Reply With Quote
Wouldn't matter. Medicaid tells people to go eff themselves all the time. So does Medicare. So did Champus. For emergency calls they tell them to go eff themselves.
So why isn't she covered under medicaid?
Wouldn't matter. Medicaid tells people to go eff themselves all the time. So does Medicare. So did Champus. For emergency calls they tell them to go eff themselves.
Yorn , you don't even understand the importance of the auto insurance argument.
You are talking about how the government compels the consumer in each case. Tahts not whats important.
Whats important is that the auto insurance industry has its rates mandated by the various states with a product that is compulsory to buy.
The rates of auto insurance have been stable and low for pretty much the last 50 years. In other words this notion that prices will still rise in favor of the evil corporate overlord flies completely in the face of the closest empirical example out there.
You arguing how someone is compelled mitigates that not in the least.
The author raises some very valid points, that I can't disagree with. This is why I preferred a public option if they were going to pass this.
I'm going to be optimistic, and hope that the errors in this bill are fixed soon. Sometimes you can find errors much easier when a process is actually implemented. I'm not holding my breath though.
Makes more money than medicaid will cover. Poverty alone is not an indicator of medicaid eligibility. Most estimates state that 60 percent of poor people are not covered by medicaid.
You bring up a good point. I am 30, I have no children for my own reasons (i live a selfish lifestyle) but I hate to say this out loud because its old and tired, but...
I really dont like the world at all (big surprise). I cant see burdening my children with this mess I created by not doing....seomthing more than what I am doing now.
So, imo, it isnt fair for me to have children. That isnt to say I will never have kids (i am married, it isnt solely my decision at all), but every time the subject is broached, we both come to same conclusion.
The world is too ed up and its really only going to get worse.
The world has always been ed up. That's nothing new. I'm sure if you lived at the turn of 19th century when people in cities were living in squalor and working for pennies at a time you'd say the same thing.
I think the world has gotten better in some ways, and worse in other ways. A fine balance will always exist in the world, with each passing century, 300 years ago, no terrorism, no globalization, but disease and crappy medical practices.
Now we have terrorism and globalization but diseases that have been eradicated and people are living longer. I don't think the future will bring anything more ed up than it was 500 years ago.
Forcing citizens to buy products from price-unregulated for-profit corporations is one of the many aduterations of this corporate-enriching health sausage that must be removed, the sooner the better.
If the legal challenges win, then maintain the mandate (everybody pay as much as they can) but buy into a medicare-for-all public option (see Grayson's proposal as one way to a public option). "for-all" means employees with group plans can take their group plan as cash/salary and buy into public insurance.
The public option will kill the for-profit insurer cartel's dominance of the insurance business.
...to be replaced by a state monopoly. Yay. Entirely the wrong direction to be headed in, but there are plenty of suckers in this country.
Which provision of the bill creates a state monopoly?
Can you even follow a discussion?
Good point. I was sure that you were using the tried and true 'its all going to lead to sommunism' argument. My bad.
I'm still not convinced this is a valid comparison. If auto insurance covered oil changes, brake jobs and scheduled maintenance, then perhaps the comparison would be better.
Insightful. I had forgotten that a big problem with the current health care system is that everyone wants everything reimbursed. For some reason we do not expect that from our Auto insurance companies. Most likely because we use our cars more than most of us use our doctors.
This also may go back to the fact that a gas station lists their prices, where doctors don't. At least our prescriptions come with predictable receipts... Even my mechanic will give me an estimate. I have only had 1 doctor ever give me one.
It is useful to remember that insurance companies started paying for people to get regular checkups ( along with co-pays, of course) in an attempt to encourage 'wellness' programs, and trying to get people into more proactive rather than reactive health care. The assumption being that they could pay for a whole lot of physicals that would encourage halthier life styles, diets, etc., and that they could find diseases earlier, with a better chance at less cost overall, than if patients waited until things were disastrous before the did anything about it. I think a lot of the over-testing that is done today is an unintended consequence of this (plus fears of law suits).
I am NOT trying to get in the middle of the auto-vs.health insurance debate. Don't want to. I just thought I would mention this because I remember when my company's insurance started paying for the office visits.
That would equate to preventative care. OTOH, comprehensive coverage equates pretty good. If you're car window gets busted because of a hail storm youre covered.
I realize there are differences but what other than another insurance industry provides a better empirical comparison?
What I find important is the review of balance sheets and actuarial information. The forced transparency and justification of rates. The board has the authority to lower those rates.
One thing that I did find heartening is that the bill isn't dependent on the fed beauacracy. It specifically talks about the board OR appropriate STATE regulation. IOW, its telling the states either you do it or we will do it for you.
I seriously do not see how hard it is to understand the underlying difference between auto and health insurance.
In order to drive, I must purchase auto insurance. My recourse against this payment is to not drive.
In order to be alive, I must purchase health insurance? There is no recourse, unless of course I am dead.
One in not like the other.
Also, the auto insurance you are required to purchase is LIABILITY insurance. You are insuring yourself for property damages to OTHERS. I wish they would quit trying to compare apples and oranges.
Excellent point, DarrinS, and DarkReign...
Better discussion in this thread than in some of the others.
I'm not sure there is anything that can provide a truly empirical comparison to the bizarro monopogasm of contemporary healthcare insurance.
I agree as concerns the state's role/burden. I can't determine whether these proposed state boards would be funded or if the states see this as yet another unfunded mandate. That'll likely dictate the state's response. If the rules are going to be uniform from state to state, then it seems much more likely a federal board will be constructed.
But, this is one of the few times we're actually digressing instead of progressing and it's worrisome.
No terrorism or globalization 300 years ago? Read some history, Duff. Man has been terrorizing man and trying to conquer ever-expanding chunks of the globe since -- well -- there was man.
Things are much more civil now than they've ever been -- except for one particular sect of one particular religion.
Give Obama a chance; he's trying as hard as he can to send us backward.
The more crowded people get the more primitive they become. This is a fact beyond fact. Civilization and humanitiy are luxuries we amuse ourselves with when resources are plentiful, the second they starting getting scarce that facade falls away and revert to the animals we truly are at heart and have been for much longer than we have been civilized men.
It's got nothing to do with race, religion or any of those such things(check the history of every ethnic, race, religion etc for further proof of this). Those are simply excuses to divide and reduce our numbers.
And what most people don't realize...space itself is a resource, a precious one.
People can think of all the alternatives they want, but the solution coded into our DNA, every last one of us, is to kill each other off to create more space.
The world for the first time is reaching that habitable space and resource limit globally...it's about to get much worse than it has ever been before. I don't mean in the next couple of months...but most likely in the next century or so.
I have zero faith that our more recently evolved analytical brain will win over our much older emotional one, it never has before.
Last edited by whottt; 03-23-2010 at 06:23 PM.
Then again...you don't need to buy life insurance either, but if you don't you run the risk of your kids (if you every have any) living in poverty, your home being repossessed and your wife on welfare ...your only recourse is not to die...
...in other words, don't be a burden to society, buy health insurance...
Not only is your hyperbole tiresome, it's completely stupid. As in you're completely stupid to think that one man can set an entire world back so much.
As much as I hate George W. Bush, he could never set back humanity ever. You give Obama too much credit or not enough credit. He's either destroying America, or he hasn't done jack in his year of office.
You're right, but it wasn't like it is today. It'd be nearly impossible to carry out terrorist attacks then the way they do now. I know there has always existed terrorism and war and globalization. But it's not like it is now.
All I have to say about everything is we'll get through it. We always have.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions