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.
Target is horrible. I used to work for them and remember a pregnant worker there. She got like 5 or 6 months along and one day she was called into a managers office. She was then told she was demoted and will no longer have insurance.
I remember her sitting outside and crying.....it stuck with me.
And now I see righties DEFENDING Target and other corporations who do this and blame it on Obama? It has been going on BEFORE Obama. In fact, BUSH as president when this happened. As I said "pro life only when you are in the womb. After that, to hell with you".
Repubs offered selling ins. across state lines and other methods to increase competition. All that could be heard from the morons' mouths was "public option" and UHC.
A needed reminder! (no reps allowed yet)
The GOP Healthcare Alternative provides affordable access to all
Americans, instead of mandating a one-size-fits-all health system.
It's no different than what Wal-Mart does. They hire a lot of part-time people so they won't have to give them health care benefits.
When you're fulltime, I believe you have to wait A YEAR (well above the industry average) before receiving health care benefits and if you're part-time, you have to wait two years. Of course they have a sky high turnover rate so...there ya go. A lot of people don't end up getting the benefits.
Thankfully there are some good retailers out there that treat their employees right when it comes to benefits: Wegmans, Publix, and Kroger come to mind.
Repubs offered selling ins. across state lines and other methods to increase competition. All that could be heard from the morons' mouths was "public option" and UHC.
No, that is not true. The public option (socialized medicine) is out, and selling across state line is in (and has been from the start). But of course the Republicans oppose it because it is promoted by Dems.
No, that is not true. The public option (socialized medicine) is out, and selling across state line is in (and has been from the start). But of course the Republicans oppose it because it is promoted by Dems.
Please explain how the public option is socialized medicine.
Socialized medicine involves health care professionals being government employees. Under the public option, that isn't so.
Also in socialized medicine EVERYONE has to pay into the system, with the public option it is just that an OPTION. No one is REQUIRED to join it.
Please read up on what socialized medicine really is.
Selling health insurance across state lines is bad for consumers and will create a race to the bottom.
The GOP solutions have some worthy elements, several of which were included in the bills passed. What you fail to accept or acknowledge, is that the GOP position is that a sign-able bill would have to be comprised of only their solutions.
Repubs offered selling ins. across state lines and other methods to increase competition. All that could be heard from the morons' mouths was "public option" and UHC.
I'd be for selling across state lines as long as the company selling the insurance abides by the laws/regulations of the state they are selling in.... not the laws of the state where the insurance company is chartered.
The GOP solutions have some worthy elements, several of which were included in the bills passed. What you fail to accept or acknowledge, is that the GOP position is that a sign-able bill would have to be comprised of only their solutions.
The only thing I like about their plan is:
Quote:
Number two: allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do.
Number three: give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs.
I'd be for selling across state lines as long as the company selling the insurance abides by the laws/regulations of the state they are selling in.... not the laws of the state where the insurance company is chartered.
Well good luck with that.
Many on the right want the opposite.
It has me wondering, what happened to state right's?
If an insurance company wants to set up shop in a state and try to offer affordable coverage, they have to abide by the insurance regulations that are the law of that particular state.
With the GOP's plan, an insurance company can be chartered in one state, a consumer in state x that wants affordable health insurance buys insurance from them thinking they are getting all the things their state requires insurance companies to provide only to find out a few months later when the bills start piling up that the policy doesn't cover all that they thought.
"The idea is very seductive, but the details are very bad for consumers," said Jerry Flanagan, health policy director for Consumer Watchdog. "Insurance companies are pushing these plans to essentially deregulate state regulation of health insurance."
Those regulations are needed to ensure that coverage for vital services, such as chemotherapy, are available to consumers, he said.
Some are concerned that, if given this option, consumers would seek out the cheapest plan they can find and end up with inadequate coverage.
"There's just so many details in insurance and so many exclusions and exceptions," Ms. Friar said. "It's so typical that you don't know what you got until you have a claim and you realize, 'Oh, that wasn't covered.'"
Selling insurance across state lines raises one more issue Republicans tend to ignore. Insurance companies keep costs down by using their volume-based bargaining power to make agreements with doctors, hospitals and other healthcare providers to get lower rates than any individual buyer could ever achieve. But insurers operating from one state may have a difficult time, on their own, bargaining in states where they have relatively small market presence. It is unlikely that an insurer could ever get a doctor or hospital in Massachusetts to agree to the same fee schedule that is acceptable in Idaho. Even Medicare, the largest single "player" in the healthcare market, hasn't figured out a way to pay the same reimbursement rate to all health care providers across the country. It would seem like the only way for insurers to offer cheap insurance across states lines would be to offer less comprehensive and effective coverage--which, if this proposal goes through, is exactly what would happen.
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.
