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 other words, abandon ship on claims that lawmakers made for months during the health reform debate—that the legislation would in any way reduce the nation’s deficit or lower health care costs (in fact, this was a recommendation in the presentation’s “not-to-do” list).
But wait, weren’t those the main reasons why President Barack Obama in July 2009 pressed for a fast-track passage of a massive overhaul to our health care system? At a prime-time press conference during a contentious summer when many Americans expressed uncertainty, here’s how the President justified the urgency:
I just have to ask again; Doesn't the FACT that the bill signed into law FAIL the stated goals of obama bother any of those who were cheerleaders of obamacare?
Doesn't it bother you that you were lied to?
Doesn't it bother you that the dems and obama so corrupted the process that NO ONE knew what was in the bill and what IMPACT it would have on every citizen?
1. don't reply in quotes. Makes me not want to reply.
2. If all these things are known quantities of waste (defensive medicine accounts for up to 30% of costs) why were there no mentions of fixes in the HCR.
3. New proceedures today increase life spans significantly more then older ones with the exception of perhaps antibiotics and organ transplants.
4. Research and costs associated with new medicines are very much private sector. Also, taxation supported research still costs us money.
I don't tell you how to post, so don't tell me.
Please provide some documentation of your statistic, and also that there is no mention of fixes in the HCR.
All procedures were "new" at one time.
Yes, most drug research is private money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene
You do realize that obamacare is setting the standard minimum services that insurance companies would have to offer, thereby increasing the premiums for individuals and business.
Not everyone fits into a nice, neat little expensive package of benefits.
You do realize that ERISA already sets the standard for group insurance, do you not? That is a federal law.
To whoever asked me about my assertion that the "vast majority" get employer-paid health insurance, when I get back to my regular computer I'll find my statistics and post them. Remember that with 9% unemployment, 91% are still employed, and most of them get their HI from their employer.
Each state insurance commission mandates that an individual insurance policy bought in that state contain certain coverages. For example, some states mandate mental health coverage, some don't. Some states mandate immunization coverage, some don't. And so forth. What the "allow insurance to be sold across state lines" people are really wanting is to be able to sell policies that cover the least conditions, by eliminating these mandates. (Group insurance is covered by a different set of standards.)
Yes, believe it or not, I am aware that our country is deep in debt. Whether that means it can afford to pay for health care for its citizens is irrelevant, as the vast majority of people will continue to be covered under private insurance that they pay for themselves.
So additional government interaction will mean no additional cost.
That is great! This must be the first time in history that has happened.
There was a free market until insurance left the hospitals and worked their way into the doctor offices.
That's when prices started to go sky high.
Those old enough to remember....insurance was used for surgeries and hospital stays.
Doctor visits were paid for by cash as well as prescriptions. When people just pay $15 then they don't care what the true cost is; they don't care how many tests or the cost of the tests. Why ? Because all they shell out is a lousy $15. The difference comes into play in their paycheck when their premium is due.
Go back to the 80/20 with a deductible and see how quick costs come down because people will start to shop around.
I did not say that. I answered your question about why the free market doesn't work with health insurance. Nice deflection, though.
You absolutely said that. Here is your quote.
Quote:
Whether that means it can afford to pay for health care for its citizens is irrelevant, as the vast majority of people will continue to be covered under private insurance that they pay for themselves.
So you either don't care about the cost burden of those nationalize health care would cover of you think it will be...free!
You also didn't answer my question about the free market. The current conditions surrounding insurance are not a free market. The removal of regulations and mandates would allow for true competition. Competitive growth is the only sustainable way an industry can survive. The more mandates that exist on an industry, the lesser the ability for new players to enter the market.
So you either don't care about the cost burden of those nationalize health care would cover of you think it will be...free!
You also didn't answer my question about the free market. The current conditions surrounding insurance are not a free market. The removal of regulations and mandates would allow for true competition. Competitive growth is the only sustainable way an industry can survive. The more mandates that exist on an industry, the lesser the ability for new players to enter the market.
Quit putting words in my mouth. You made a very "leading" comment about how the country is deep in debt and can't afford health care for its citizens. There will always be some reason why some people put health care as such a low priority.
The reason there are government regulations re: insurance is that the free market wasn't working. People were getting bilked, paying for insurance and then not getting coverage when they needed it. That's when the govt. stepped in.
Quit putting words in my mouth. You made a very "leading" comment about how the country is deep in debt and can't afford health care for its citizens. There will always be some reason why some people put health care as such a low priority.
The reason there are government regulations re: insurance is that the free market wasn't working. People were getting bilked, paying for insurance and then not getting coverage when they needed it. That's when the govt. stepped in.
When in the history of the insurance industry has it ever existed in a free market?
Can you please post links to support your second paragraph?
we are broke--- the great society message will fall on deaf ears. the tale will be told next election.
as to hillary flying all over the world and promising billions in aide-- this too will come to an end. if GOP refuses to practice auterity we will form a new party that will. austerity and energy independence will get us out of the hole, like brazil.
When in the history of the insurance industry has it ever existed in a free market?
Can you please post links to support your second paragraph?
Not with this computer. You'll have to wait. But that is the history of all regulation. Businesses behaving badly.
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.
