Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Businesses, individuals wrestle with implications of universal insurance.
ON CAPE COD, Mass. - Grill cook David Smith is feeling pretty healthy, thank you, and he isn't happy that the government is forcing him to sign up for health insurance — even if it may be good for him. But cook Scott Carter wishes he'd had insurance last year, when he got socked with $9,000 in medical bills.
I personally don't see how you can force people to pay for something when they don't have the money to pay for it.
Sure in concept maybe a good idea...BUT...this now leaves the door open for other government mandates into personal lives, where does it stop??
How much has the insurance companies promised to the politicians that mandated this???
I was reading these articles this morning. There are links to a couple more articles giving more details. One of them is a discussion with the head of the program.
I’m excited about this experiment. Maybe it will bring about some competition in the industry that will correct the outrageous costs that keep making health care so out of reach. At the very least, it will combine efforts to control costs and bring everyone into a position of being part of the solution.
Good for Romney and good for the citizens of Massachusetts for their creativity and willingness to experiment!
I’m betting on this movement to create many better ideas as it goes through its phases. It goes to show how cooperation can at least move the masses to action whereas antipathy between factions creates stagnation and maintenance of the status quo.
I thought the goal was about healthcare for everyone not sticking it to insurance companies?
Um, people don't have healthcare NOW not usually because it isn't available (although that is too often the case for people with pre-existing conditions), but because it's EXPENSIVE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rggr
So now you don't like it when the government tells people what to do with their money?
Actually, I have no problem with it when it's in the form of taxes. When it's use of private money to subsidize and fatten up corporate portfolios that don't NEED fattening up, I'm against it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rggr
As opposed to giving it to the government that's notorious for bad service?
Yeap. The government works for ME. Private companies work for their shareholders. Big difference, that.
Um, people don't have healthcare NOW not usually because it isn't available (although that is too often the case for people with pre-existing conditions), but because it's EXPENSIVE.
I know. That's why this plan subsidizes it for people that can't afford it. The ones that need it would get help from the government. The end result is that everyone would have healthcare which has been the complaint for a long time. Your complaint seems to shift out of the government needing to help people with healthcare to being upset about the fact that they would do it through private insurance. Why does it matter if the end result is that everyone has healthcare and at what is projected to be a savings for the government?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7
Actually, I have no problem with it when it's in the form of taxes. When it's use of private money to subsidize and fatten up corporate portfolios that don't NEED fattening up, I'm against it.
If in the process, the government saves money and people that need it get healthcare, what difference does it make to you if someone profits from it? It seems that the only scenario that makes sense to you is to provide healthcare by making sure that the money comes from the wealthy to the poor (in the form of taxes) which tells me that it's more about ideology than a workable healthcare plan. By the way, the government subsidy would come from the wealthy through taxes anyway so you should feel good about that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7
Yeap. The government works for ME. Private companies work for their shareholders. Big difference, that.
I'm not sure the government works for you but that's another thread. In this way, if you didn't like the insurance company, you could switch and the market and competition would have an influence. In government healthcare, you don't have the flexibility. Even though they "work for you," I would love to see how you would resolve the situation if they weren't meeting your needs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
