How on Earth is telling a company that provides *insurance* that they can't take away a policy as soon as they are required to pay out a claim on it "onerous regulation?" How is insurance "insurance" if it's rescinded as soon as it's needed? The standard free market answer to this is that insurers who don't do right by their customers will lose market share -- but again, with so few competitors in any given market, that doesn't happen. The health insurance industry is a complete failure of the free market, and you can't explain that away by complaining about onerous regulations when those regulations are the only thing keeping the companies from paying out on any claims at all.
If they are in breach of contract of course they should pay. But generally there is a reason for their actions. If you become too great a risk then yes they will drop you but the decision can't legally be made in lieu of payment if the policy covers that person's condition. I realize this happens and sometimes you have to fight to get what's coming but guess who leads in denials of care, why it's your hero the federal government!
So, your solution to skyrocketing medical costs involves making preventative care less affordable? Really?
There's a saying, you might have heard it before- you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. You seem to assume that just because it's there everyone will be clamoring to go get their (as you seem to see it) God-given preventative care). I fail to see that the poor and often uneducated will see fit to take part in that just because it's there.
Jury awards and defensive medicine account for less than 2% of medical costs.
See my answer in the previous response above.
Right, then they just move to the states that does the least regulation, the way credit card companies are all in South Dakota and Delaware. Because we all know the credit card companies are doing such a good job of serving customers...
You've proven my point actually. Of course they ar going to go where they stand the best chance at making a profit. It's just common sense. Regulations limit profits and push businesses not only out of state but overseas too.
As far as the credit cards, well they are a business too. They are not a welfare entity. People need to learn to read up on things and what they are getting into before they use their cards irresponsibly, but I guess that will never happen because the liberals take them by the hand make it all better before they learn from their mistakes. We are seriously getting to the point where no one is responsible for anything anymore. The answer to everything is not more government. Why can't people be permitted to fail and make mistakes? Isn't that how we achieve greatness and excel in life? If all our choices are the 'right' ones because the chance to choose poorly has been eliminated, are we really free anymore? With no risk, there is no reward.
Are you saying math is wrong? $1 trillion / 30 million uninsured / 10 years is about $3400. I know you're trying to make a distinction between what the experts at the CBO say it will cost versus what you think it will cost, but I don't get what you're saying about my assumption being 1/10th of the cost.
You are right, missed a zero in there. Such a simple analysis is really far removed from how insurance works anyway though. The CBO has to crunch whatever numbers it's given, no matter how bogus or fraudulent they are. Garbage in garbage out.
vague accusations about how it will really cost more than that aren't persuasive if you don't have supporting evidence.
Why not? Obama makes his straw men arguments all the time in speeches. Seems to work for him.
Okay, that's one program in Louisiana for people with a specific condition. Do you really believe if programs were available for every condition, that people wouldn't take advantage of them? And how about people who are sick but haven't been diagnosed with a specific condition yet? Generally, the piecemeal programs for specific illnesses are designed to fill gaps in our system. I don't think they're a legitimate answer for health-care overall.
It's a national program but whatever. Many people who qualify for things don't join. Medicaid being one of them. What about them? You can't force them to the doctor. They'll go to the ER when it worsens and nothing will change that. It's well documented that Medicaid patients use the ER far more than any other group. I cited one example but they are other programs and grants that are more far reaching. There are community health clinics- yes, even for your panacea preventative care.
The Republicans did a great job sowing doubt and misunderstanding of the bill, with their "death panels are going to kill your grandma" rhetoric. Despite that, opinion prior to passage was just barely in opposition to the bill, but in favor of all of the individual provisions. Post-passage, public opinion favors the bill.
Funny, they took what was actually written in the bill and pointed it out, cutting through the legalese that obfuscates the true intent. Just because you label it "sowing doubt and misunderstanding" doesn't make it any less true. That's fine too if you want to cherry pick your polls. It's understandable that with such a PR opportunity as the bill passage that there would be a bump in support, but most polls show that opposition remains. In fact,
55% support its repeal.Let's be real here... Is the AMA in the business of favoring policies it thinks will harm physicians, or that aren't supported by a majority of its members?
The AMA has its political agenda like any large organization. Not every physician is a member and certainly not everyone who is is in support of the bill. I have yet to meet one who is, but I suppose they are out there.
It's been fun debating you guys, but this is like the water boy taking on the football team in a brawl. I don't have the energy or the time to keep up with this. I'm glad you take comfort in big government being in every corner of your life. I myself but faith in my own abilities and believe in the freedom not only to succeed but to fail. A big government that has an answer to everything stands in the way of this. I have come to terms with the fact that there is suffering. We can do what we can to help. I am as eager to help people as the next guy, but there is only so much out there in terms of financial resources. Not everyone will be in perfect health and be independently wealthy. It's just not possible. True we can dilute the wealth and health of everyone so everyone is more or less equally poor and unhealthy, but where then is our incentive to improve and to move our society forward? If I work and work and the fruits of my labor are all just going to the government, why should I make an effort to create the next life saving gizmo? This is where your big government policies will lead us and it is an afront to the priniciples on which the US was fonded. The alternative has been tried in other countries and brought about untold suffering, I pray it never happens here.
Stu
Previous Topic
Index
