Perhaps the government should just completely get out of its involvement in health care. If people want it let them buy it. If they don't, they don't.People do have these things and not die, and are treated. And we pay. Until you you either do die, or we decide to let you die, you cannot opt out of the system. You are already engaged. We're just paying for your irresponsibility.
You make a very strong case for death panels.There is a tiny minority of people who go through their whole life without having to see a doctor, but of that tiny minority, an even tinier minority will manage to avoid significant health care costs at the very end.
Some startling statistics:
Typical attitude. Just leave business alone and they'll make money, everything will be OK, they can police themselves. Hence, the 2008 Crash.Perhaps the government should just completely get out of its involvement in health care. If people want it let them buy it. If they don't, they don't.
Perhaps the government should just completely get out of its involvement in health care. If people want it let them buy it. If they don't, they don't.
Certainly. If you feel strongly about it get you and all of your liberal friends together, donate your time, effort and money, and be happy. It is not enough for you to vote in someone who will take my money to do what you consider to be good deeds.You mean let people die if the can't pay. That is worse than a "death panel" isn't it? Do you think money should determine whether you live of die?
I agree that Americans want more affordable healthcare. However, and I think (believe it or not) that the government should have a role in the solution. The problem is not Healthcare Reform. It is generally uncontested that some reform is needed. I think that it is this particular bill that is bad- an "overfixing" of the problem. Matter of fact, I don't believe that reform of the healthcare system was the legislative intent. I believe the intent was to stifle (overpower) capitalism- and that is where it will fail, I think.
The limit of the government's involvement is to create a solution where none exists in the private marketplace. No solution currently exists for people with particular pre-existing conditions. They can not get insurance. (And this is not the insurance companies' fault, and in many cases, it isn't the patient's fault either.) This is the only area in which the government's intervention is appropriate. Because medicare already covers people who are certified as disabled, regardless of their age, it could simply be suggested that the government could pass a law making it a "disability" to have pre-existing conditions preventing coverage elsewhere. In addition to rolling back other laws and reforming tort rules, this would just about fix it.
Everything else should be left to the marketplace. With tort reform and less government interventions, costs will come down on their own.
I bet you have never actually considered that the reason why health care costs so much is because of government involvement.Typical attitude. Just leave business alone and they'll make money, everything will be OK, they can police themselves. Hence, the 2008 Crash.
I use my imagination for more important things.I bet you have never actually considered that the reason why health care costs so much is because of government involvement.
And these attempts to save face and make it look like I'm bailing? Nobody who's dealt with you over the long term buys it.
Perhaps the government should just completely get out of its involvement in health care. If people want it let them buy it. If they don't, they don't.
But frankly this type of conversation is pointless
It's amazing to me that you also trust that the justice system is not biased towards big money lawyers and therefore ALL abuses of the system are swiftly punished and punshed so firmly that they would never do those things again. As long as we have a private system that values profit and shareholder value above peoples lives there will be abuse of the pre-existing condition "loophole". I sincerly hope you are not one of the employees who's job performance and salary is judged by the amount of "rescessions" you get. But the reality is that as much as I would like to "trust you" insurers are all tarred with the same brush thru no fault of your own. We need to end the madness of accepting premiums until someone gets sick and THEN deciding they aren't covered. 20,000 Americans faced that nightmare in the last 5 years.
Looking of the free ride I see. Why am I not surprised?
Rates are based on how much they PAY OUT to those that actually treat people. If you can't see how limiting their take to 20% keeps them in check then I give up.
Why could they not pay out more, keep more and raise the rates? If it's an 80/20 cut, why can't they just spend more, keep more, and charge more?
If #441 wasn't enough for you then 443-444 should have been.
iguanaman said:Ha, ha, you crack me up. Everybody has some pre-existing condition and ins. companies often use any little illness you might have forgotten to deny coverage for major illness that was not pre-existing. It is racket they use to get rid of sick people and increase profit.
Neomalthusian said:Who's gonna keep paying a company that reneges on its agreement using fine print? That's either a contract not made in good faith (civil law matter), or at least a reason for customers to abandon/boycott the scam and watch the company crash and burn.
The entire industry does this so there are no other options except NONE. Not many people are going to take that option.
So you're saying people would rather be scammed than save for their own medical care?
I'm sorry but which justice wrote the law?
The sun always shines on a fool
The court won't rule on that issue because there isn't any constitutional Queston in regards to telling as business what it can and can't do. If the court does rule on that they'll VCR over turning 100s of years if legal precedence and open the flood gates. That's an issue confess will have to address
The sun always shines on a fool
If the court overturns the mandate, the deal to end pre-existing conditions is over. If everyone is not required to buy insurance, the staus quo continues and in the next 5 years 20,000 more Americans will have their policies "recsended", their fancy word for dropping you when you get sick. Let's all cheer!
Perhaps the point is that it isn't in fact standard protocol for insurance companies to breach their contracts with their customers, that is a rare exception that's being way overblown by folks like you and iguanaman.
Why could they not pay out more, keep more and raise the rates? If it's an 80/20 cut, why can't they just spend more, keep more, and charge more?
If the court overturns the mandate, the deal to end pre-existing conditions is over. If everyone is not required to buy insurance, the staus quo continues and in the next 5 years 20,000 more Americans will have their policies "recsended", the insurers fancy word for dropping you when you get sick AND you will still get to pay 20% of your premium to cover the young people who don't think they need insurance. Let's all cheer those Justices on!
I guess they could -- if they were all colluding on price, which would be illegal. Otherwise, there's this thing called market competition.
Good point. For every 1 insurance company that has been found to be in violation of hte law through illegal recissions, etc, you can easily find 10 that haven't.
Let's hope the SC legislates from the bench so we can save that awesome system.
Why couldn't this thing called market competition be the thing that puts downward pressure on their 30%+ overhead?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?