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.
Here we go, I have demontrated that having one regulatory body to comply with is easier and therfore cheaper than complying with 50 different regulatory bodies so that is how costs will decrease. Competition increases because the barrier of entry to a given market is lower more people will play. Say for instance the insurance laws in NJ are far more burdensome than Ohio. An insurer who offers insurance in Ohio but not in NJ because of the high hurdles NJ board of insurance put in the way would now offer insurance in NJ because ther is no reason not to. Thus increased competition.
Regulating insurance is a lot more complicated than a simple example that you mention above. In fact, if is bad in NJ, why are their any health insurers at all.
The answer. I will give it to you... because they have a monopoly. There is absolutely nothing in the current system that impedes entry into a market. All a company has to do is comply with state laws. The insurance companies do not want competition. If you believe that any business wants competition, I have a bridge to unload. I am still waiting for some emperical data. The issue is so much more complicated than I have time to write about, which is why if you have some source for your assumptions please post.
The change I wanted and for which I voted WAS NOT for government bail out of banks and walls street. It was NOT for a stimulous package that, by the time it actually got through congress and the senate, did very little to produce actual jobs. These things cost trillions and my taxes will help for them just as they have for so many other things in the many decades I've worked. Things that were of no benefit to me or anyone else I know. The change I voted for was HEALTH CARE REFORM. And the cost of that would be but a dip in the bucket of all the trillions the government has spent for things that I did NOT want.
I feel the same way, yes we needed change, but not this change.
I think we can all agree that reform is necessary, but is it justified to let the government take over 1/6th of our economy? Who in their right mind thinks the government running your HC will make the problems disappear?
Where are the examples of well run government "business". Please, don't list USPS (in the red for billions), Medicare/Medicaid (in the red for Trillions), SS (in the red for tens of Trillions).
Medicare/Medicaid/SS have unfunded liabilities of $50 TRILLION.
We all know now that the ultimate goal is single payer and the first step to get there is a public option.
85% of people are satisfied with their HC - why are the dems/libs hell bent on overhauling the whole system? One answer - single payer.
Meanwhile, there are things that can be done in an incremental fashion that would garner bipartisan support.
Sanrene has very logical posts that I can follow and appreciate. Good post Sanrene, you have my back on that one!
WASHINGTON – Frustrated liberals have a question for President Barack Obama and Democratic lawmakers: Isn't it time the other guys gave a little ground on health care? What's the point of a bipartisan bill, they ask, if we're making all the concessions?
Analysis: Liberals tired of health care compromise - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul_analysis - broken link)
Listen, you Dems and Liberal run the House/Senate and the Whitehouse....so shut up and pass your B.S. bills!
You dont need Rep. support !
BUT !!!! When all hell breaks lose next year at voting time dont cry like the little wimps that you are!
Because voting time is coming and can you say "Bye Bye Dem. majority"...
Regulating insurance is a lot more complicated than a simple example that you mention above. In fact, if is bad in NJ, why are their any health insurers at all.
The answer. I will give it to you... because they have a monopoly. There is absolutely nothing in the current system that impedes entry into a market. All a company has to do is comply with state laws. The insurance companies do not want competition. If you believe that any business wants competition, I have a bridge to unload. I am still waiting for some emperical data. The issue is so much more complicated than I have time to write about, which is why if you have some source for your assumptions please post.
Sure their are barriers to entry in a given market. Smaller insurers don't have the resources the giants do so they are selective where they make offerings. So the giants will be seen in every market the smaller insurers will be seen in selective markets. You are right about the monopoly aspect, you are proving my point.
The only data I can offer is my experience as a pharmacist. there are many many small plans that you never heard of because they are regional due to the barriers of entry to the market. You some how seem to believe a smaller insurer has the same resources as Aetna and can spend the money to copmply with the insurance regulations in 50 states, they can't. To further your hypothisis you believe smaller insurers remain regional so bigger companies will have monopolies. You have it backwards. Because the little guys are hampered by 50 different regulatory bodies they can't compete in every market with the big guys. The government is protecting the big guys monopoly.
I don't know what you liberals are whining about. You have commanding majorities in both houses. Pass what you want. Oh, wait. Max Baucus said the votes aren't there for a public option. Sounds to me like the problem is not with the Republicans but with the Dems themselves. Just keep stamping your foot and screech that 'We won the election and we should get what we want!' Maybe that'll work for you.
I believe when it's over, you will be proven wrong.
I guess you haven't seen the polls lately - ALL say the same thing - extreme disapproval for obamacare.
No. The Democrats want the public option, and they are still the majority who supported him. His polls went down when it was thought he was going to compromise. There's going to be lots of struggle but the final outcome will definitely include the public option.
No. The Democrats want the public option, and they are still the majority who supported him. His polls went down when it was thought he was going to compromise. There's going to be lots of struggle but the final outcome will definitely include the public option.
It's actually called the Government Option
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.