Political Discussions
Discussing Healthcare Options
Posted by libertycast1 • 9/02/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: Government, healthcare, market, option, private, public, reform
Okay, I want to try to get as many people involved in this discussion as possible. No hateful rhetoric please. Also keep it intellectual and well thought (evidence/statistics are definitely welcome).
So people know I am basically a right-leaning libertarian which basically means I LLOOOOOOOVVVEEEEEEEEEEE classic liberal economics.
In regards to healthcare... I hate what we got. What we have doesn't work and healthcare costs (and the results thereof) is obvious evidence of this. Classic liberal economics basically says you have a competitive market with lots of buyers and sellers and no interference (in a nutshell). What's wrong with our economy is that for healthcare we have interference all over the place and all it's doing is resulting in rising costs. Collusion increases prices; competition lowers prices.
Without going into a load of detail, and killing this discussion thread before it even begins, to a classic liberal economist the biggest mistake our current economy has is insurance agencies. 3rd party buyers. A free market is a market of buyers and sellers; not buyers, sellers and buyers of the buyers who sell to the sellers. The flaw of this basically is that someone else is paying for it so there is no incentive to keep the costs down. A person pays a copay so they might as well get as much treatment while they are there right (reducing future copays paid for future visits)? Another example I like is that if my parents take me out to dinner I'll pull out my wallet when the bill comes but I know my dad is picking up the tab anyway. So does that effect what I'm getting. Not too much, but yes it does a little. Well insurance companies do the same thing. Raise the bill.
I know insurance companies need to go. But those are people that would lose jobs. Yeah and mules lost to plows when it comes to farming and I don't see anyway condemning farmers for it. I think it is safe to say that those people won't just call it quits and they'll figure out something to do.
So what are the other choices? Well single provider like Britain which is real socialized medicine. People there like there system better than we like ours yet even they agree their system is kinda crap. And no I do not want to do it the no-so NICE way. It sucks and it's junk. Still sad that they appreciate their way more even though they are using a worse system. There is Germany mandating all companies provide it and government welfare picks up the unemployed too. Again this system is crap because it still uses faulty 3rd party buyers.
There is Canada and the single payer system. It has its indefinite flaws yet out of all the collusive healthcare systems it is quite evident that it does the least amount of damage. Personally I look at this system and healthcare like drug addicts. You need it but are you better off downgrading from ecstasy to opium. Obviously yes. Does that mean you are better off, not really. It doesn't ration healthcare like Britain but getting a family physician for your own, waiting room times, and getting routine maintenance can be a pain in the you know what. But the healthcare is there. Quality goes down a little but quantity increases a lot (and if you didn't have healthcare before having it now means quality obviously increased). Cost overall goes down as well because as a monopoly you have monopoly negotiating power. Don't want to pay my price? Then go to a different country with millions less in population.
Another option is a purely private market. It's hard to say exactly what would happen with this in today's world because so much has changed and yet there are still good ideas about what would happen. Eliminating HMOs altogether is one interesting idea some doctors have adopted in a few places in the US and are simply cash only and payment is negotiable. There are some that have seen small procedures such as a few stitches costing only as much as a normal copay. This system has similar effects with that of the single payer as well. With less paperwork there is less need for administrative overhead and thus costs are reduced. Less staff can also mean longer wait times. Unfortunately this also means that there will be incentive to lower prices which will result in doctor's salaries being cut (few doctors likes this idea). Another benefit of this idea is that with a public option there tends to be national medical databases in replacement of the local admin. There goes doctor-patient privacy right out the window. The purely private option doesn't do that. Ultimately this is my deal breaker.
Another private option is non profit coops. Not much needs to be said here except that it can help to drive prices down as it opens up negotiations more, yet its still a 3rd party buyer and not as effective. This seems to be the most likely of the current options pressed in the US at the current time.
For me I still think that the purely private option presented is the best way to go. I don't think we are are ready for this. We have left this path so long I am not sure we are comfortable with it. Medicare is broken. $5 trillion over the next 10 years in debt because of baby boomers. We want more national healthcare (or atleast some of us do). The idea there is that dispersing the need to healthier folks too will also lower costs. I am not totally convinced of that yet. Two things are for sure: Old folk need to stop complaining about a public option when they got one (your kids and grandkids should be good enough for the boat too) and when we have infant mortality rates twice that of some 3rd world countries I think it's about time we do something.
What do you all think?
