to pay twice or participate in a user pays system for anything beyond broken bones, the flu and a few other basic services.

Read Mises' "Socialism". It is impossible for the state to provide the highest levels of care universally, because there are never enough resources to do so. Medical care is finite, it's not like air, it isn't in a supply greater than we can consume.

It's not possible, theoretically, or as we saw in eastern bloc countries and the USSR, practically.

As Ron Paul says in "The Revolution", (paraphrased), "look at your VA hospitals. That's your government health care. If they can't take care of their veterans, how will they care for everyone else?"

7.

Yeah, but we're taking about breach of contract, and it's quite simple to be honest. Is it covered? Yes, no, end of case. There is no need to develop evidence, or emotional arguments, or establish reasonable doubt. It's contract law. It can be handled by an arbitrator. Not to mention, that a company that doesn't cover it's clients, will not last long if the clients are constantly suing and bad mouthing them. Remember, there are bad businesses, but the better ones, usually provide decent to exceptional service.

Doesn't matter. They would still have to pay damages. Likely by a factor of several times. So it's actually cheaper to cover, than to breach contract. To argue that the victim will be dead, means that they can't borrow the money to tide them over, they have no friends or family to help, and they have no savings or assets of their own.

I mean, this is so unlikely, its not even funny. Oh yeah, and there would have to be no charity care or foundations...

That's not a reason. Again, regulations create overhead, that only the biggest companies can afford. It limits KG Insurance (Kaethy-Guerilla Insurance) from entering the market, because it is so expensive up front before we sell a single policy, to meet all of the regulatory requirements. Less competition, means the big boys are never challenged, and form oligopolies with price fixing and collusion on policy coverage.

Industries should be regulated by their customers, not politicians who are susceptible to graft and coercion. Not people who take bribes to screw us over.

8.

Uhm, no. The reason why they refuse to cover people in crisis, is that it's a loss situation, and they can push those people off on medicare or someone else. No one wants to take on a likely loser contract.

But in a free market, you could see marginal insurers, who will take the risk, hoping to gain a long term client with a premium contract.

The insurance companies can refuse to cover people because of regulation. They have no competition to cover those people. The government bails them out.

9.

But they are one and the same. Two sides of the same health care system coin. You can't have Aetna weaseling out, without medicaid stepping in, and preventing Aetna from getting sued for breach of contract, as well as protecting their bottom line, by subsidizing their service with taxpayer funds.

EDIT::

Want to add something else. You don't need insurance for care under $5000. In a free market, people will pay out of medical savings accounts, on credit etc. What you need is major medical. I'd advise you to look into Ron Paul's policies on health care Kaethy. The man delivered a lot of babies, never took medicare, and worked in charity hospitals and the VA. He knows his crap, and coupled with his free market and economic knowledge, has excellent reform ideas.