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.
I agree with a lot of your posting, just wanted to dispute this part..
Quote:
Originally Posted by the3Ds
Compare this with 30% profit margins for grocery stores, 35% for coffee shops and 17% for Verizon...I think the rhetoric of the
"big bad insurance company making billions while letting people die" really is easy to disprove.
Most grocery stores dont have anywhere near this type of profits. In fact some of them run profits so slim that its in the 1-2% profit margins. Your example though holds value though because grocery stores make money in similar ways that insurance companies do. They make money off the 30 day float between the time that they sell a product, and the 30/60 day turms they have to pay their vendors, and they have to make up the slim margins in volume. Kroger 4Q profit falls 27 percent; margins shrink - Boston.com
1st question:
Article 1, sect. 8 + a couple hundred years of case law (Unless your name is Scalia)
2nd question is more interesting, although Congress and the President, and most Constitutional lawyers think it won't be a problem, but again
Article 1, sect. 8
Of course government has a role in what companies can do.
Article 1 section 8 reads:
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
The problem is the word "regulate". In the late 1700's, regulate meant meant 'to organize' not control. That can easily be found by looking at papers written around that time concerning the 2nd Amendment. Meaning of the words in the Second Amendment
The commerce clause is not meant as a controlling clause. The government should facilitate and encourage trading among states, between the US and foreign countries and among the Indian tribes.
The Constitution as a whole doesn't give the government broad powers by stating what it can't do. It grants limited power by specifically stating what it can do.
I'm not sure who said it but "A government large enough to control business can be controlled by business." That's what we have now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art123
(Unless your name is Scalia)
I agree with his interpretations. There is a great debate on YouTube between him and another justice who is the opposite.
So you're saying no insurance company has EVER rescinded someone's policy just because they were sick and might cost the company big bucks?
Sure they'll claim it was "fraud" because so and so didn't tell them she had acne as a teen and therefore that's why they can't cover her chemo for breast cancer but I think most people can see through that sack of bs.
Listen...I was answering the question posed by the OP who asked those of us who are calling it "Government Health Care" why we are calling it that. I answered the question.
Nowhere did I say (as a matter of a fact, I believe the opposite is true) that some insurance practices didn't need to change, but let's not take the so-called story about the kid with acne who later gets breast cancer as the truth either. There is a huge percentage of people who are happy with their insurance...it's why the President keeps having to say again and again that "if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance." Stories that make the news do so because they are unusual. For every story about a person getting denied coverage because of acne, there are hundreds who are getting the care they need and not just because they are rich. For every baby who makes the news because he was in the 95th percentile and the insurance company called his size a preexisting condition, there are thousands of other babies born the same day who get covered no matter their size.
The government doesn't do anything efficiently. If you actually sit and listen to the plan on how they are going to pay for it, they're saying "we're going to stop all of the fraud and loopholes in Medicare/Medicaid payments and we'll save a lot of money." So...in essence they're going to take the fraud out of an enormous government-run agency in the hopes that the next government agency will run efficiently and productively? Isn't that the same as telling someone who has maxed out their credit card and skipped a bunch of payments and then sending them a letter telling them that not only is the bank NOT going to close their card but they're upping their limit another $10,000?
By the way, I am someone with insurance who has a true pre-existing condition as does my oldest daughter. Both of my kids were born in the 95th percentile and I've had my fair share of hospital visits and doctor appointments. So, the "sob story" about the teenager with acne who gets denied coverage is a bunch of BS.
Americans, by a large margin, report that they are happy with their coverage. The latest CBS poll (hardly one that anyone would label "conservative") says that 62% of people want the Republicans to keep fighting the bill. The number goes up, obviously, if you just ask those who vote Republican. In my opinion the reason for these numbers is not because people think the healthcare insurance companies are perfect...it's because when choosing between private or government insurance, most can see that the government is going to be even worse.
I've said it before, I'm a registered Independent. I was part of the Independent wave who swept the Democrats into office. But I don't believe that the government needs to intervene in every aspect of our lives. I have always lived my life so that my family is fine no matter who's in office. It will be the same under Obamacare...my family will pay the premiums to ensure we don't have to use the government plan. We aren't rich by any stretch of the imagination but I have never had a government handout and I don't plan on getting one now.
I keep hearing about this government takeover of the health care system. Yet from what I can tell, I am still going to buy into a private health care plan and see my private doctor under this new law. The main change is that people without insurance will now be required to buy it - from a private company. That sounds more like a private company/forced capitalism "takeover" to me. There is no single-payer. No government-run clinics. No government-run option even. I just don't get the argument. Someone enlighten me.
Could someone tell me exactly how or what the government has taken over here?
simple, correct answer, they haven't! They are attempting to control some of the more odious practices of the for profit health insurance industry, period. In order to do that, they had to make some concessions to those companies that they probably did not want to make, but they think that over time, they can improve on the current bill to gradually find a way to insure everyone for much less cost. The only way I can see to do that is to have a single payer, non-profit insurance system. . . in our (stupid; idiotic) political climate, that will probably take hundreds if not thousands of years!. . . but maybe I'm being optimistic~
Isn't it ODD that in all the talk of the "right to healthcare" no one bothered to expand upon that?
Giving health care is a government regulated privilege, not a right. If you practice medicine without a license (government permission) you will be prosecuted.
So if giving care without permission was criminalized, then how can you have a "right" to health care without government's permission?
You cannot be treated, unless by government permission.
You cannot buy medicine without first getting a permission slip (prescription) from a government licensed person.
You cannot buy permitted medicine from anyone but a government licensed person, who buys it from another government permitted seller.
In America, the people have no rights - only government granted privileges - when it comes to medical care.
I agree with a lot of your posting, just wanted to dispute this part..
Most grocery stores dont have anywhere near this type of profits. In fact some of them run profits so slim that its in the 1-2% profit margins. Your example though holds value though because grocery stores make money in similar ways that insurance companies do. They make money off the 30 day float between the time that they sell a product, and the 30/60 day turms they have to pay their vendors, and they have to make up the slim margins in volume. Kroger 4Q profit falls 27 percent; margins shrink - Boston.com
I am not an economic expert. I Googled "Profit margins" and it came up with "grocery stores". According to Bizstats which tracks various sectors of business, under "grocery and beverage stores"...the gross margins are 25.6%.
Again, I'm only making the point not to fall for these so-called tricks that say "All insurance companies will just as soon watch you die than lose their huge profits." That's just not true. While we're at it, why not go after car insurance companies who let you pay monthly for years but then ups your rate when you have an accident (even if you've paid faithfully for 10 years). This happened to me. Also, in Florida, go ahead and try to get homeowner's insurance. Major insurance companies are pulling out and that leaves everyone with a mortgage (and therefore MUST have insurance) scambling to find companies who are more than happy to raise your rates to nearly 1/2 of your mortgage payment because they know that you are in between a rock and a hard place.
It's getting tiring to hear who we should hate this week. A few months ago, it was the evil banking companies. Apparently they aren't on the radar anymore now that they received huge bailouts and are now back to their gigantic bonuses. This month, it's the evil insurance companies and we all get to hear the tearjerker stories of one cancer patient after another. Looks like cap & trade is next so no doubt, in a few months, it will be the evil coal plants and electricity companies that we all should be angry about.
Should a company be allowed to put mercury in lollipops?
Absolutely not. Once they did, that would ruin the company. It is not in their best interest to poison their own product. The court system should be the 2nd deterrent from poisoning their customers. The threat of jail and large fines keeps a lot of people and companies in line.
"Let's just pass the Bill and see what's in it" - Nancy Pelosi
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.