User Comments
-
An additional problem with classic liberal economics is that the free market works best when the buyers are knowledgeable. In healthcare, 99% of us just don't know enough to say whether a given medicine/treatment is right or not. The system also makes it difficult to shop around per treatment. Yeah, once you don't like a doctor you could go to the next one but it would be very cumbersome to shop each illness to multiple doctors.
I'm not so sure getting rid of insurance companies is the right answer, although they might have some anti-trust issues. More insurance companies may actually be part of the answer.
I do like:
tort reform
importing pharm
allowing purchasing insurance across state lines
having medicare negotiate for basically all treatments (no no bid contracts)
National database of doctor ratings/complaints/etc.
Stop covering illegals
Subsidize prevention for the poor
I don't think that that will cover it though.-
For tort reform I have been contemplating having malpractice lawsuits being reviewed by a collective board of doctors and lawyers (doctors the majority).
-
Importing pharm is a good idea, but some countries do not regulate medicines like our FDA does. That is an obstacle to that issue.
-
-
I'll be frank. My attention span didn't make it through the whole post. For now i'll just comment on health insurance, which is in essence people collectivizing their risk by throwing premiums into a common pool. Such does not seem to be incompatible with a capitalist system. I would seem to find that a tax rebate to cover costs (similar to what John McCain suggested during the campaign, coupled with the anti-descrimination reforms currently being suggested would bring an acceptable situation for virtually all parties.-
Sorry for the long post, esp. when I was trying to somewhat keep it condensed.
In regards to tax rebates in many cases I like them, but I'm not sure about it here. I think they would end up like Bush's prescription cards. Whatever the discount is is probably how much rates will get increased. Money in the pocket of the people is good, but w/o some kind of incentive to lower prices or consumer protection I don't think it will matter. Healthcare is inelastic and the price will be paid. -
it does seem that the vastly increased pool of the private insurers (being that more peple would be able to use their services) would offset any significant loss in profit from cost controls.
-
-
I agree with you on the 3rd party buyer influencing the system adversely. When your car needs a transmission rebuilt, you will probably shop around to see what different shops charge, how reputable they are, etc... before you make your decision. If your doctor says you need an MRI, you shrug your shoulders and go to where ever he sends you to get it. No shopping to see if the lab down the road provides MRI's for less cost because you pay your monthly premium and that is the only cost (other than co-pays) that concerns you. The consumer of medical necessities needs to be more involved in the process.
Also, cutting out some of the mandates that different states impose on the insurance companies would go along way towards lowering prices. Things such as hair prostheses and acupuncture.
www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/HealthInsuranceMandates2008.pdf
And lastly, to allow people to purchase health insurance across state lines and giving individuals tax incentives to purchase said policies, then you would see more competition and less cost. Instead of Cash for Clunkers, how about Cash (tax incentives) for Health Insurance? -
The free market was never meant for such as health care, not to mention now that both the health insurance and the health care industry are coercive they are totally in opposition with the origins of the free market. You can't put life and death and treatment decision in the hands of stockholders, and have an industry - and this also includes physicians, clinics and hospitals with fairly non-transparent billing and treatment practices. Here if you are uninsured 4 titches at the hospital owned out clinic cost 775.00, if insured half of that. Why?
There is little we can do at this point with it being such a large part of the GDP. The best we can ask for is allowing competition to the insurance companies and that includes government copetition, regulation so that it is no longer coercive, and to make them liable to Federal anti trust laws. There is something to be said for a fair free market.
There was a good recent post in the CSM about health care, BlogHer has an ongoing and rather informative series and discussion going on as well, if you are looking for online interaction with a group of people. It's not a forum that allows name calling and spammers though, it is a pretty pointed forum.
A friend of mine has JD. His doctors since he was 12 and diagnosed, are at a renown clinic specializing in this. he was told by both his pediatrician and his doctors way back when he was in high school 9 he is the type to sit and have long philosophical discussions with his doctors even at that age) there that there is some suspicion
(though they never say for sure it is a close as they can come professionally) that the reason the cure for this disease is not imminent, despite them saying for years and years they were 10 years away, is the money made of diabetic testig supplies alone, not to mention the newser state of the art insulins invented every so many years, is in -
I forgot to add:
Stop pharm ads to consumer
Stop pharm visits with doctors. -
Bottom line: As long as our health care is solely in the hands of loosely regulated private corporations who are beholden to shareholders, we are screwed. Rates will continue to rise, care will continue to slide and restrictions will increase.
I believe we need some sort of plan that will:
- provide more oversight.
- create more competition.
- provide continued coverage between jobs.
- cover all those with pre-existing conditions.
- work to fix inefficient and antiquated processes.
- provide an easy way to compare and shop for coverage.
It is reasonable to believe that a public OPTION could provide the much needed competition and required coverage could help defray costs across the board.
One way or another, we cannot keep putting this problem off. Letting the health insurance industry become such a large part of our economy has already led to problems and it's only going to get worse if we stick with the status quo.
Most importantly, honest dialog without all the misinformation is what will benefit us all.-
Loosely regulated? Health insurance companies are among the MOST regulated businesses in the country. I am in no way defending them, but you have to stop and think about what you say, ruin. You can't just spout Democratic talking poin....wait. I forgot who I was talking to. Never mind, go on.
-
-
I did some number searching before I went to the meeting last night - just so I could be sure about what, who, when, and how much regarding health care.
All my numbers come from the CDC, the BLS, the CB, BCBS, American journal of medicine, and several national studies.
*As of 2005 (current numbers are not available yet) we had 100 million people receiving their insurance from medicaid, medicare, or their government employer (including municipal workers such as firefighters, police, and postal workers).
*We have 47 million people without insurance for whatever reason.
*That's 147 million people out of 300 million people - or 50% of the country NOT using the privatized health care industry.
*62% of all bankruptcies are medical bankruptcies - meaning they are caused by undue hardship from medical bills, illness, injury etc..
*only 60% of business are now offering employee based health care, and of that only 40% of low wage workers - anyone who makes less than $15 per hour - have access to, and are eligible for employer based health care.
Remember - these numbers are old, and they have certainly changed during the recession>
*We have 91.5 million people living at, below, or just above the national poverty threshold as of 2007 - and even more now.
If our privatized medical/insurance industry is so gosh darn good - Why aren't more people using it? - and while we may have the best medical technology and advancement, but What good is it if people have to go bankrupt to use it?
Listen, we just barely beat out Cuba in the WHO health care standard rating - Cuba came in at 39th. They spend $383 some odd dollars per capita on health care, while we pay $6,700 per capita on health care.
First and foremost - making the health care industry non profit would be the biggest start to reforming the industry. It would instantly lower costs all around.
Second - heavy regulations on health insurance industries who have been (sometimes literally) getting away with murder for decades.
Third - offer a public option. 50% of our country is already on some form of government insurance - clearly we could role those up into one public option plan that would not only encourage competition, allow people to get reasonable coverage, but it would also allow more businesses to buy employer based health benefits! -
Our system is flawed. I completely agree. However I disagree with Ruinous Right on that we are screwed with the private sector. We are only screwed by the private sector when their arent incentives to lower prices.
Our healthcare is not so gosh darn good but our medical industry is. We have the best doctors and hospitals in the world - problem is the common man can't afford to use them.
I still favor fixing the issues at hand over redoing the entire system. Collusion, lobbyism, and consumer protections would be a good start. I'm just not convinced that we need to do this. We may end up with no choice because of partisanship, but I still do not feel it is necessary to do it. Privacy can be lost and I have a vote of no confidence in the government on this one.
We pay Iran money for oil which they use to fund the insurgency that kills our people. I'm sorry but I call that stupid. If we are doing this to our adult kids I don't necessarily want to trust them with my little ones.
We do need to do something though.
Infancy Mortality Rates - CIA World Factbook 2009 (ave/1000)
180 United States 6.26
181 Cuba 5.82
182 European Union 5.72
183 Italy 5.51
184 Isle of Man 5.37
185 Taiwan 5.35
186 San Marino 5.34
187 Greece 5.16
188 Ireland 5.05
189 Canada 5.04
190 Wallis and Futuna 5.02
191 Monaco 5.00
192 New Zealand 4.92
193 United Kingdom 4.85
194 Gibraltar 4.83
195 Portugal 4.78
196 Australia 4.75
197 Jersey 4.73
198 Netherlands 4.73
199 Luxembourg 4.56
200 Guernsey 4.47
201 Belgium 4.44
202 Austria 4.42
203 Denmark 4.34
204 Korea, South 4.26
205 Liechtenstein 4.25
206 Slovenia 4.25
207 Israel 4.22
208 Spain 4.21
209 Switzerland 4.18
210 Germany 3.99
211 Czech Republic 3.79
212 Andorra 3.76
213 Malta 3.75
214 Norway 3.58
215 Anguilla 3.52
216 Finland 3.47
217 France 3.33
218 Iceland 3.23
219 Macau 3.22
220 Hong Kong 2.92
221 Japan 2.79
222 Sweden 2.75
223 Bermuda 2.46
224 Singapore 2.31
So the thing I see is with infants it's not exactly a lifestyle issue. When we have the best medical industry in the world why the heck are our rates all the way up there and behind countries like Denmark? More pollutants and less coverage for routine care is what I would say. I agree we need to do something though I will obviously disagree on the method. Single payer has its flaws like every system, however fixing the 3rd party buyer issue I do not believe single payer would then compare to what we would have.-
My God, we're even behind Cuba on that one.
-
i understand where you are coming from LC. The legislation being tossed around is far from perfect, reflecting the political system as a whole
if only there was a legislative opposition to the healthcare reform that addressed the need for meaningful reform for the sake of PEOPLE rather than insurers and medical supply producers, I might be more sympathetic to their cause -
Agreed. It makes it hard to want consider anything bipartisan, which is sad cause partisanship is really hurting us.
-
I have a feeling that the H1N1 threat has the potential to spur compromise. I hope that the threat is not as severe as it is perceived.
-
Infant mortality rates have more factors than health care.
"But not every health issue is a health care issue. The reason boxers are unusually prone to concussions is not that they lack medical insurance. Doctors may treat head injuries, but it's a lot easier to prevent them. Absent prevention, we shouldn't blame the medical industry for punch-drunk fighters.
Like life expectancy (the subject of a previous column), infant mortality is a function of many factors. The more you look at the problem, the less it seems to be correctable by a big new federal role in medical insurance—and, in fact, the less it seems to be mainly a medical issue at all.
No one denies the problem. Our infant mortality rate is double that of Japan or Sweden. But we live different lives, on average, than people in those places. We suffer more obesity (about 10 times as much as the Japanese), and we have more births to teenagers (seven times more than the Swedes). Nearly 40 percent of American babies are born to unwed mothers.
Factors like these are linked to low birth weight in babies, which is a dangerous thing. In a 2007 study for the National Bureau of Economic Research, economists June O'Neill and Dave O'Neill noted that "a multitude of behaviors unrelated to the health care system such as substance abuse, smoking and obesity" are connected "to the low birth weight and preterm births that underlie the infant death syndrome."
www.reason.com/news/show/135603.html -
I wonder what you suggest as solution to these other factors?
-
Less unwed mothers giving birth.
Less teen mothers giving birth.
Less drug dependent mothers giving birth. -
so... I wonder how it is that secular social-democratic countries have such lower rates?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_pregnancy#Global_incidence
-
-
I do the same. I also fear of some kind of fascichusettes syndrome.
No offense, well okay actually yes, but there is a reason why in the constitution there is an exception (actually two) for suspending habeas corpus. I still think for what they did to be legal that out of principle that referendum must come first.-
I'm not sure what you are calling for. could you explain?
-
In my personal view if any suspension of any part of the constitution is to be had it must first be made constitutional as otherwise it would be a violation of constitutional rights.
Habeas corpus can be suspended in cases of invasion and civil war for those who do not know.
For the fourth amendment to see any kind of suspension in cases such as medical/ health emergencies such as an h1n1 pandemic it must then follow in the same footsteps and the exception must be a part of the constitution.
Since it is not already part of the constitution it the change can only come from an amendment.
Also since this is a specific issue with the federal constitution Massachusetts can't really do anything here. It's a federal issue. This has to come from congress in my mind. -
Okay, I realized I need to clarify a bit more. I fear a constitutional conflict coming from this.
I do hope some kind of benefit to the American public will come from this. I don't think that the Republican party will be willing to give Obama this kind of a policy "win" if that's what one would want to call it. I think if anything is done it will come from more partisanship. The big issue here is that if a Republican takes up Kennedy's seat this will prove to be a much more difficult task. I doubt that will happen and I am sure the state as a whole wants the dynasty to continue, but it's just something to think about.
If any kind of policy work is done I just want it to be done in an effective way. Not a way that just allows policy makers to put icing over the burnt mess.
It looks like they really want more of a Gernman style system here. The way our economy works now turning the government into a 3rd party buyer I think will have be more detrimental to our healthcare system and economy than the single payer plan which I am very skeptical on seeing anytime soon in this country. -
I have a bad feeling that we are going to end up w/ something like H.R.3200 with "tort reform" tacked on, thus making it "bipartisan" and that the "pandemic" will be the Republican's excuse for flip-flopping
-
-
I think we should do non-profit coops just like the ones that already exist for Banking. I'll reference a post from my blog here to save space:
hailingfromgeorgia.blogspot.com/2009/08/healthcare-co-ops-third-option.html
In addition, some additional regulation to ban certain unsavory practice while perhaps also looking at any superfluous regulations that drive up cost without substantial necessity.-
There at Ga Tech they run the spread option, right?
