Forum Post: The Truth About the Republican Plan on Healthcare
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 7, 2011, 10:37 a.m. EST by rmmo
(262)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
The Republican solution to healthcare is to allow the healthcare industry to sell coverage across state lines to supposedly increase competition and thereby lower premiums.
Here is the truth about the plan and why you should not buy into it. States regulate the insurance industry within the state. States require the healthcare providers within the state to provide certain coverage. For example, some states may require healthcare providers to cover certain heart surgeries and cancer treatments etc.
What the insurance industry wants is to shop for the state with the least regulations, consumer protections, and coverage requirements. The states that require the least coverage.
If the Republican plan passes, the insurance industry can shop for the state with no regulations, consumer protections, or coverage requirements and the entire industry will set up shop in that state.
Then, they will sell you insurance from that state that has no regulations, protections, or requirements and you will have no recourse because you do not live in that other state -- you cannot demand that the industry be regulated because you do not elect the politicians that are elected in that state.
And the state that has attracted the entire insurance industry to set up shop there, attracted them by saying that they would not regulate them and are just happy to have the entire industry there because they have brought jobs to the state and massive new state revenue.
So, we will all have insurance policies that cover nothing and we will have no recourse against the insurance companies that are located in the other state. The only ones who benefit from this is the insurance companies because then they can all settle in the states with the least oversight so they can make the most profit off of you.
Allow your state to have control over the insurance policies sold in your state -- don't let the Republicans fool you into thinking that this would benefit anyone else but the big industry pushing this.
The Republican plan does not require insurance companies to comply with state regulations when they sell across state lines because Republicans' spin is the state's regulations are "forcing" consumers to buy "Cadillac plans" that offer a lot of coverage when they may only want really minimal coverage offered in states who do not regulate the industry.
What they fail to note is that the whole industry will go set up in the states with the least regulation and coverage requirements because they are a for profit making industry. Then there will be no "Cadillac coverage" as if people are getting "Cadillac coverage" now because their state's are "forcing them to buy" plans that actually cover a few things because the states have required insurers in their state to cover certain care. Here is an article about the Republican's most recent attempt to pass this plan:
"House bill on selling insurance across state lines will have to overcome divided government Updated: Monday, August 8th, 2011 | By Angie Drobnic Holan
House Republicans have introduced a bill that would allow health insurance to be sold across state lines, as part of their proposals to repeal the Democratic health care law and implement their own proposals.
Sponsored by Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., the Health Care Choice Act of 2011 would repeal major parts of the health care reform bill and "generally allow individuals to purchase health coverage licensed in other states if the insurer meets solvency standards and provides independent external appeals procedures for benefit disputes," according to a committee summary.
A House subcommittee held a hearing on the matter in May. Rep. Fred Upton, R-Md., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said the legislation would help consumers in states that put too many requirements on health insurers.
"Consumers are forced to buy a Cadillac health plan; they aren't even given the option of something that better fits their needs," Upton said in a prepared statement. "As a result, many individuals choose to go without any health coverage because of these costly mandates."
A representative from President Barack Obama's administration said that the 2010 health care law already allows for insurance plans to be sold across state lines. "The Affordable Care Act allows health care to be sold across state lines when both states agree and consumer protections are maintained," said Steven Larsen of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid in his testimony. "Without the consumer protections included in the Affordable Care Act, we run the risk of creating an environment where there is a 'race to the bottom' in which insurers have an incentive to sell plans from the state with fewest consumer protections."
Here are two articles on it:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/selling_insurance_across_state.html
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_02/022493.php
And they cheer at the reality, when pointed out to them, that the uninsured simply die. They want ALL the states to have no regulations, ALL big business to be unregulated and just do what they please.
Hello.
I am Republican. Please provide proof that I or my R-registered neighbors would ever cheer such a thing as "let them die!". - Let me save you some time - we wouldn't. Stop being an anti-Republican stereotyping prejudiced person.
Do you watch tv? Pay attention to the major events of your party? Here's the 9/12/11 Republican debates on CNN: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irx_QXsJiao
Oh and speaking of paying attention to the major events of your party..... do YOU pay attention to what Democrats say?
And on and on. Yes both parties are dark but right now, at this moment, I fear the National socialist-Democrats and their pro-rationing anti-constitution, anti-consumer, pro-corporatist, pro-censorship, pro-TSA groping/spying more than I fear the republidicks.
IMHO
"That's what freedom is all about. Taking your own risks and dealing with the consequences of your decisions."
CHEER.
They were Not cheering somebody dying. They were cheering the Founding Fathers' ideal of being free to run your own life, rather than being dictated to by an oligarchy 1000 miles away in D.C.
The first cheers were for the "personal responsibility" comment. The second cheers and the "YEAH!"s came right after "should he die?" In the interest of fairness, Ron Lawl answered "no". (Though his answer ---that churches or other private charity could/should take care of it--- is pretty weak and calls his ideas into question.) The point is the crowd cheered at a very unseemly possibility. This was not a random group of wingnuts on the local sidewalk-- this was a major national Republican event. Those cheering in the crowd represent many (to be fair, probably not all) in your party. It is scary to see it go unaddressed and rather implicitly condoned, as though it is a test to see how vicious a mob can be created. If I saw something happening like that in a group I identify myself with, I would be very concerned and bothered by it.
Yeah. So why did you ignore my comments about your OWN party, the Democrats As I said I find them far more scary.
Why did you type Ron Lawl? Kinda rude don't ya think?
There was ONE maybe two people who yelled "yeah". Probably the same kind of dick who wore black and smashed windows in Oakland. You can't judge an entire group by one or two idiots. (Or maybe I should just assume all OO people are hate-filled anarchists?)
Paul's answer is based on his pre-Medicare experience when he was a doctor. People didn't die... they were helped by friends and neighbors. TODAY the answer is the law passed by the Republican congress in the late 90s. Hospitals cannot turn-away sick people. The young man w/o insurance would not be left to die.
I didn't-- this site automatically changes the spelling of his name, which is controversial but I think their reasons are all the spamming and a wish to avoid being linked to his campaign. Anyway, one person cheering is too many. I find his answers to the unintended consequences of his proposals to be unsatisfactory, but this isn't about that, or even him in particular. This is about an undercurrent of sadism in the party base that, if I was in the party, i would want to see addressed and nipped in the bud. It would concern me. Just like the few people who associate themselves with Occupy and call for violence--- they are a fringe but when they reflect on others it becomes a cause for concern, and the larger group responds with clearer and better answers to everyone about what exactly will or won't be tolerated. The problem is addressed and the policy of the larger group is clarified.
So I can blame the entire Occupy movement because one (actually 200) persons went-round smashing windows. That's basically what you're saying.
Fair enough. I made a generalization, which was technically incorrect. As I suspect many people are doing about Occupy based on the very few individuals which either endorse violence or perhaps even initiated some. There are assholes in every crowd, it's true. But that does put a pressure on the larger group to discourage it and to make sure it doesn't become implicitly acceptable. For every stirring of violence that's ever been remotely suggested within Occupy (on the ground, on the online forums, on facebook), there has been at least one person to immediately address it by saying "we take non-violence with utmost seriousness and do not endorse aggression." And then directing the person to readings on the subject. I think the Republican party should have done the same thing at the debate. Even if it could not be proven beyond all doubt who did the cheering or exactly why, the point is it sure made a bad impression, and it should have been nipped in the bud and clarified right then and there.
I think Ronn Paul already did that. His answer was "No that young man would not be left to die of his illness." He showed he disagreed with the one or two dicks who yelled out "yea!"
Then if not what alternative since this hypothetical person 'choose' not to purchase health insurance?
I agree that the question was loaded, because there was no definition of a 'good wage' or mention of the expenses this hypothetical person paid on a monthly basis.
The presumption is that 'good wage' is predetermined by others without regard to obligations already in place.
A 'good wage' changes from good to not so great when one factors in, family, housing, student loans, transportation (even by bus where available), utilities, clothing, food...
I thought I already answered this question. In the late 90s the Republican Congress passed a law which requires hospitals to heal all sick people.
So the hypothetical guy who chose to buy a Ferrari instead of insurance would not be left to die of cancer. He would go to the hospital and be given free care... as required by US law.
They don't change other candidates names? Mitt Romney. Herman Cain. Rick Perry. None of them were "changed" by the forum.
I guess it's just more of the "media marginalization" direct at Ronn Paul.
Because there has been nary a mention of any of those candidates on this forum. Not a one. If they were to start appearing everywhere, they might be suppressed too. I admit I'm not a fan of the name-changing policy myself. But I do think it was because the campaigning for this one candidate was getting ridiculously excessive and hijacking the discourse.
RINO's Republicans in name only - same with the Dem's -
I thought Republicans liked states' rights?
I like states' rights! I like being bound by laws that are based on the culture & the wishes of the people of the state I live in. When I no longer like that culture or the state's laws, I can move to a different state.
You are correct, it is for the benefit of the insurance companies.
Their other bright health care idea is "tort reform".
Which will benefit insurance companies and the big for-profit hospital conglomerates.
And will hurt the family left with a dead baby or disabled breadwinner due to malpractice.
Right they already sold us on the lie that high insurance premiums were caused by medical malpractice lawsuit and we bought it and made it harder to sue and collect judgments in every state. Did premiums go down? No. Insurance profits went up!
I think the answer is to start a not for profit private insurance group. Health insurance as a profit making enterprise simply cannot put the best interest of the patient first because it is contrary to the goal of ever increasing profits. It is becoming so expensive to keep the insurance companies content that it is a scourge on the people and on business. I cannot agree with the health insurance mandate because I cant afford insurance at all, and i shouldnt have to prove this to not have to buy it, especially when there is no affordable alternative. I am too poor for insurance, but not poor enough for medicaid, like many others in this country.
Agreed. Profit should be taken out of health -- the rest of the world has realized this.
Corporate 'for profit' death panels. If you don't make the insurance company enough profit you die. That is Republican free market healthcare.
Let insurance companies spend millions of tax dollars each year enticing medicare seniors to join their plan. Tax dollars that could and should be spent on actual healthcare. That is Republican free market healthcare.
Multi million dollar corporate executive pay and bonuses for managing the private insurance industry death panels more profitably. Keeping more healthcare tax dollars as profit rather then assuring the quality of life for American tax payers. That is Republican free market healthcare.
that's not a health care plan that's pond hopping
The Republican plan is "forum shopping" for the least regulations and least coverage requirements = highest profit.
If you really like to change things, please click the following link and start a campaign to get millions to sign it......Thanks.
http://www.change.org/petitions/members-of-congress-and-senators-fix-the-economy-and-balance-the-budget-now?pe=d4e
Proposals that do not eliminate private health insurance in its entirety simply extend and prolong the current dysfunctional system.
Single payer is the only solution.
Adopt the following platform to achieve political clout:
Why this is Important Currently Congress is reviewing cutting benefits of millions of Americans while keeping their perks and benefits intact. They must not be treated differently than any average hard working American. If the hatred and the childish behavior we are currently witnessing in the congress does not end soon we must fire the elected representative whether a Democrat or Republican and elect a new member who puts the interest of the millions of hard working Americans before the party. If necessary, the time is now to start a new 3rd party "All American" that governs from the middle representing the most Americans. This party can start with the following platform: 1) Balance the Budget in the next 8 years. 2) Make a pledge to make America energy independent over the next 8 yrs. Start using natural gas for converting national Buses, Trucks and all gas guzzling vehicles to natural gas in the first phase. In many countries mass transit buses and some private automobiles already run on natural gas which is cleaner than regular gas. The technology already exist. 3) Cut the budget of non-essential and non-productive Federal Departments in half. 4) Cut the budget of every other Federal Department except Defense by 10% 5) Review Defense and cut all the waste wherever possible and feasible. Strengthen wherever necessary. 6) Put wage and price freeze across America until we balance the Federal Budget that includes Congress, Federal Employees and ordinary Americans 7) Cut the Expense Budgets of Congressman by 15% and put a mandate that they must travel in economy class in public airlines like most Americans do. 8) Give Tax Breaks to companies that innovate and manufacture in America using American workers. 9) Close all corporate loopholes, stop all subsidies to large oil companies and other profitable public corporations. All large corporation should pay a minimum of 15% corporate tax, no exceptions. 10) Give incentives and low rate loans to bonafide new start-up small companies with a strong business plan that would employ more than 10 employees. 11) Re-evaluate all trade agreements and stop all unfair trade practices by all foreign countries. 12) Give 10% Tax Credit to anyone buying an American car or any American made large ticket item. 13) Require banks to approve all mortgages in a timely manner with clear guidelines to stimulate home buying. Hold banks accountable if they turn down any qualified loan application in a timely manner. Offer $2000 Tax Credit to a qualified new home buyer for the next 3 years 14) Introduce a new 2% National Debt Reduction Tax for all the ordinary American tax payers. Anyone making more than half a million dollars ($500,000) per year would pay 3% National Debt Reduction Tax while all corporations with the revenues over 1 Billion Dollars would pay 4% National Debt Reduction Tax. The budgets of all the federal departments would be frozen until the federal budget is balanced. THIS TAX MUST BE ELIMINATED UPON BALANCING THE FEDERAL BUDGET with a going forward balanced budget amendment without this added tax. 15) Put a 5% National Debt Reduction Tax on all the Chinese imports until the federal budget is balanced. 16) The Social Security and Medical Benefits of all the individuals over 58 yrs would be protected while looking to eliminate waste without reduction in benefits. In the future, Congress should not be allowed to dip in to Social Security and Medical trust fund. The Congress and the Federal Employees will not have a separate program. All individuals should be given control of their own accounts with a limited safe investment options similar to the options available in the annuities offered by many private insurance companies.
