You clearly don't understand the legislation. Under the proposed plan, a floor-level plan would be defined that all insurance companies must offer. Every company in each state would compete on price with every other insurance company in that state. Company's would also be free to offer more robust plans for higher cost. You, as a consumer, would be free to purchase the lowest-cost floor-level plan, or any higher-level plan, from anyone you wanted.
You clearly don't understand the legislation. Under the proposed plan, a floor-level plan would be defined that all insurance companies must offer. Every company in each state would compete on price with every other insurance company in that state. Company's would also be free to offer more robust plans for higher cost. You, as a consumer, would be free to purchase the lowest-cost floor-level plan, or any higher-level plan, from anyone you wanted.
What do you mean "bull"?
In a single state there can be hundreds of insurance companies offering thousands of plans all competing with each other.
Maybe you are too lazy as a consumer?
If you state has a limited number of companies that is the fault OF YOUR STATE LEGISLATURE and the politicians YOU VOTED FOR.
If you think that a company can move into your state and offer a more competitive product, maybe you should start your own insurance company?
See, the fact of the matter is that people like you are too lazy to find a solution and would rather sit back and let someone else do all of the work and then bitch about and a whine to the government to do something.
The fact of the matter is that people like you want all the benefits and none of the costs associated with living in a society.
Not every form of cost-shifting is morally equal. If the two of us are in the same insurance risk pool, and you happen to get sick, I may have to pay higher premiums. More than likely you getting sick wasn't your fault (although it conceivably might have been). However, if I am in a risk pool and you are uninsured, then you get sick and receive free care that I have to pay for, then I am being penalized because you made a willful decision to not be covered.
Your zero sum argument is off point. What is zero sum is the total cost of treating everyone, insured or uninsured. What is not zero sum is the average cost of healthcare premiums for those who are actually insured. Those premiums are padded because people without insurance receive FREE (i.e. un-reimbursed) care. Basically, the people not insured are leaching off those who are.
- wolf
Huh? I pay the costs for living in society. I pay for my own health insurance.
People like you want other people to pay for their cost of being in society.
See the difference?
They must be offering roughly equivalent options or the obvious best would quickly rise to dominate the market and push all others out of business. The truth is that there is VERY little difference in products. The only caveat is that IF you have significant resources you can generally get a product providing better service, but only with a corresponding increase in price. All of the options available to a person of a particular income level are roughly equivalent to one another.
Except that I served my country, campaign for change, work with legislators, educate myself and those around me, etc. The fact of the matter is that people like you want all the benefits and none of the costs associated with living in a society.
Huh? I pay the costs for living in society. I pay for my own health insurance.
People like you want other people to pay for their cost of being in society.
See the difference?
You haven't understood anything I've written if you can say that. I already said I'm 100% behind total single payer health care. If that's refused, THEN I said I can accept 100% government provision because the costs end up the same - you just pay the government instead of the provider. What I will NOT accept is forced payment into a corrupted private system.
Furthermore we ALL already pay the costs of being in society. If you want to live in a country you MUST pay the government for them to provide the services they do (military, diplomacy, trade, infrastructure, etc). If you refuse to provide something required for life (say medical care access) then those who are without it will seek to attain it through means which will increase other of your costs into the system (like law enforcement).
NOTHING you can do in a society will allow you to pay ONLY for yourself. You pay for everyone, or you get out. This is true of ALL governments/nations since the dawn of time.
this is such bullshit... wtf is the difference between the 27 brands of $1.99 deodorant on the shelf at the grocery store? the difference is that 27 companies can compete to sell you the same thing in america! and wtf is different about the 'options available to a person of a particular income level' when they go to the grocery store or to buy a car? they get to choose from things that they can afford...
so we give everyone some level of catastrophic coverage, then what? we get sad stories about people who that doesn't fix... so in the end we legislate the pinnacle of technology to everyone? and people with more $$$ (like liberal liver grabber steve jobs?) have to be legislated against so that they don't get any better/quicker service than the proletariat?
and the gov't outsources the admin of the program to a private company...
