Reply With Quote
ok, but you do realize that its not in the bill, right?
anyways if they keep the trigger option, most states probably won't even get to see the public option.
i believe that the consensus was "i hope it leads to that" not that it will...
And nothing would change under the Dem bill, only all of those who pay taxes in this country pick up the tab of that $25K a day charge.
Oh, and link to $25K a day bills?
By all means keep villifying the insurance cos. You're such a dumbass and so blinded by ideology you've bought everything Team Obama has said hook, line, and sinker.
There was a report out today that if you added up the profit of the ten biggest insurance cos for 2008, it was but a fraction of the amount of loss due to fraud in the Medicare system.
But by all means, insurance cos evil, Medicare good [/Obama, Pelosi, Reid]
ok, but you do realize that its not in the bill, right?
anyways if they keep the trigger option, most states probably won't even get to see the public option.
i believe that the consensus was "i hope it leads to that" not that it will...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/1..._n_328708.html
i know you won't want to believe it just because it was on huffpost, but take a read before you judge.
do you really think that hospitals will just be overflowing over night 24/7 just because sick people who once couldn't afford to see a doctor can now just get preventative care?
its not like doctors are going to all of a sudden move to mexico or take a career as a used car salesman just because they have more patients. we don't even know IF they will have more patients. you're just basing that on some made up numbers, , i can't afford my company's insurance right now so i don't have it, and a couple of years ago when i could, guess what...i've seen the doctor the exact same amount of times. none. so do you have a list of people who are pledging to run to a hospital immediately when they have an option to buy into a govt plan? if not then your logic is based on a hypothetical situation.
So you want states to handle regulation for patients out of their jurisdiction and you think they'll go along with that? That's pretty damn silly. I'm fairly certain Massachusetts doesn't want to deal with Texans in their system.
Tell me in your opinion, once you take the large degree of independence a doctor has to practice medicine the way they want, and run their bussiness the way they want, and once you curtail the profit motive a doctor has. What is going to be the motives for a person to become a doctor.
If that is the case, then they will be able to make the decision on what is right for themselves and their family. The consumer should be able to decide the risks of going through different states. I don't understand what the issue is.
The issue is that if I'm the state of Massachusets I do not want to pay to have to regulate insures operating in the state of Texas or vice versa which is what your proposing. If I'm a taxpayer in Mass I don't want my state government wasting time regulating out of state insurance transactions.
A Switzerland type model? No way the GOP would ever push a system where insurance companies weren't allowed to make profits on basic coverage to anyone.
same reason anyone would take the Hippocratic Oath, to help others.
don't get me wrong, i think doctors provide a great service and should be duly compensated. However, i just don't think that insurance companies should even be eating at the same trough.
also, where in the bill does it say that doctors would be paid any less?
i'm from the westside of sa, and see plenty of clinics that you know primarily take medicare and medicaid, and i have yet to see a doctor get off the bus and not park a luxury car from the fee schedules the govt pays them.
I am talking about private insurance. Not government ran like Mass.
Here is what Guiliani wrote:
We also need to use the lessons of welfare reform in the 1990s and encourage Medicaid reform through block grants to the states. One of the advantages of our federalist system is that different states can try different approaches to solving problems and learn from each other. States should be empowered to meet benchmarks regarding the affordability of insurance options and the availability of preventive care. The result will be a healthcare system focused on wellness, not just sickness. And if a state insists on expensive mandates that keep healthcare options unaffordable, we will open the state insurance market up to interstate commerce so their citizens can shop for insurance options in other states.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...thcare_system/
Yes, but who regulates private insurers? The state governments. So why would X state ever want to regulate state Y's citizens???
It's not in the bill, but if it's anything similar to the last one, the law is engineered for force private insurance out of business.
It wouldn't work like that. Each state would regulate how insurance does business in it's own state. Other insurance companies can come in and compete, but by the state's rules.
So in other words, what we have now. OK.
For some reason, and I don't know the details, states have limited numbers of insurance providers. There sould be no reason not to allow as many providers to sell insurance in a state that want to.
if private insurance can't compete with a plan that not everyone in the country would even qualify for, then that's their business.
Hopefully the GOP is ing with the dems. We don't have money to give away healthcare to everyone.
I haven't spent time with this new bill, but what planet did you just return from?
They are talking about mandating things that will make insurance prices skyrocket. I'm sure little is changed from their previous attempt. If I'm right about that, they will put private insurance companies out of business except for a few really expensive plans that only the rich will be able to afford.
Did you even read the discussions about the last bill?
You have to remember, it's flu season, and the republicans are infested with RINO's.
That's why I said "unwittingly". Although saying saying a switzerland "type" model doesn't mean it would be exactly the same.
Tell me, why are you against you having the right to shop for the best health insurance plan in the country?
all i'm saying is, this is the US of ing A, act American and adapt to new . if every industry threated to go out of business then we would be one ty country.
when new emission laws go into place do you see car company's failing by the masses or even threaten to?
no, they just adapted and made a better product.
do bars and restaurants go out of business in mass when new anti-smoking laws go into affect?
open up a patio.
its not like the newspaper industry demanded the govt shut down the internet just because it was hurting their revenue.
they just either made websites or lost big time.
if i had stock in or owned a insurance company i would demand that they get out of the avg consumer market already and focus only on the "cadillac plans" that have a much higher profit margin, just incase a bigger, better product came into the market like a non-profit public plan.
Because protecting the profits of insurance companies should be our focus?
The Switzerland type model works because insurance can't skim ridiculous amounts off the top like they can in America. Without that stipulation, how could you even call a plan a Switzerland type model?
I didn't call the GOP plan a switzerland type model. I said it would lead us on a path towards that type of a model. Private health insurance offered nationally which would be regulated by the federal government instead of 50 different state governments. The first step is putting the federal government in control regulating the health insurance industry instead of the states. That's what the GOP is offering up whether they realize it or not.
Can you answer my question? I'd really like to know why people on your side of the fence don't want to be able to choose from all the insurance plans available in the country.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions