A ridiculous reply even for you.
A ridiculous reply even for you.
Employer-paid health care came about because of wage controls that were imposed during WWII. Health coverage wasn't a wage, so it didn't violate the law, but made it possible to attract workers at a time when labor was in extremely short supply. Thus, you have one bad government policy creating a situation in which third parties began providing something that people used to think of as something that they could and should get for themselves, and when the employment pool expanded, that service became an expected part of the compensation package, and entitlement, if you think about the mindset. Eventually, that entitlement mentality bankrupted whole industries (the auto bailout was the result of the costs of union benefits that were no longer sustainable in current economic markets) and broken the link between the services received and the payment for them, which has created the current crisis. Now, your solution is more government. Do you ever learn from the mistakes of other liberals?
All things being equal, I'd prefer that my employer not provide me with coverage (except for the results of injuries incurred in the line of duty), and give me additional pay so that I can take care of my family. I'd also like to see the various government mandates and rules eliminated or reformed so that the markets could respond to the needs of the consumer, rather than the needs of the intermediaries. This is the part that you don't get, that the consumer makes very few choices regarding health care coverage, because government at all levels imposes ridiculous mandates and insurers end up making decisions for consumers and providers.
I've already given you workable solutions to most of the cost issues that arise from the break between consumers and providers, but you ignored them. Here they are again:
Why not explain why you oppose these reforms, before you demand that we scrap the best medical system in the world in favor of something that you hope will work, but which never has? In fact, I insist that you explain your opposition to them.
- Consumers do not pay for the services that they contract. People who pay for services with their own money seek out the best bargains. People who spend other people's money have no incentive to economize. They accept more services than they need, because they are not out of pocket. This is especially true of illegal immigrants. Which leads us to...
- Illegal immigrants suck down medical services, but pay nothing for them, not even Medicare or Medicaid taxes. Border states are footing the bill for these services, and they are forced to do so by the federal government.
- Government mandates on insurers force them to provide coverage for conditions whether the consumer wants them or not. This drives up the cost of insurance.
- Malpractice suits force doctors to engage in practices which do not benefit patients, but which protect them from legal reprisal. They order unnecessary tests, and act in view of how a jury will view their actions.
The solutions for these problems are very simple:
- Employer coverage occurs because the tax code doesn't treat medical benefits as income, while permitting employers to deduct the cost as a business expense. This results in people seeing health care as something to be provided, rather than something that they pay for. It also has an impact on portability. The fix is to gradually phase out the tax incentives for employers to provide healthcare, and to treat it as income. Thus, if I want to keep more of my income, I have to shop around for a better plan than my boss provides.
- Too easy. What part of illegal do the courts not understand? If you are here illegally, you don't have the right to demand services from those of us who aren't. That includes medical care, welfare, food stamps or any of the other things that liberals demand that we shower illegals with. This will save billions.
- Remove the mandates and allow consumers to tailor their plans to their needs. A twenty-year-old needs catastrophic coverage, while an older person might want something more comprehensive. Make insurance as responsive to individual preferences as cable TV, and you reduce the costs. Also, allow out of state purchases of insurance.
- Restrict awards in malpractice cases to actual damages and treatment costs, and ensure that the damages are used for treatment (Terry Schiavo's husband blew through her settlement and then sought to get the courts to kill her for him). This would also eliminate contingency fees, since the awards would not exceed damages. Attorneys would either be paid for their services the way that they are in other cases, or they can work pro-bono if they are genuinely committed to the case.
If you have a job, you either get health insurance through your employer or you don't. If you don't... then presumably you command a higher salary. I've always had insurance through my employer. But I know people who are contractors, don't get any benefits, but get paid like 20% more.
If you don't have a job, you presumably are "low income" and qualify for medicaid.
Maybe some Democrat can answer -- so who is Obamacare for?
Because, okay I can completely agree with principles like insurance companies can't screw you. There are a lot of stories about someone getting cancer and the insurance company saying "Oh, you didn't report the fact you had a prescription for acne for 2 weeks when you were 16. Since you didn't report a pre-existing condition, we're not paying for your cancer treatment despite the fact you paid us for 20 years. You want to sue? Good luck with that, you'll be dead before this ever sees trial."
But if we were trying to solve that issue, why not just have an "Insurance Companies Can't Screw You Act of 2008" and make it illegal for insurance companies to rip people off. Which, it should be.
If Democrats felt that not enough low-income individuals were covered, why not work to improve medicaid?
If Democrats wanted European or Canadian style health care systems, why not just do that? Because the irony is that actual government health care / socialized medicine would cost about 1/10th of what Obamacare costs.
Can any Democrat or liberal answer this? Why are we paying more for something that isn't what even liberals want, does things that are already working in other programs, and the two or three good things it claims to do (aka insurance companies can't screw you) can be accomplished in a 1 page bill?
Article was written in 2009. I'm pretty sure no time machines were used to use this to promote Hillarycare.
(CNN) -- Robin Beaton found out last June she had an aggressive form of breast cancer and needed surgery -- immediately.
Robin Beaton, 59, found out just days before her mastectomy that her insurance provider would not cover the procedure.
Her insurance carrier precertified her for a double mastectomy and hospital stay. But three days before the operation, the insurance company called and told her they had red-flagged her chart and she would not be able to have her surgery.
The reason? In May 2008, Beaton had visited a dermatologist for acne. A word written on her chart was interpreted to mean precancerous, so the insurance company decided to launch an investigation into her medical history.
Beaton's dermatologist begged her insurance provider to go ahead with the surgery.
"He said, 'This is a misunderstanding. This is not precancerous. All she has is acne.' ... He said ,'Please don't hold up her cancer surgery for this,' " Beaton, 59, said as she testified at a House subcommittee hearing on the terminations of individual health policies by insurance companies.
Still, the insurance carrier decided to rescind her coverage. The company said it had reviewed her medical records and found out that she had misinformed them about some of her medical history.
I offer my own opinion which I base on extensive reading AND my experience living under actual socialism in 3 different countries (& using the socialized medicine), and it's "refuted" by either opinion articles in guy's-random-blog, or policy articles which I actually feel back my claim. Other posters may have different interpretations of the policy, but opinions do not equal fact.It has been pointed out to you and articles have been posted that Obamacare is a system design to push people into full government care yet you continue to take Obamacare's claims at face value
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|