IF YOU AGREE, PLEASE MAIL THIS TO EVERYONE CONCERNED ABOUT OUR ECONOMY AND SERIOUS ABOUT FIXING THE PROBLEMS. We must be strong at home to be strong abroad. If we don't fix our problems at home, we would become a laughing stock in the rest of the world. Fire any elected official who play the partisan politics and ignore the reality and fail to understand the pain of ordinary citizens. Do send this to your Congressmen and Senators.
Another excellent post. More new info and insight.
Be on the lookout for commercial brainwash plots on TV. They are written into nearly every scene of nearly every show. Most cater to network sponsors, coorporate partners, and parent companies. Especially commercial health care. In particular, high profit pharmaceuticals and excessive medical testing. These plugs are countless, calculated, and VERY well written. They have commercial brainwashing down to a science. DON'T FALL FOR IT. Get off the couch and take care of your own body the way nature intended. There is no substitute. If you must see a doctor, then DEMAND that he/she give you more than 5 minutes of their undivided attention. Otherwise, dispute their unreasonable charges. Be prepared with written questions about your condition and get them answered one at a time. If they refuse, then dispute their unreasonable charges. If they prescribe excessive medical testing, then ask if they personally own the equipment or if they are paid a commission for each test. If they find nothing new or signifigant, then dispute their unreasonable charges. If they prescribe a pharmaceutical, then ask for a generic. Better yet, concider a change in lifestyle or simple tolerance. If they still recommend the name brand pharmaceutical, then ask about any financial ties or conflict of interest. If they get offended, then dispute their unreasonable charges and consider a new doctor. If you must drug away your sniffles, worries, jitters, aches, and pains, then at least do your homework. Be aware of the possible side-effects ahead of time. Don't be surprised to find yourself back a week or two later feeling worse. In which case, you should dispute their unreasonable charges. If you are diagnosed with another medical condition, then ask your doctor what he/she has done to rule out those possible side-effects. Otherwise, dispute their unreasonable charges. Don't let any greedy doctor treat you like a number, make you wait an hour, or rush you out of their office. Otherwise, dispute their unreasonable charges. Don't fall for this CRAP that doctors have no choice but to over-book their time or over-charge their patients because of a high overhead. ITS A LIE. YOUR DOCTOR IS MOST LIKELY A MULTI-MILLIONAIRE. The same goes for their bogus claim to over-test so many of their patients because they are afraid of missing something and being sued for it. THAT IS ANOTHER FLAT-OUT LIE. Afterall, if this were true, then it would only explain some of the unnecessary testing. NOT THE OBSCENE CHARGES. It also wouldn't explain their own financial ties directly to the manufacturers of said testing equipment. Thats right. Most doctors hold stock in the very same companies that produce that equipment. Its another conflict of interest. So don't fall for their CRAP. Demand their undivided attention and respect. Afterall, they took an oath. If you have the opportunity before being admitted, then check the record of your hospital. Check to see if they have been investigated or sued for providing unnecessary treatment, excessive medical testing, or fraudulent billing. Dozens have already been caught doing so. Do all of the above regardless of your coverage. Don't force your employer to cover the obscene and often fraudulent charges of a corrupt health care industry. By doing so, you make the problem worse. Keep your guard up when watching ANY talk show. These people are not your friends. They are not your advocates. They are paid actors hired to get your attention and your money. Some of them are also executive producers (Oprah Winfrey, Ellen Degeneres, and Dr Phil.). Nearly every word, smile, and stupid joke is rehearsed ahead of time. Including those which take place so often during what appear to be 'technical oversights' (Today Show. Even their stage hands are mixed in behind the scenes so that you can hear them laugh at every stupid joke.). Its all fake. Its all calculated. These people are not trying to make the world a happy place. They are trying to entertain you only because their marketing studies have shown that you are more likely to drop your guard and support their sponsors. Nearly every segment is about marketing some over-priced product or service. They will use any excuse to plug a gadget, fashion item, travel destonation, credit card, university, drug, medical test, surgical procedure, movie, TV show, book, magazine, song, website, ect. Almost all of it over-priced. Almost all of it resulting in higher profits for their sponsors, partners, and parent companies. DON'T FALL FOR IT.
[Removed]
Filthy disgusting rich celebrities like Kelly Ripa, Brad Pitt, Rachael Ray, Ellen Degeneres, and Dr Phil have been using the illusion of 'good will' to sell more overpriced crap. DON'T FALL FOR IT.
Of all their marketing tricks, the fake 'good will' offends me the most. For example: Everyone knows how incredibly expensive health care is in the US. It's downright obscene. The industry is still making record high profits. But they are too greedy to pay for their own research and development. So they affiliate with celebrities like Kelly Ripa and use the illusion of 'good will' to trick you into buying overpriced crap like super high end Electrolux appliances. In this marketing trick, they promise to donate $1 to the health care industry. Later, they will claim the tax deduction. The $1 goes to the health care industry so they don't have to dip into their record high profits for research and development.
Any breakthroughs made are for treatment only. Not cures. Treatment is incredibly profitable so that is what they focus on. Treatment only. There have been virtually no cures discovered in decades. Also, the treatment is not 'given' back to the people who donate money for research and development. It is SOLD back to the people for maximum profit.
In this video, Kelly Ripa teams up with her NBC sponsor Electrolux to get your money and maximize profits for Electrolux and the health care industry. GE, the parent company of NBC, is the largest producer of medical imaging equipment in the world. They are also the biggest corporate tax evader in the world. Meanwhile, NBC pays its talk show hosts hundreds of millions of dollars in part, to plug the health care industry and it's affiliates. It's a complicated web of mass market BS.
DON'T FALL FOR IT.
As far as health goes, of course I want all of you to be healthy. Take care of yourselves, eat relatively healthy, try to keep your weight reasonable, get some sort of exercise every day, stretch several times a day, and see a chiropractor if you have any kind of joint/muscle pain.
Use pharmaceuticals only as a last resort. Otherwise, you will be riddled with side effects ranging from constipation/diarrhea to depression, weight gain, fatigue, rapid heart beat, ect. The more pharmaceuticals you take, the more likely you are to be riddled with side effects.
Watch the video but don't fall for the BS. Don't be fooled by Kelly Ripa's fake smile or her fake 'good will'. Don't buy anything from Electrolux. It's way too damn expensive. After all, they are paying Kelly Ripa millions just to run her mouth. Let the health care industry pay for their own research and development. After all, they are still making RECORD PROFITS.
http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=uQASu6KeeEc
Not even close guy. Even if all of the health insurance companies operated out of one state, the policies they sell still have to abide by the laws the state that beneficiary lives in. What a ridiculous post.
You are absolutely wrong and here are the facts: below is one of the actual proposed Republican bills. The Republican version does not require insurance companies to comply with state regulations when they sell across state lines because Republicans spin is the state's regulations are "forcing" consumers to buy "Cadillac plans" that offer a lot of coverage when they may only want really minimal coverage offered in states who do not regulate the industry.
What they fail to note is that the whole industry will go set up in the states with the least regulation and coverage requirements because they are a for profit making industry. Then there will be no "Cadillac coverage" as if people are getting "Cadillac coverage" now because their state's are "forcing them to buy" plans that actually cover a few things by requiring the insurers in their state to cover certain things.
House bill on selling insurance across state lines will have to overcome divided government Updated: Monday, August 8th, 2011 | By Angie Drobnic Holan
House Republicans have introduced a bill that would allow health insurance to be sold across state lines, as part of their proposals to repeal the Democratic health care law and implement their own proposals.
Sponsored by Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., the Health Care Choice Act of 2011 would repeal major parts of the health care reform bill and "generally allow individuals to purchase health coverage licensed in other states if the insurer meets solvency standards and provides independent external appeals procedures for benefit disputes," according to a committee summary.
A House subcommittee held a hearing on the matter in May. Rep. Fred Upton, R-Md., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said the legislation would help consumers in states that put too many requirements on health insurers.
"Consumers are forced to buy a Cadillac health plan; they aren't even given the option of something that better fits their needs," Upton said in a prepared statement. "As a result, many individuals choose to go without any health coverage because of these costly mandates."
A representative from President Barack Obama's administration said that the 2010 health care law already allows for insurance plans to be sold across state lines. "The Affordable Care Act allows health care to be sold across state lines when both states agree and consumer protections are maintained," said Steven Larsen of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid in his testimony. "Without the consumer protections included in the Affordable Care Act, we run the risk of creating an environment where there is a 'race to the bottom' in which insurers have an incentive to sell plans from the state with fewest consumer protections."
Here is one of the actual proposed Republican bills. The Republican version does not require insurance companies to comply with state regulations when they sell across state lines because Republicans spin is the state's regulations are "forcing" consumers to buy "Cadillac plans" that offer a lot of coverage when they may only want really minimal coverage offered in states who do not regulate the industry.
What they fail to note is that the whole industry will go set up in the states with the least regulation and coverage requirements because they are a for profit making industry. Then there will be no "Cadillac coverage" as if people are getting "Cadillac coverage" now because their state's are "forcing them to buy" plans that actually cover a few things by requiring the insurers in their state to cover certain things.
House bill on selling insurance across state lines will have to overcome divided government Updated: Monday, August 8th, 2011 | By Angie Drobnic Holan
House Republicans have introduced a bill that would allow health insurance to be sold across state lines, as part of their proposals to repeal the Democratic health care law and implement their own proposals.
