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.
With a different legal system / Constitution. They don't have the same Eminent Domain requirements that we do in the United States TM.
Go to law school and you might learn about this.
Nobody is taking away their "domain" .. they stil have it in Switzerland, Germany, UK etc. They exist...t hey make money.. the have a product to sell right there along side their government GD..
they are not out of business..if they were, then I couldn't say that they co-exist..
You don't understand the LEGAL concept of Eminent Domain TM. Your comment above PROVES it clearly. You don't understand the Constitution of the United States regarding Eminent Domain (or do you feel the Constitution is also BS?).
Those with far better legal minds than you say you are wrong. And, they come from Harvard, Yale etc. They are Democrats, Republicans and Libertarians. If you don't mind, i'll take their advice over yours any day.
The FACT remains: Insurance companies are going to be remaining in existence for the foreseeable future.
Changes will be made to reduce health insurance premiums - to make them more affordable.
No one will be REQUIRED to have health insurance - it will be voluntary.
There will be assistance available to those in the lower income categories
There will be Tort reform (punitive damage awards capped)
Those with pre-existing conditions will be able to get coverage
Americans will retain their right to select what coverages, deductibles, co-pays etc that THEY want.
It seems you don't advocate much change in what we already got. However, the need for tort reform is pretty much a myth. Court settlements against doctors are seldom beyond $500,000.
It seems you don't advocate much change in what we already got. However, the need for tort reform is pretty much a myth. Court settlements against doctors are seldom beyond $500,000.
To the Contrary: The Changes that will be proffered in the legislation are major -
And, Tort reform is needed to cap Punitive Damage awards.
It seems you don't advocate much change in what we already got. However, the need for tort reform is pretty much a myth. Court settlements against doctors are seldom beyond $500,000.
GD... managed to be on some sort of "committee" that I suspsect really just want's to keep the status quo and pacify the rest of the nation with their "reform". They hit only the very tip of the iceberg and do nothing to address the real issues at hand as to why this nation spends double the rest of the free world on health care expenditures yet can't seem to have access for all it's citizens.
THis legislation is weak.. and even furthered water down and fluffed during the process will render it well pointless and a waste of taxpayer time and money in having put it together.
It is yet another weak and feable attempt and solving our problem without any real change. A big move was needed.. instead we got a "swerve"...
Our companies will remain unable to compete on a global scale because of cost associated with health insurance of employees.
We will still be paying, in those premiums, for so many other things that have absolutely NOTHING whatesoever to do with medicine (think advertising, shareholder profits,CEO's overbloated salaries, bonuses, Lobbying, excessive adminstrative costs.
Means tests that in the past have proven to have failed so many Americans... meaning the Middle class.
Oh.. and the sickest of the population will still end up having to pay far more for insurance than anyone else.. sometimes those sickest have the hardest time meeting those financial obligations.
One BIG change that COULD have been included in this would have been to make health insurance mandatory.. that way those that think they are "immune" and do not get health insurance.. then find themselves ill will not end up being a burden on the system.. end up getting treatement they could never pay for and end up passing the cost on to the rest of us.
We've tackled two issues.. tort reform and opening it up across state lines.. so that your premiums may be slightly less.. meanwhile there is a long long list of things unaddressed that ignored will not make our systems problems go away..
So.. they managed to keep the status quo and give us something that is a "guise" meant to fool the American people into thinking that they actually care about the health crisis in this country.. meanwhile the insurance companies are laughing themselves all the way to the bank.. and managed to preserve their way of business of bilking the American people and companies.
It's been nice talking to you about this, too. I truly believe that only when we can take the rhetoric out, and just try to see each side's perspective and address each side's issues, then we can come to some kind of resolution.
Ahh Christie... a rare find. Responses from a polite non-argumentative poster. Don't worry; a few months here on C-D, and we'll knock that outa you!
Having grown up in Canada until I was about 36, I've experienced both versions.
I can say, absolutely, that the Canuck single-payer system breeds a vast Federalized & thus grossly outsized and unhealthy inefficiency and a rat-in-a-maze feeling for ther unlucky patients. Of course Canadians, never wanting to hear any critiques of their system or country (esp. from Americans, fur Chrisssake!), will lambast us Americans (I was roundly singled out a few months back by a particularly nasty Canadian eastcoaster "mod" for politely listing the pros and cons of the US and Canadian systems...)..
In a nutshell, the same system (vast, rapacious captialism) that is at the heart of our apparently heartless US system has also been the genesis of our massive technological advantage. Such places as The Mayo Clinics pale ANYTHING that Canada has, anywhere. Some years ago, the Canadian Federal Minister of Health, no less, flew down to Rochester, NY, to that Mayo for his very personal heart bypass. Hmmm..
In Canada, the basis for accolades and approval, since they mostly have nothing to compare their experiences to, is that they "survived". My father, now 97, and in hospital a lot, is there because he had a wholly unnecessary pacemaker implant 3 yrs ago because of a vocal disagreement between his cardiologist and his GP; the GP winning and the cardio stomping off huffily, all of this in front of me and my father...