-
-
my 2 cents:
- the u.s. has the BEST healthcare system in the world. even with all the govt regulation restricting our free market system, we have the best doctors, the best research, and the best supplies. it is our health coverage system needs a lot of work. we have to ask why is health insurance so expensive?
- health insurance companies are highly regulated within states. i live in ny, why can't i buy health insurance from a company in hawaii? as libertycast said, competition drives prices down. we need to open it up.
- we need tort reform. if you ask any doctor, malpractice is one of their biggest concerns.
- a public option will inevitably lead to a single payer system. how will govt option compete w/private insurers? - by price. if that's the case, who wouldn't switch to the govt option? after that, health ins co's will have to shut it down.
- the detriments of a single payer system are numerous. to sum it up, you the patient, loses out the most. are death panels so far away? not at all.
- and the big whammy is - who's going to pay for all this? you the taxpayer.-
If you cut and pasted that out of CPRights, that is stealing content
-
- the u.s. has the BEST healthcare system in the world. even with all the govt regulation restricting our free market system, we have the best doctors, the best research, and the best supplies. it is our health coverage system needs a lot of work. we have to ask why is health insurance so expensive?
It's only great if you can pay for it. As it stands, our country is duking it out for a global spot between Costa Rica (at 36th) and Cuba (39th).
- health insurance companies are highly regulated within states. i live in ny, why can't i buy health insurance from a company in hawaii? as libertycast said, competition drives prices down. we need to open it up.
You can't because Hawaii has different laws regrading insurance than NY does - making the red tape and laws with say...regards to PPO's work against your favor. Hawaii insurance agents do not know what NY insurance laws are, and cannot protect you, your rights, your health or your assets, and could even penalize you for being unable to participate in their list of providers - seeing as no one state will have providers listed for the entire nation.
This becomes and argument about state's rights, as it is their right to regulate their laws regarding insurance.
- we need tort reform. if you ask any doctor, malpractice is one of their biggest concerns.
I hear a lot of people state we need "TORT reform". I'm curious as to how many people actually know what it is.
- a public option will inevitably lead to a single payer system. how will govt option compete w/private insurers? - by price. if that's the case, who wouldn't switch to the govt option? after that, health ins co's will have to shut it down.
Or they will compete. What they do if they had actual competition? What if real competition challenged them that wasn't the government? Who would everyone blame then?
- the detriments of a single payer system are numerous. to sum it up, you the patient, loses out the most. are death panels so far away? not at all.
There are NO death panels. That portion of the bill simply states that counseling is now a legitimate insurance claim along with mental health and substance rehabilitation. It means that doctors will get paid for their time spent counseling their patient should their patient want it.
- and the big whammy is - who's going to pay for all this? you the taxpayer.
If you listened to the address - the budget will be reorganized to make the current expenditures more productive and less wasteful, thus reducing the money needing to be spent, and people who choose the public option will pay a premium for their plan.
So yes, YOU the taxpayer will pay for it if you want it - but not through your taxes. Through your premium - just like any other plan. -
@Anok...when are you going to stop referring to that stupid World Health Organization report? We have covered it here extensively that it is weighted to favor countries with socialized medicine. Within the report, the two factors that directly address the quality of the medical system rate the United States number one.
Stop falling for the far left propaganda, you are smarter than that.
As far as the NY vs. Hawaii argument in your reply, the entire point is to DEREGULATE all the crap that liberal states force insurance companies to cover, like hair replacement and acupuncture. Then you could have commerce across state lines like the commerce clause in the Constitution intends. -
Was that "hair replacement" bit... a joke?
-
I have a different take on the cross state competition. Just remove the federal ban and let states decide for themselves whether they allow insurance companies from other states to participate and under what rules. Some states won't allow outside insurance companies. Others will.
-
Antics - the reason I keep bringing up the WHO report is precisely because it does take access into consideration.
You can have the best in the world, but it's useless if you can't use it. 62% of all bankruptcies right now are medical bankruptcies, as of 2005 100 million people were on medicaid, medicare, or received their benefits from a federal employer. 47 million people do not have insurance (for whatever reason).
50% of the country does not use private insurance.
62% go bankrupt due to the cost of medical care.
only 60% of businesses now offer employer based insurance, and of that, only 40% of low wage workers (under $15 per hour) are eligible and able to receive employer based insurance.