Sponsored by Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., the Health Care Choice Act of 2011 would repeal major parts of the health care reform bill and "generally allow individuals to purchase health coverage licensed in other states if the insurer meets solvency standards and provides independent external appeals procedures for benefit disputes," according to a committee summary.
A House subcommittee held a hearing on the matter in May. Rep. Fred Upton, R-Md., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said the legislation would help consumers in states that put too many requirements on health insurers.
"Consumers are forced to buy a Cadillac health plan; they aren't even given the option of something that better fits their needs," Upton said in a prepared statement. "As a result, many individuals choose to go without any health coverage because of these costly mandates."
A representative from President Barack Obama's administration said that the 2010 health care law already allows for insurance plans to be sold across state lines. "The Affordable Care Act allows health care to be sold across state lines when both states agree and consumer protections are maintained," said Steven Larsen of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid in his testimony. "Without the consumer protections included in the Affordable Care Act, we run the risk of creating an environment where there is a 'race to the bottom' in which insurers have an incentive to sell plans from the state with fewest consumer protections."
Not true. Not even close. The whole point of the Republican plan is to allow the insurance industry to "forum shop" which means shop for the state with the least regulations and restrictions. The industry abide's by the rules of the state that they are located in and are selling them across state lines. I am a lawyer -- I know what I am talking about.
Your comment is wrong. Even industries that operate across state lines (such as Microsoft or Electrical companies) must still abide by the State Laws. The state government still holds sovereignty to control the products sold within its own borders, and the same would be true with insurance.
(shrug). I just pay cash. Then the insurance can't tell me __ what I can or cannot do. I back that up with catastrophic insurance in case I get cancer or some other terminal illness, but pay cash for everything below $20,000.
As for the Democrat plan - I don't want the Congress to regulate the hospitals the same way they regulate the schools. (No Child Left Behind). They'd just screw it up.
I disagree! look at where the credit card industry is located. In a state that allows them to have high interest rates. The insurance companies would do the same type thing.
But the credit industry still has to abide by the Usury Laws and other restrictions of each individual state. Likewise the insurance industry would be tied down by state laws. EXAMPLE:
If PA requires all drivers to have Airbags, or else pay double the rate, the insurance company would have to abide by that law. It doesn't matter if they are located somewhere like Utah.
Our US system operates much like the EU system. Every member state runs it own affairs, and any company wishing to sell good/services must obey the local laws.
NCLB was originally proposed by the administration of George W. Bush immediately after he took office. The bill received overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, signed into law by President Bush on Jan. 8, 2002.
Googling is a good thing to do.
And look how NCLB has failed. Everything the US Congress touches, fails. I don't want them touching my hospital and making it fail too.
NCLB was a classic case of attempting to fix what wasn't broken...something that has happened a lot with some administrations.
Again, you just provided another reason why I don't want Congress touching my hospital with regulations or restrictions that will make it fail (as amtrak failed*, the post office is almost bankrupt, and schools are not educating).
*
*The other day in my town the Amtrak station was locked and people missed getting to work. If that was a once and done deal, okay, but this has happened 5 times in the last two years. Privatized passenger rail was Great until government reached in, consolidated it into the Amtrak monopoly, and damaged it.
Passenger rail was bankrupt, period.
You do realize that deregulating everything means that there will be no standards of care or quality do you not?
The attitude of poor care or poor quality will 'work itself out' is an attitude of putting people at risk as 'test subjects'.
The NCLB concept was actually a pretty good idea, implementation wasn't worth 2 cents because of lack of proper funding and criteria for the program.
Please show me where I said I support that? Those words never left my mouth (or my fingers). I never said we should deregulate everything. Strawman argument.
In fact I'm perfectly okay with regulating corporations, to make sure they don't dump chemicals in rivers or employ dangerous machines that chop-off hands.
What I oppose is Congress using money with strings attached. Like how they threatened the States, "Raise the drinking age from 18 to 21, or your highway funds will be cut in half." Congress should not be doing such things which interfere with self-determination or customer freedom of choice.
You surely do get upset and assume much over a discussion...I never indicated you said anything about 'deregulating everything', however, the potential was there for the sake of discussion.
Thanks for agreeing that some regulation is needed.
Excellent comment. Yet another loophole as if we don't have enough. Thank you.
Wow another anti republican scare campaign. How original. No more partisan crap please.
I was a Republican -- I held office in the party. You don't have to dismiss everything as a partisan scare. Now I know that the problem is the corruption of both of the parties -- neither one represents the people anymore. They are bought by big business and the wealthy.
Just remember, half of America is Republican. We are strong. More than you know.
I was a Republican. I am now just an American, out for what is best for the American people and not just the top 10% of the American people and big business. I challenge you to become an American too instead of a partisan tool-piece for the agenda of the few.
I like where I am at. So does everyone I know. I worked all my life for what I have. I am OK with it. Wells Fargo is nice to me.
Good luck with that. That kind of mentality has allowed the top 10% to redistribute 70% of the nation's wealth to themselves. The bottom 50% now has less than 2% of the entire nation's wealth.
The middle class is the engine of our economy. The middle class spends their wealth on corporate goods/services and the corporations take that money in as profit.
The corporations redistributed the middle class wealth by paying vast majority of their profits out to the executives at the top and shareholders. Middle class wages have stagnated for 30 years while executive wages have ballooned up 265% in since 1980. All of our nation's wealth has been redistributed into the hands of the few.
How did this happen? The middle class was roped into replacing wages with easy credit and loans. So instead of paying people living wages, corporations fooled us into thinking we were doing well and could afford things by giving us easy credit instead of wages. Corporations came up with the brilliant idea that they could loan us money instead of paying us wages. Instead of having wages to buy t.v.'s, furniture, etc. we were given easy loans. So the middle class became a debtor class.
There used to be a tax disincentive to paying out all of corporate profits at the top because in the 1950's income was taxed at 90% over a certain amount money ($2 million in today's dollars) and now that tax disincentive has disappeared. In 1950's the highest marginal tax rate was 90%. In 1960-1970's it was 70%. In 1980's it dropped to 49%. In 1990's dropped to 39%. Under George Bush it dropped to a mere 36%. And capital gains taxes (stock market profits) dropped to a meager 12%!
We have had over 30 years of massive tax cuts for the wealthy. There is now no tax disincentive to paying out all of the corporate wealth at the top. And there is no employee bargaining power because now less than 6.9% of all of private sector jobs are unionized. American worker productivity is at all time highs, but American workers are reaping no increased wages from their increased labor -- it is all going out at the top in massive salaries for executives.
Executives now make over $262 for every $1 workers made. In the 1950's, they made $24 for every $1 workers made. They are profit taking off of the backs of the worker and ruining the middle class who they stagnated their wages and sold them mounds of easy credit debt instead of wages.
THE RATIO OF AVERAGE CEO COMPENSATION AND WORKER PAY IN THE US 1965-2005: 2005 - 262:1 (Av. CEO-$10,982,000/Av. Worker- $41,861) 2004 - 238:1 2003 - 181:1 2002 - 143:1 2000 - 300:1 1989 - 71:1 1978 - 35:1 1965 - 24:1 Source: Mercer Survey of 350 large industrial and service firms conducted for the Wall Street Journal as reported by Mishel, Bernstein, Allegretto
So keep on putting your head in a hole in the ground. We have massive structural problems in our economy and they are not going away anytime soon.
Then how come so many of my middle class friends are just fine with the way things are? Nothing different in my house. The Unions are going away for a reason. The labor they produce costs way more than non union. That is why everything is now made in China. You cannot blame companys for moving over there. It is a no brainer. And if they don'e move, they will go belly up. My Wife can buy a nice Union made American top for about $56.00. Or she can find another very nice like top for $24 made in China or somewhere else. No Brainer. Unions are going away...fast. End of an era. Here in my city a few years back we voted that non union companys could bid on city jobs along with union companys. Why not? Everyone needs work.
People are doing fine? It is a myth that globalization has caused the problem. We are the only country in the industrialized world that has seen this great divergence in the salaries paid out at the top and those of the workers. Why? The demise of unions and the loss of the high marginal tax rate. No other nation: Japan, Germany, England etc. has seen the divergence in pay even though they all are subject to the new globalization.
These are facts. Look at these charts: http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4#the-gap-between-the-top-1-and-everyone-else-hasnt-been-this-bad-since-the-roaring-twenties-1
http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4#the-income-gap-is-not-growing-in-other-countries-like-france-13
You're completely ruling out the free market.
No, I'm completely taking into account the free market. If a state offers to not regulate or require coverage, the industry will make more money by settling in that state. That is the essence of the free market. Why would any insurance company stay in a state that requires a lot of coverage and regulates them more?
They will all go to the place where they can make their profits highest. Read these:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/selling_insurance_across_state.html
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_02/022493.php
Who would buy insurance that has no regulations?
This mentality of 'everyone is dumb, everyone is greedy, help us government' is getting old.
You won't have a choice. They will all set up in the state with the least regulations. There will be no other choice. People won't realize the problems in the system until they start getting sick. You get cancer and they tell you that they do not cover the procedure you want etc. You have a heart attack and they tell you that they do not cover the treatments you need. This is what will happen.
Except for the free-market thinking insurance company that stays in a state with high regulations and markets off their higher quality.