In the US, the insurance companies desperately want to get rid of you if you're costing them $$$, which I surely am now. They make it financially disasterous to get sick if you are on medicare or am disabled as I now am, with a particulary agressive case of degen. osteo-arthritis. When I no longer lived under the generous wing of GM's very comprehensive health car plan, it then cost me >$1200 / mo. to cover my family under COBRA. all this coupled with a huge decrease in my monthly income.
Even if you change jobs and are young, you can suffer from this direct discrimination. About 15 years ago, otherwise generally healthy, I had a simple single kidney stone, and from then on, watch out. I was told, variously, that the ins. conglomerates had determined that I had "kidney disease", a real flag for insurance complanies. No such luck, but I sadly, didn't fight it, and when I truly had other actual problems, it was too late. I'm red-flagged. Hey, we're all gonna git sumthin' sooner or later, eh?
My best advice if you're not well-covered in your job? (And you surely won't get such coverage once you have ANY sort of excuse to deny it to you...). Buy into a separate, private disability insurance coverage package NOW, while you have no recorded medical problems. Make it specifically and legally distinct from any coverage you might have in your job, because those insipid plans often will reduce your coverage by any outside amount you've planned for, and thus they do you little good. Perhaps under your ssn, in an account based in the Bahamas, via a unnamed Canadian account number. Etc. Etc.
The best thing that could be done in this country would be to provide an available simple single-payer system that you could optionally enroll in, or that would allow a basic backage that employers would be minimally mandated to pay for, and you could then up-option it. And it would be fully transportable, and when you hit retirement or become disabled, the option part would be covered by the government share scheme, and you could then pay the, say, $100/mo per person for the continuing basic package.
Also, all medical expenses over, say, $100, should be tax-deductible. No questions asked. We get a tax deduction on interest paid under certain other cases; why not medical coverage? Sheeeesh!
Ahh Christie... a rare find. A polite non-argumentative postr. don't worry; a few moths here on c-D, and we'll knock that outa you!
Having grown up in Canada until I was about 36, I've experienced both versions.
I can say, absolutely, that the Canuck single-payer system breeds vast gross unhealthy inefficiency and a rat-in-a-maze feeling for ther unlucky patient. of course Canadians, never wanting to hear any critiques of their systme or country, will lambast us Americans (I was roundly singled out a few months back by a particularly nasty Canadian eastcoaster "mod" for poiltely listing the pros and cons of the US and Canadian systems...)..
In a nutshell, the same system (vast, rapacious captialism) that is at the heart of our apparenly heartless US system has also been the genesis of our massive technological advantage. Such places as The Mayo clinics pale ANYTHING that Canada has, anywhere. some years ago, the Canadian Federal Minister of Health, no less, flew down to rochester to that Mayo for his very personal heart bypass. Hmmm..
In Canada, the basis for accolades and approval, since they mostly have nothing to compare their experiences to, is thta htey "survived". My father, now 97, and in hosppital al ot, is there because he had a wholly unnecessary pacemaker implant because of a disagreement between his cardiologist and his GP; the GP winning and the cardio stomping off huffily, all of this in front of me and my father...
In the US, the insurance companies desperately want to get rid of you if you're costing them $$$, which I surely am now. They make it financially disasterous to get sick if you are on medicare or am disabled as I now am with a particulary agressive case of degen. osteo-arthritis. when I no longer lived under the generous wing of GM's very comprehensive health car plan, it then cost me >$1200 / om to cover my family under COBRA. all this coupled with a huge decrease in my monthly income.
Even if you change jobs and are young, you can suffer from this direct discrimination. About 15 years ago, otherwise generally healthy, I had a simple single kidney stone, and from then on, watch out. I was told, variously, that the ins. conglomerates had determined that I had "kidney disease", a real flag for insurance complanies. No such luck, but I sadly, didn't fight it, and when I truly had other actual problems, it was too late. I'm red-flagged. Hey, we're all gonna git sumthin' sooner or later, eh? My best advice if you're not covered in your job? Buy into a separate, private disability insurance coverage package NOW, while you have no recorded problems. Make it specifically and legally distinct from any coverage you might have in your job, because those insipid plans often will reduce your coverage by any outside amount you've planned for, and thus they do you little good. Perhaps under your ssn, in an account based in the Bahamas, via a unnamed Canadian account number. Etc. Etc.
The best thing that could be done in this country would be to provide an available simple single-payer system that you could optionally enroll in, or that would allow a basic backage that employers would be minimally mandated to pay for, and you could then up-option it. And it would be fully transportable, and when you hit retirement or become disabled, the option part would be covered by the government share scheme, and you could then pay the, say, $100/mo per person for the continuing basic package.
Also, all medical expenses over, say, $100, should be tax-deductible. No questions asked. We get a tax deduction on interest paid under certain other cases; why not medical coverage? Sheeeesh!
I like what you outlined there.. really I do. I'm not loyal to one way or another in regards to the different "socialized" plans out there. I am , howver, deeply opposed to the current U.S system.
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.
Options...
