Politicians feeling beholden to their constituents tends to seem like a bad thing when what you want done is unpopular and a pretty good thing when what you don't want done is unpopular.
Having Politician define what product will be sold by private companies may be popular with Democrats but it is totally illogical. That should be between the Insurance company and the customers. Trying to convert this system into something closer to what would be a government single payer program, leaves you with neither. It doesn't work, and nobody is talking about actually fixing this. It actually can not even be repealed, since the some damages already done can not be corrected. But yet, that is the only logical begining point. Replacement should leave the insurance companies completely free, including allowing them to compete interstate (across state-lines) and adding, if you want, what ever Government program or expanding existing that has the needed support. Instead, they screwed everything up and are still working on doing it some more, which can only leave us with something nobody wants.
That's like saying that regulating arsenic out of food products is totally illogical, it should be between the food company and their (former, now deceased) customers. I get that conservatives insist that all regulation is evil, but I wouldn't call it "totally illogical"--it's a matter of philosophy.
I'm a little unclear on the appeal of the 'across state lines' argument (or as Trump calls it, "lines around the states"). The reason insurance companies have per-state plans is that the states have per-state regulations. To sell plans across state lines means removing the ability of states to regulate insurance companies and replacing that with federal regulation. Which would seem to go against your usual argument for states rights and federal rules are bad bad bad. barfo
This is close to right Barf. but it is not entirely regulation individually by states that is the reason for this. More often than not it taxation being the reason, an this is protected with the excuse of regulation. In the end, it a barrier to groups of people or groups of small business from forming to purchase insurance. It has never made sense to me that state want to tax healthcare insurance while at the same time wanting to have the Federal government aid people in getting affordable healthcare.. It's more of a power struggle than making any sense. Ha! Oregon just made it more difficult with the new tax they slapped on health insurance. Our democrats don't much care, you can't buy insurance in some counties now, since Obama Care. But they are going to tax it where you can buy it.
“Obama’s complaints about Republicans stopping his agenda are BS since he had full control for two years. He can never take responsibility.” — Donald Trump, on Twitter, September 26, 2012. barfo
Ok, so you are in favor of federal taxes rather than state taxes in order to fund healthcare. I can dig it, I'm all for a national system rather than 50 state systems. Glad we are on the same side for once. barfo
Regulate? Defining the product is not regulation. But we know Democrats want this, well we have it. Unless it is repealed, we are stuck with it.
Lol. What a bunch of clowns. All they did was talk about this for what, 8 years? All horns, no beef. Losers. It's so pathetic you almost feel bad for them. It's like some dude who spits mad game all night and then can't get a boner. Total letdown.
Insurance is a business, it's about risk, and it's not a charity. They have actuaries that figure out what to charge people based upon the risk of payment. Insurance is not health care. You can go to the doctor and pay yourself. The VA is not insurance. Insurance is not required. The way it works is a product of government regulations, no wonder it's outrageous. The more government got involved, the more costly it's all become. When SlyPokerDog gets pregnant, he'll be able to take advantage of HIS coverage. In the mean time, whine about how expensive it is while paying for coverage he'll never possibly use. That's just nuts. Now feel free to continue your rants. You're thinking with your hearts and not your brains.
If it were up to me, the government would open their own hospitals and clinics, hire their own doctors and nurses and staff, buy their own MRI machines and whatnot, and provide CARE for cost. It's paid for like the post office is (the PO charges for stamps and shipping and boxes and so on). The cost of subsidizing access for the poor would be a pittance in comparison with the current schemes (both ObamaCare and what republicans proposed). How moronic is it to cut the insurance companies in? The government can compete and leave everyone else's insurance alone. Everyone could have kept their insurance, kept their doctor.
They're not defining a product, they're instituting regulations about the minimum coverage it needs to have, to prevent splitting insurance customers into two pools: young and healthy who buy cheap, bare-bones plans and people with any health risk factors at all who's health insurance would be sky-high because they'd be the only ones buying plans that have any real coverage.
Exactly how it worked before the Affordable Care Act. I would argue I have no plans to have children. Men are more likely to engage in risky behavior. Men are more likely to have heart attacks. But being a woman was a pre-existing condition and therefore women paid more. A few states, including California, had laws against such discrimination but many did not. I also had"junk insurance" where my premiums were charitable donations to insurance company because they covered nothing, no preventive care, no prescriptions, no office visits, no dental, not one single thing I used. Also, I recall when I was in Portland and had endometriosis that my insurance, and I was working at Emanuel Hospital, covered all prescription medications except oral contraceptives. No matter the purpose. Because they are not health care, they were considered "voluntary". Or just the sluts should not expect to have our slut pills covered.
