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.
The difference is that in the private sector one has a choice of selecting the insurance provider. If the Feds take over...there is absolutely no choice.
I'll take choice because no matter what you think, competition does keep a more level playing field. You just have to do a bit of research to find the one for yourself.
I'm not happy that my health insurance company has denied my last two prescriptions but I can't select another insurance company. My employer does not offer another option. You are suggesting that competition exists with health insurance but this is not true for most people. The solution is to separate employers from health insurance to create true competition among health insurers.
Location: Just transplanted to FL from the N GA mountains
3,997 posts, read 4,142,915 times
Reputation: 2677
Does anyone but me question just why we have to come up with a solution for what was supposed to be the solution to our health care issues? Could it be that it WASN'T the solution!!!!
Wht do you support making other people responsible for your healthcare?
We've all been responsible for other people's healthcare (including yours) for quite some time now. Why do you act like it's such a surprise all of a sudden?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW
If everyone is responsible for everyone's healthcare then we will have a healthier society than having the individual responsible for their own but having to pay for the uninsured anyway. I assume that sick people will be treated and not left to die on the street.
If the US went to a single payer system, I'm pretty sure the majority of investment in new drugs will evaporate.
As it needs to. Drugs don't solve any of our health problems. They are created to "treat" them for life, thus making the consumer a life-long customer.
As it needs to. Drugs don't solve any of our health problems. They are created to "treat" them for life, thus making the consumer a life-long customer.
Are you seriously arguing that there don't exist drugs which cure illnesses? Are you seriously arguing that there hasn't been innovation in pharmaceuticals that has resulted in novel cures for illnesses in recent years? I'm the first to agree that pharmaceutical profits in America are excessive and we need a near total overhaul of our regulation surrounding the industry, but what you are saying here is objectively wrong.
I'm not happy that my health insurance company has denied my last two prescriptions but I can't select another insurance company. My employer does not offer another option. You are suggesting that competition exists with health insurance but this is not true for most people. The solution is to separate employers from health insurance to create true competition among health insurers.
Your dreaming if you think union would agree to that and they had a major say in the ACA. Now do you think that and not being allowed to buy across state lines got in the bill.
Your dreaming if you think union would agree to that and they had a major say in the ACA. Now do you think that and not being allowed to buy across state lines got in the bill.
No unions didn't. They really aren't happy with many aspects of it.
I'm not happy that my health insurance company has denied my last two prescriptions but I can't select another insurance company. My employer does not offer another option. You are suggesting that competition exists with health insurance but this is not true for most people. The solution is to separate employers from health insurance to create true competition among health insurers.
The problem with that is that in the status quo we get our employer insurance on a pre-tax basis. The Democrats - as can clearly be seen in the drafting of the ACA and in some of them occasionally calling it a tax loophole - want to take that away. I'd honestly be fine with de-linking it by letting people pay for the premiums with pre-tax dollars when buying as an individual, but unfortunately when politicians talk about delinking the two what they often really mean is taking away the most important tax break the middle class gets.
edit:
Quote:
Originally Posted by natalie469
No unions didn't. They really aren't happy with many aspects of it.
Depends on the union. The SEIU and other unions that cater to employees who often don't already have health benefits love it for the employer mandate, the UAW and other unions which have negotiated plans which are threatened by the "Cadillac" tax hate it.
The problem with that is that in the status quo we get our employer insurance on a pre-tax basis. The Democrats - as can clearly be seen in the drafting of the ACA and in some of them occasionally calling it a tax loophole - want to take that away. I'd honestly be fine with de-linking it by letting people pay for the premiums with pre-tax dollars when buying as an individual, but unfortunately when politicians talk about delinking the two what they often really mean is taking away the most important tax break the middle class gets.
edit:
Depends on the union. The SEIU and other unions that cater to employees who often don't already have health benefits love it for the employer mandate, the UAW and other unions which have negotiated plans which are threatened by the "Cadillac" tax hate it.
I'm just saying unions didn't have a major say in this like the poster said.
I'm just saying unions didn't have a major say in this like the poster said.
I'd agree that's largely correct, excluding the SEIU and a handful of closely aligned others.
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.
