Tornado Alley (PROG)

[F6]

CC Writer -- well that was quite a load

hope you had a bath towel handy to wipe yourself

fuagf covered one of the main points in his reply ( https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=135409916 ) -- and further to that, see also (linked in) https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=39738694 and preceding and following

there is more than just a wee bit of a clash between your bemoaning folks losing their beloved established providers (which happened all the time before Obamacare/the ACA came along) and your call for folks to constantly evaluate and switch their providers according to who charges the least for what -- and then there's the further wrinkle of folks in immediately bad shape after accidents or heart attacks or shootings or whatever being able, let alone expected, to tell their first responders 'hang on a minute, gotta go online and check prices before you take me anywhere for the life-saving emergency and follow-on care I so urgently need'

your notion that folks (like me) who have pre-existing conditions should be handled separately, in high-risk pools or whatever, rather than included in the overall insured pool and treated like any other folks by insurers is absolute bullshit, a ridiculous crock that has never worked in practice -- nobody, neither insurers nor insureds, knows what any individual's lifetime medical costs will be, whether they presently have pre-existing conditions or not -- shit happens, at any and all ages previously perfectly healthy people get in accidents/get shot/get cancer/etc. -- so everybody should pay the same insurance rate which it takes to cover everybody, period -- splitting up the risk pool is the categorically wrong approach

you did get one important thing right -- leaving aside legitimate pro-bono/charitable provisions of care (which aren't/wouldn't be needed in a universal-coverage system), it should be flatly illegal for any provider to charge any patient more or less than any other patient for the same thing -- and I would add that insurers using selected/limited provider networks to provide coverages that only cover in-network provisions of care should also be flatly illegal -- as is the case with e.g. Medicare