Why would any company stay in a state that was more expensive to operate in? And people will only piecemeal realize what has happened when they actually need coverage for procedures and realize that they are not covered. Insurance companies will go where they can maximize their profits -- it is a pipe dream to think that any company would stay in a state that costs them more money when they can go to the state that will limit their costs and expenditures.
You're assuming that the person buying this coverage knows nothing about what they are buying. Health insurance is a hefty purchase, I'm sure anyone who cares about their well being would make themselves aware about the non-regulated companies.
Do you know whether your policy covers treatments for a condition you have not developed yet? I doubt you have any clue about this. Each state mandates different things be covered. Do you know whether your insurance policy covers diabetes equipment and testing and which pieces of equipment does it provide coverage for?
Do you know if your insurance policy covers bone marrow transplants, breast reconstructive surgery, midwives, cervical cancer HPV screening, congenital bleeding disorder screening, chlamydia screening and treatments, dental surgery anesthesia, hearing screenings, rehabilitation services, pin point radiation cancer treatments, new 3d cat scan image technology, and so on? Probably not until you have the illness will you find out that it is not covered and then it is too late.
Arkansas and Idaho do not require any diabetes coverage while California requires that all diabetes supplies and equipment be covered.
California also has some of the craziest shipping laws known to man. Just because part of our country thinks it is right doesn't mean it's a national consensus. That's the point of state government.
Right and do you want your state to control the coverage of policies or some other state that is not accountable to you?
Yes, don't let the Republicans fool you...instead, let the government FORCE you to buy a product even if you do not want it...forced government health care today...forced government housing, cars, utilities, food.....tomorrow. I hear the FEMA trains coming even now.
The Republicans will force you to buy a product that you do not want. The industry will set up the a state with the least restrictions and regulations and you will be forced to buy those crappy policies, but you will not realize that they are crappy until you need coverage for something. You get cancer and realize that they do not cover the treatment you need etc. This is what you should be scared about.
That, the aliens and the FEMA trains.....spooky!
I don't agree with every part of the Affordable Care Act. It is the Republican "Free Market" solution that Nixon, Reagan, McCain, Romney and other Republicans pushed. Don't let the government take over healthcare, instead force all Americans to buy private health insurance to lower costs. Another boon to big healthcare -- 49 million new customers.
Didn't know this was the Republican "free-market" solution? I used to hold office in the Republican party before I realized that both parties are corrupted by big business and the wealthy. "Obama-care" has been proposed for decades by the Republicans -- the plan that they now call "socialist" because Obama took it from them. I'll send you the links to show you.
The Democrats wanted a single payer government take over of healthcare like Canada. Instead, Republican-lite Obama offered the "free-market" Republican solution to healthcare -- make everyone buy private insurance and then the industry can reduce coverage costs because they have a larger pool of healthy people paying premiums but not needing coverage.
I do like that it forces coverage of "pre-existing" conditions.
Kool-aid.....yummy....Jim Jones was right.....drink, drink, drink
Reagan on healthcare: "Regarding national health insurance, you could reassure your student, Miss Lee Catcher, that while I am opposed to socialized medicine, I have always felt that medical care should be available for those who cannot otherwise afford it. I have been looking into a program whereby government might pay the premiums for health insurance for those who cannot afford it and, at the same time, make such premiums for others a tax credit or deduction, preferably credit to encourage more use of private health insurance. There is also the problem of insurance for those catastrophic cases where the medical care goes on for years at a tremendously high cost. I proposed a form of government insurance for that in California when I was governor, but we couldn't get any legislative support for it. I do believe this is a particular problem which must be faced and where the government could have a hand."
Reagan's plan was to have the federal government give money to people to buy private insurance so everyone would have a private insurance policy.
Nixon on insurance reform: "Every employer would be required to offer all full-time employees the Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan." Every employer would be required to buy private insurance for their employees and the employers would be given federal subsidies for the purchase of private healthcare.
Democrats wanted the government to take over healthcare. Republicans wanted to use the government to help everyone buy private health insurance policies -- which is Obamacare.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/25/opinion/altman-romney-obama-health-care/index.html
Folks, we have a loser!
Is that your attempt at an intelligent response?
Nope...just a response....I'll leave the intelligent replies for the OWS crowd, they have it going on.......
so, you like monopolies?
No, I like having state control over the policies that are sold in my state because that allows me recourse over the policies. If we think that the insurance industry should cover certain procedures, we have recourse because our state regulates them.
What I don't want is all of the insurance industry to set up in a state that has attracted the industry by saying they won't regulate them and I have no recourse over coverage in that state because I do not live in it and therefore the politicians in that state do not have to answer to me. I cannot demand anything of the politicians in another state.
I think we should break up a lot of big business -- it is far too consolidated right now. I do not think that health insurers should have monopolies in states -- there should be more competition, but the companies should be regulated by the states they are selling policies in.