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.
Yes, yes really.. this one will take a second to compound but worth it. The humor never ends..
It sure looks like greatday will drop his private health insurance which you claimed wasnt possible..
So now greatday has a right to drop his care and pushing his employees to the public option but at 4:08 this morning he didnt?
I've explained this to you 3 times. My comments are consistent. Go back and re-read my explanations.
He is allowed to drop his employer-subsidized coverage. His employees are allowed to then go to the public option. What he is NOT allowed to do is get federally compensated, as an employer, for providing that coverage.
And by limiting it, it offers very little choice. Isnt that the justification to add a national healthcare, choice? So we end up with one national care who doesnt have to comply with state regulations, state management costs, and unlimited budgets and no need to even break even, competing with 1700 other companies which have to balanced budgets?
"Balanced" is a mis-characterization. They are CLEANING UP.
Post a link showing that the majority of Americans approve of government-run health care/insurance.
This isn't government run, this gives an OPTION to have a government run program.
Anyway.....
CNN/OR 10/30-11/1
Favor 55%
Oppose 44%
"Now thinking specifically about the health insurance plans available to most Americans, would you favor or oppose creating a public health insurance option administered by the federal government that would compete with plans offered by private health insurance companies"
Ipsos 10/29-11/1
"Creation of a public entity to directly compete with existing health insurance companies."
Favor 51%
Oppose 43%
NBC/WSJ 10/22-10/25
"And thinking about one aspect of the debate on health care legislation -- Would you favor or oppose creating a public health care plan administered by the federal government that would compete directly with private health insurance companies?"
Favor 48%
Oppose 42%
Gallup 10/16-10/19
"Now thinking about some of the specifics of health care legislation being considered: If Congress passes a health care bill, do you think it should or should not include a public, government-run insurance plan to compete with plans offered by private insurance companies?
ABC/WP 10/15-10/18
"Would you support or oppose having the government create a new health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans?"
About this "mandatory" car "insurance" some keep bringing up.
Here in Arizona, we have to show "financial responsibility". We have a couple of choices how to do this:
A) I can obtain an Insurance Policy on each vehicle we put on the road with the minimum financial responsibility being acquired.
OR
B) Acquire a Certificate of Deposit in the minimum amount required by the State and deposit it with the Motor Vehicle Division of the State of Arizona. This CD stays with MVD as proof of financial responsibility. AND, I only need one CD to cover multiple vehicles.
I have chosen option B for 3 of my vehicles. If they get trashed - oh well. But, I don't have to pay for multiple policies - and I'm making a few pennies on the CD's.
But I'll go with it anyway - the more people who purchase insurance, the greater their negotiating power, and the greater the incentive for private companies to compete, lowering prices for everyone, and possibly even leading to the country's public option outliving its own usefulness once that competition is established.
In your comparison to auto insurance..just remember that you can shop around but if you have a load of accidents against your license you will pay sky high rates. There's no "flat" insurance rate..it IS based on your record.
About this "mandatory" car "insurance" some keep bringing up.
Here in Arizona, we have to show "financial responsibility". We have a couple of choices how to do this:
A) I can obtain an Insurance Policy on each vehicle we put on the road with the minimum financial responsibility being acquired.
OR
B) Acquire a Certificate of Deposit in the minimum amount required by the State and deposit it with the Motor Vehicle Division of the State of Arizona. This CD stays with MVD as proof of financial responsibility. AND, I only need one CD to cover multiple vehicles.
I have chosen option B for 3 of my vehicles. If they get trashed - oh well. But, I don't have to pay for multiple policies - and I'm making a few pennies on the CD's.
Options - to have insurance or not.
I love it.
Er, that's still kind if like insurance. I would equate it to the FSA for healthcare.
The point of insurance isn't really to protect the individual - though it's a nice perk. The point of insurance is to protect the PUBLIC from damage or bills you might accrue but can't pay.
In your comparison to auto insurance..just remember that you can shop around but if you have a load of accidents against your license you will pay sky high rates. There's no "flat" insurance rate..it IS based on your record.
Fair enough.
The difference between auto and health, then, is that the truly expensive problems are not the individual's fault. Yes, nutrition and exercise and all kinds of other things can keep us healthier. But no one is to blame for cancer - that's truly the luck of the draw. How is it fair for someone who comes down with pancreatic cancer, for example, to suffer the pain and treatments while most other people are lucky enough not to, and on TOP of that, go into debt for it all while others are simply lucky enough not to?
Er, that's still kind if like insurance. I would equate it to the FSA for healthcare.
The point of insurance isn't really to protect the individual - though it's a nice perk. The point of insurance is to protect the PUBLIC from damage or bills you might accrue but can't pay.
Hey - I can pay my own medical. I don't need you to help me. One of the reasons for dropping medicare.
Insurance should be optional. Mandating insurance - and saying that if you don't buy it - you can become a felon and go to jail for up to 5 years will not past Constitutional Muster.
What he is NOT allowed to do is get federally compensated, as an employer, for providing that coverage.
Which he was NEVER allowed to do.
Unless of course you want to count the fact that private health insurance costs come away from the net profits and not taxed. No wait, that doesnt help because even if they pay into the public tax plan, nothing changes..
Hey - I can pay my own medical. I don't need you to help me. One of the reasons for dropping medicare.
Insurance should be optional. Mandating insurance - and saying that if you don't buy it - you can become a felon and go to jail for up to 5 years will not past Constitutional Muster.
It is also Un-American.
No sense in arguing with the guy on this .. Mearth likes the totalitarian form of government and thinks mandates like this are just the bee's knee's ..
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.
