Reply With Quote
Surely you have some independent (read: not Heritage Foundation, etc.) verification of this claim.
No one ever answers this question:
Under what state's laws will a portable plan be governed?
Surely you have some independent (read: not Heritage Foundation, etc.) verification of this claim.
Is a woman.
Are you a boy?
That is disturbing.
Doesn't matter. Make it the state where the policy holder resides, make it the state where the policy provider resides. Let congress pick one or the other and be done with it. Either way still results in people having more options.
Because the presence of a profit model distorts the relationship of actual, delivered healthcare costs to premium costs....ie...Winehole's example of doctors premium cost reduction for malpractice insurance seemingly having no impact on rising premiums for consumers.
Last edited by TeyshaBlue; 02-11-2010 at 09:46 AM.
It would have to be governed by Federal law.
Are you talking about a federal law to replace the 50 different sets of state laws, or federal law to dictate which state's laws govern in whatever situations?
i.e, is the law going to make a policy written in Texas follow the same rules as a policy written in Oklahoma, or is the law going to say that someone in Oklahoma who likes the policy written under Texas' rules can get that policy and Oklahoma just has to deal with it?
Either scenario could work. But it will take Federal law to implement it.
Agreed.
Look, if we are talking about creating efficiencies, and therefore cost savings in the system, then there should be federal insurance guidelines. The fact that an insurance company has to keep 50 different rules straight, fill out 50 different sets of forms while following 50 different procedures, likely costs a lot more money than if all of those scenarios were boiled down to 1. Also if you allow state laws to remain consider this: I work in Hawaii for a business, business is good, I am doing so well in fact that I am head hunted away from my business which wants to give me a raise, a bonus and a move to New York. I like my insurance that I have, so I bring it with me under the new Portability rules. 2 years pass and I develop some kind of disease get it treated and then find out my insurance company isn't paying for something. After a lot of back and forth with the company I decide to escalate it, do I write the HI dept of insurance or the NY DOI? If I need to go further than that and sue the company, do I need to take time off and fly all the way back to HI for the duration of the lawsuit?
Federal guidelines take care of this problem.
What's the point of letting people buy insurance across state lines if the federal governemnt is going to step in and make the insurance across all state lines look the same?
Letting the insurance companies pick a state and then sell their policies nationwide under that state's rules gives the insurance companies the efficiencies you're looking for and it gives the consumers more options.
Life, liberty, efficiency, and the pursuit of happiness.
I agree with transparency if that means the costs are made public in advance, and that when I agree to a procedure, I and the doctor/hospital/clinic sign off on the total cost in advance.
I agree that insurance should not be used for co-pays on the small stuff.
I could agree to some kind of limit on lawsuits if insurers would agree to pay for the health costs of mistakes/poor outcomes, and make that information public so we would know which doctors are causing the most problems. Currently, lawsuits appear to be the main control on bad medicine. Have you read about the criminal case in West Texas against a whistleblower?
Any tax credits for insurance would increase the deficit because they will mainly be used by the people who already have insurance. The tax credit for people who don't have insurance is unlikely to be enough to make much of a difference because they aren't paying much income tax anyway.
Right, trial lawyers have their excesses but they do fill a role, and are more effective, imo, than whatever regulatory schemes which can be drawn up.
Regarding the quack doc of Kermit, TX, I think that's a pretty good example of how licensing intended to protect the public from quacks now protects quacks from being exposed.
Or, why does su ion of ulterior motives drop for many erstwhile individualists when Fortune 500 companies seek limits on justice?
Special rights in the law for the commons = socialism.
Special rights in the law for the plutocracy = blessed God-endowed free enterprise.
My God man! Haven't you heard trial lawyers are destroying America? What are lib s going to say next time? That global warming is real?
/Cobra Commander
Or, why efficiency shouldn't be held paramount as a concern in governance. You can have liberty and free enterprise without it. The rights of individuals trump efficiency. Justice is a part of that.
I've already quoted this:
Yet like the Kronick and Rand studies, analyses of the effect of Medicare, which becomes available to virtually everyone in America at the age of 65, show little benefit.You may don't like the conclusions of the studies, but they are there.In a recent review of the literature, Helen Levy of the University of Michigan and David Meltzer of the University of Chicago noted that the latest studies of this question “paint a surprisingly consistent picture: Medicare increases consumption of medical care and may modestly improve self-reported health but has no effect on mortality, at least in the short run.”
You mean the dataset showing correlation between socialized health-care and a smaller mortality rate? You must be kidding, right?
What you quoted is irrelevant. I quoted what the conclusion of the article is. To get to that conclusion from the studies is a big stretch.
I don't have a problem with the conclusion of the studies. I have a problem with the conclusion of the article. Please stop moving the goalposts.
No, I'm not kidding.
Isn't the conclusion of the article basically the same of yours: that we need better evidence on this issue and that we need to challenge our assumptions?
I think the only difference is that you're happy with the conventional thinking, the author wasn't and looked for evidence that supported it: couldn't find none and found that previous socialized health-care expansions, like Medicare, had little to no impact.
Ok, but let me tell you that buying ice-creams don't cause girls to use shorter skirts.
No, the way I understand it, the conclusion from her article is that we shouldn't expand Medicare until there's 'more data'. But there's no reason to think we can get any more data on that subject under the current system. Unless we either take datasets from other countries where their 'Medicare' was expanded into a public option and extrapolate numbers from there OR we actually expand Medicare and get the numbers, there will be no conclusive data at all.
Which really adds nothing to the topic, hence my qualification as a strawman.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
