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.
In that case, just that part would be thrown out. Of course Obama is counting on forcing young, healthy people to buy insurance in order to pay for the extra cost of ensuring people with pre-existing conditions.
I believe most of Obamacare will be undone in the next 3-4 years. i.e. before it goes in to effect. Real healthcare reform could be accomplished very easily:
1 Allow insurance companies to operate across state lines. Make them comply with state regulations of the state that they are headquartered in.
2 Do not put any regulations on insurance companies that you do not put on companies in general. In other words, stop making them in to utilities.
3 Allow people to buy just as much insurance as they need. Young people only need catastrophic care for emergancies with high deductable and cheap payments. Older people would buy policies that were mroe comprehensive. Sinlge males could buy policies that didn't include childbirth -- the number one medical expense.
Free market solutions, not more government control.
1. This was answered well by saganista
2. What the H***? They already have an anti-trust exemption. They get breaks that "companies in general" don't get. And you want to make it easier for them to screw people?
3. Yeah, right. A bunch of young people would live to regret buying such policies. It's like playing Russian Roulette to buy just what you need. How does anyone know if they're going to get cancer, have a bad accident, whatever? I'm interested in some data that the #1 medical expense is childbirth.
If I'm not buying insurance, there is NOTHING to regulate. NO PRICE can be determined for a LACK OF a financial transaction. How difficult can this be for you to understand. Here, let me explain it like I would my child..
If you are buying ice cream, you are PAYING for the ice cream, and provided this bill is legal, the government can then regulate the price you buy ice cream for..
If you are NOT buying ice cream, there is no cost to regulate, NO TRANSACTION is taking place, thereby there is no price to regulate.. How do you put a price tag on a sale which is NOT taking place?
Please if you honestly believe that then why would you pay taxes. After all your NOT doing anything NO TRANSACTION is taking place.
In that case, just that part would be thrown out. Of course Obama is counting on forcing young, healthy people to buy insurance in order to pay for the extra cost of ensuring people with pre-existing conditions.
I believe most of Obamacare will be undone in the next 3-4 years. i.e. before it goes in to effect. Real healthcare reform could be accomplished very easily:
1 Allow insurance companies to operate across state lines. Make them comply with state regulations of the state that they are headquartered in.
2 Do not put any regulations on insurance companies that you do not put on companies in general. In other words, stop making them in to utilities.
3 Allow people to buy just as much insurance as they need. Young people only need catastrophic care for emergancies with high deductable and cheap payments. Older people would buy policies that were mroe comprehensive. Sinlge males could buy policies that didn't include childbirth -- the number one medical expense.
Free market solutions, not more government control.
A couple of reasons why this would not work.
1. Insurance Companies could operate TODAY across state lines. Only they choose not to. Primary reason being many states do not allow them to cherry pick only the healthy applicants, and they cannot deny coverage to pre-existing conditions.
3. Allowing people to buy only what they need sounds good, but that also means people who need more would also pay more---a LOT more. I suspect that you would see rates that would easily and rapidly top $2000 a month for health insurance.
This would lead to the opposite of health care reform intentions--more uninsured which increases cost via emergency room care for colds, less preventive care, more Medicaid costs which are then in turn passed on to taxpayers, in particular property taxpayers.
Over the last few years, I had to purchase my health insurance as an individual policy at over $1,000/month, and a lot was not covered. During this period, I learned that the insurance company could sell the same policy in a neighboring county for a different price, about $200/mon LESS due to past claims.
Same insurance policy would also raise its rates annually. For those in employer based policies, the annual increase would be in the 7-9% range. For me, as an individual policy holder, it would be in the 16-18% range. To me, this is outrageous! I began to feel that I was then subsidizing everyone's plans, including employer based plans, but could get no relief myself.
I would like to see insurance companies offer plans to individuals at a similar rate that they do for employer based plans, not a rate that is so much drastically higher.
De-regulate health insurance further? Take a look at banking and the financial system and tell me how that's been working out. If American businesses could operate in a fair fashion this would work, but there is far too much greed as a motivating factor. A solid profit is not enough, it has to be an obscene profit at any cost.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,761,129 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene
You must be joking? You think they would decide to take a case based on whether it would "anger" a co-equal branch of government?
You do realize they are co-equal, don't you?
If Roberts were as petty and vindictive as obama, then it would be a certainty they would take the case.
The Supreme Court is not "co equal". It's job is not to make law. It is supposed to show a degree of deference to the other branches of government who are elected and not appointed for life. The Court generally does not like making enemies out of the other branches of the Federal government and does so only when they are clearly out of line or violating the Constitution (such as the ban on flag burning). In the case of state and local governments, the Court is more inclined to clash with them because they do not have the power as a co equal branch.
Back to square one and the opportunity to put together a health care plan that actually addresses insurance reform while also increasing quality and access to care services while decreasing costs, abuse and fraud. All things that THIS law doesn't do.
lifelongMOgal !!! ... Exactly !
It is what it is ... and it truly appears to be a freakin mess of a health care plan !
Many of the truly brilliant "Career Politician's' in Washington whom voted for this "Nightmare" don't even know whats in it !
These irresponsible "Air Heads" deserve to be "Booted Out" in 2010 without a doubt !!!
Thanks / Old Sgt. Lamar
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.
