Simply said: one should not be forced to purchase something they do not wish to purchase. Many are making that decision to the chagrin of losers business and governmental institutions. Their advice to you, of course, is to do "the right thing," the less scary or risky thing. Do you honestly think that such Liars, Looters, and Losers REALLY will tell you the whole story, that they actually want to help you? GET REAL. NOW. I'LL HELP. I advise that you CRUNCH YOUR NUMBERS and substitute your OWN decision in for the default one of obeying the general mainstream media call to "get covered." The linked article, however, does not advise as to HOW TO AVOID the fine/fee/tax or whatever penalty is called, though, thankfully, they report that MANY discover such preferable to the alternative of paying for a terrible "insurance" product. So, what about a solution to the pesky little penalty?
The latest dilemma facing economists is why "unequivocally good" low oil prices haven't sparked exuberant consumer spending across America. We have discussed the simple (though awkward for the establishment) answer many times - soaring costs for 'shelter' and healthcare have hoovered up every penny saved (and more); and now, a new study proves it- exposing the reality that many Obamacare customers pay more than 10 percent of their incomes toward coverage (and some paying considerably more). The shocking findings show that, as CNBC summarizes, One in 10 Obamacare customers who earn between just two and five times the federal poverty level will have coverage costs that exceed 21 percent of their incomes, an analysis by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Urban Institute found.
The “Direct” in Direct Primary Care refers to dealing solely with patients by purposefully excluding the insurance contract from the professional relationship. Since Direct Primary Care physicians operate without the restraints and mandates of insurance contracts, they are free to focus on the real needs of their patients; as opposed to representing the insurance network as a “subcontractor”. This direct engagement enables a level of lifestyle-friendly involvement that naturally leads to a more satisfactory patient-doctor relationship and potentially superior clinical outcomes, which are not currently attainable in our third-party controlled healthcare system.
Still, across these studies, several themes emerge (this review of the evidence summarizes them well): Pharmaceutical patents do fuel innovation, but at a very high price. The cost of medicine is going up and the rate of return (in the form of innovation) is going down. In recent decades, the majority of new drugs brought to market have been of little real therapeutic benefit. But granting patents and monopolies is the only financial rewards system for innovation that’s really been tested, making it impossible to say whether it works better than the alternatives. And finally, a point that is key for countries like Peru: The benefits of patent protection for pharmaceuticals are mainly for wealthy countries — poor people in poor places bear the brunt of the system’s inefficiencies. “When they grant a patent, it seems a totally bureaucratic, administrative process. But they are creating monopolies that have a real impact on society.”
The healthcare sector does indeed operate in the economic stratosphere above the rest of the economy. No other industry comes close to healthcare with the kind of excessive mark-up of routine items that are so ridiculous only a complex payment system that can be manipulated like a shell game would support such nonsense. So what is it that keeps prices so high and so difficult to pin down?