That leaves a lot of people (well over half the country) who - without intervention - can not afford medical care.
Our medicine could be made of the Pope's blessings and God's salvation but it won't do anyone any good if they can't buy it.
Hence our low ranking. It's pitiful! -
Very thoughtful, xmarks. I like that idea.
@Anok...got a link to back up them figures little lady? -
All of my figures are from the CDC, Census bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics (and their studies), American journal of Medicine national studies, Blue Cross Blue Shield medical statistic studies (for the average cost of care) and...that's it.
There are multiple pages of each and multiple national studies to confirm the numbers, statistics and percentages. For example, to estimate the number of federal employees receiving benefits I had to look at three different pages - one general one and two that included municipal employees and postal workers. Medicare had 2 - 3pages of info, same as medicaid. (those numbers are from 2005, as the new numbers have not come out yet).
The bankruptcy studies came from the American Journal of Medicine National Study (2007).
The business based benefits and low wage worker statistics regarding insurance coverage were from two BLS national compensation studies.
I didn't bookmark the links as I wrote them down instead for the townhall meeting - then I accidentally handed the card with my bibliography on it to my Congressman when I handed in your questions
Sorry
All of the info is there though, you just have to ferret it out and add it up. There was a NYtimes article (I think - might have been another news outlet) that broke it all down, but I chose to use the direct sources instead.
For accuracy
-
-
I find it strange how some conservatives are so into states competing with one another, to see who can give the best sweetheart deal (internal protectionism--in this case INTERSTATE PROTECTIONISM) even though one of the two primary concerns of forming a constitutional union was COMMERCIAL AMITY!
Absurd! -
how many of you can say with true conviction, that you would prefer medicine in costa rica and cuba than in the u.s.?
that's exactly right, a ny'er can't buy insurance from any other state but ny. it is regulated. allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines will create incredible competition that benefits the people - through lower prices and better products. don't confuse "united states" and private companies competing across state lines - they are 2 different things.
if the govt competed against private companies, it is not on a level playing field. with the inefficiencies of govt programs, there is no bottom. if they're in the red, should they shut down like a private company would? everyone knows it won't shut down, they will inevitably raise taxes or set a budget and ration the money they do have (start thinking death panel). private companies can't compete against this.
if people were to pay a premium for a public option, how does that solve the 47 million uninsured? they're uninsured because they can't afford to pay anything at all, so how will they get insurance? either the govt would have to make it ridiculously inexpensive, thereby forcing private companies out of business, or they will have to go on medicaid, which already exists.
obama projects $900 billion, which in reality would cost well over $1 trillion. our health coverage system needs reform, but not that enormous weight on our children's shoulders.-
"it is regulated. allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines will create incredible competition that benefits the people - through lower prices and better products"
where have I heard that argument before...?
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/01/eveningnews/main620626.shtml
oh... -
that's exactly right, a ny'er can't buy insurance from any other state but ny. it is regulated.
This is not difficult to understand....
It's regulated by The state of NY and every state regulates it's own insurance laws - the states are exercising their right to make their own laws regarding insurance.
Are you implying you would like the federal government to step in and make all states obey the same insurance laws, and thus force them to abolish their own laws?
How very unconservative of you.
if people were to pay a premium for a public option, how does that solve the 47 million uninsured? they're uninsured because they can't afford to pay anything at all,
You assume that they are uninsured because they can't afford anything at all. Most people who are uninsured actually run into problems such as being denied for pre-existing conditions, or fail to meet the financial guidelines for medicaid, or the age guidelines for medicare, and their employer doesn't offer insurance or they are not eligible for the benefits where they work.
Besides that, the competition will drive prices down, making said premiums far more affordable for everyone - on all levels private or public.
if the govt competed against private companies, it is not on a level playing field. with the inefficiencies of govt programs, there is no bottom. if they're in the red, should they shut down like a private company would?
You mean shut down like AIG did? Oh, wait.... -
State rights? That's some radical left-wing craziness there!
Unfortunately, the ability of states to regulate their own commerce is immediately violated once corporate bodies are freed from the reponsibilities of original charter by allowing lenient states that don't enforce any significant requirements of charter (Delaware, S. Dakota, Nevada, etc) to accept corporate governing bodies in violation of the original states right. "Commercial Amity" indeed
-
-
Interesting related post from a soldier recently killed in Iraq: idiotsworld.wordpress.com/2009/08/11/want-free-health-care-7-tricks-to-free...
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
