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.
So many people are opposed to any kind of reform simply because a Democrat is president and/or the President is black (IMO he's biracial but whatever).
The above is so not true! Not true at all. Keep in mind that there are MANY DEMOCRATS in Congress - including African American members, who are opposed to the Democratic plan.
IF the ACTUAL intention is to make health insurance more affordable thereby making it more accessible, there are things that can be done to help do this:
1) Allow health insurance pools be nationwide - not merely by state. By increasing the size of the pools, it will spread the risk out - and will lower insurance premiums.
2) Simplify health insurance company regulations - have one regulatory body instead of the current system of 50 bodies
3) Make health care costs - including insurance premiums, a fully deductible item on your tax returns - and do it "above the line" which will directly reduce your taxable income - you will pay less in income taxes
4) Eliminate pre-existing condition exclusions
5) Provide subsidizes for low income Americans to assist them in purchasing health insurance of THEIR choice.
I never thought I'd agree with you....
While I like the idea of #2, I'm not sure if that will infringe upon states' rights or not.
I would also like for people to be able to choose what they want covered. If you don't plan on having kids, no need to pay extra.
If you're overweight, you should be able to choose a plan that covers visits to a nutritionist.
If you're young, you might want a plan that covers catastrophes and has a high deductible for doctor's visits and such. I'm 19 and I only go to the doctor about 3 times a year. Twice a year to the dermatologist, once a year to my family physician.
While I like the idea of #2, I'm not sure if that will infringe upon states' rights or not.
I would also like for people to be able to choose what they want covered. If you don't plan on having kids, no need to pay extra.
If you're overweight, you should be able to choose a plan that covers visits to a nutritionist.
If you're young, you might want a plan that covers catastrophes and has a high deductible for doctor's visits and such. I'm 19 and I only go to the doctor about 3 times a year. Twice a year to the dermatologist, once a year to my family physician.
\
Then, you should be support the GOP legislation in the Congress. Because what I wrote - it is in their legislation
The above is so not true! Not true at all. Keep in mind that there are MANY DEMOCRATS in Congress - including African American members, who are opposed to the Democratic plan.
This is not a "race" issue - how foolish
You can't deny that there is a segment of our population that will oppose our President on EVERYTHING simply because he has African/African-American blood in him and his skin is darker than theirs.
Maybe where you are in the part of the country people don't care about his race but where I am, people really do care.
I've been on the websites of the local news channel and so many people bring up his race it's not even funny, especially for someone who is black.
You can't deny that there is a segment of our population that will oppose our President on EVERYTHING simply because he has African/African-American blood in him and his skin is darker than theirs.
Maybe where you are in the part of the country people don't care about his race but where I am, people really do care.
I've been on the websites of the local news channel and so many people bring up his race it's not even funny, especially for someone who is black.
People on local news channels? You mean callers to radio programs? You can't mean program hosts.
btw, I don't see that race has anything to do with this. It's more partisan, than anything having to do with race.
2) Simplify health insurance company regulations - have one regulatory body instead of the current system of 50 bodies
I agree with you on some of these points, but not all. If you only have one regulatory body, it opens the door for too much fraud. It's the same as deregulating the financial institutions. People can't have it both ways. On the one hand they feel that the mortgage industry and banks should have been watched more closely, but on the other they want less government interference in their lives. Who will be the watchdogs for this one regulatory body? Maybe the SEC? Right now we have the NAIC, which is one organization, but its members are regulators from each of the 50 states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by southward bound
btw, for what it's worth, we can't call it health care reform. It has now been renamed to "health insurance reform".
We finally agree on something! They're not really talking about controlling the costs, just how we pay for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by southward bound
I get the feeling they are playing mental games with us. While there will be major reform to health care, they want us to concentrate on the "insurance" part because they think that is what people are most angry about; they expect that will take our minds off the rationing of care that is coming, and end all the questions.
Isn't that what's happening today? Right now it's being rationed. The people with the best health coverage get the best medical treatment.
I agree with you on some of these points, but not all. If you only have one regulatory body, it opens the door for too much fraud. It's the same as deregulating the financial institutions. People can't have it both ways. On the one hand they feel that the mortgage industry and banks should have been watched more closely, but on the other they want less government interference in their lives. Who will be the watchdogs for this one regulatory body? Maybe the SEC? Right now we have the NAIC, which is one organization, but its members are regulators from each of the 50 states.
State regulators can still make sure no fraud occurs - and there can still be local enforcement
But, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever for an insurance company - say for example Aetna -having to file 50 rate requests and 50 applications to do business and maintain 50 offices when one application, one rate request and one office will suffice.
It is one of the reasons why the overhead for health insurance companies are so high.
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.
Right now we have the NAIC, which is one organization, but its members are regulators from each of the 50 states.