Just as you say, there is no appreciable differences in the products or services you receive at a given income level. If that prices out a portion of the society then they either must be given an alternative, or they will go outside the system to obtain it at the cost of the society which priced them out. This is the nature of crime, revolution, etc. In the end, you'll pay the price in some other way.
Costs of living in a society are set and absolute...the only difference is rather you slate them for positive, humanitarian ends, or self-serving evil ones.
dude... you are nuts... sorry, but how the hell do you come up with "Costs of living in a society are set and absolute"??? people make decisions on what they are willing to do to generate revenue, what they spend their (scarce) resources on... there is a large subset of those 'needing' things who need to learn that you prioritize funding what's important to you.
if you choose to spend your acquired resources on tv's and cellphones and excessive food and... then why should i subsidize you?
that people who have limited resources don't manage them well or appropriately shouldn't be my burden. the question is just how much do i owe them?
ummm, let's just make it more simple: there will be a new tax that everyone pays for healthcare... "mandate" is an obfuscation, it's a tax...
the problem, of course, is that a huge number of the proletariat already pays no tax, so they will not contribute but will receive services (and lots more than the 'emergency room' argument)... this is going to severely burden the system for a long time and cost a ton of new money (cut the bullshit about how wonderfully economical medicare/cade is vs private ins, it just ain't true)...
What you fail to see is that there is no choice if the only option is the government. With private insurance, I have a choice between hundreds of insurance companies all competing and providing different products. If an insurance company does not provide the level of service that I expect I can take my business elsewhere.
LOL @ self serving, evil ends.
Mr. Toohey. is that you?
People should not be allowed to "opt out" of health insurance because they're not REALLY assuming the risks of their decision. If they or their dependents require treatment they cannot afford, taxpayers and those who do pay for treatment (either directly out of their own pockets or indirectly via insurance premiums) MUST foot the bill in the form of inflated premiums and inflated fees for health services. The rest of us don't have the luxury of "opting out" of paying for those who aren't covered and can't pay.
If you argue, "Let them bleed to death," you know you're being absurd. Furthermore, are you really going to let a young child bleed to death because her parents "assumed the risks" of not being covered?
Cubeless, what is your plan for the Proletariats? Is it, "Don't get sick, and if you do, die quickly?"
Is it possible that those evil socialist Proletariats don't have money to pay for health care and taxes in spite of working full time at poverty-wage and low-wage jobs because the upper classes are not paying them enough compensation for their labor?
Maybe if the upper classes who pay the taxes hadn't sent all the frickin jobs to Mexico, India, and China, hadn't imported foreigners on H-1B and L-1 visas to displace Americans from knowledge-based jobs, and hadn't imported millions of poor immigrants to displace them from working class jobs and to put downward pressure on wages those people would earn enough to pay some taxes.
1) Let the government figure out how to reduce Health Care costs.
2) Let the government figure out how to then take the savings on Health Care Costs and channel it into providing minimal insurance coverage for those that presently do not have it.
3) Let the government the force the insurance companies to remove pre-existing conditions because their costs have come down (See #1)
Auto insurance is a requirement due to the priviledge of using an automobile granted by the state.
Health Insurance can be made a mandate of employers - however, a minimum level of employees should be set and/or a gross income requirements
Look I don't have health care. I get sick I go see the doctor and pay out of pocket. Guess what I get charged 25% less then what would have happened if I had insurance. That cost everyone around me $00.00 while health care for 'everyone' is going to cost me a bundle and afford me no different coverage then anyone else.
1) Let the government figure out how to reduce Health Care costs.
2) Let the government figure out how to then take the savings on Health Care Costs and channel it into providing minimal insurance coverage for those that presently do not have it.
3) Let the government the force the insurance companies to remove pre-existing conditions because their costs have come down (See #1)
Auto insurance is a requirement due to the privilege of using an automobile granted by the state.
Health Insurance can be made a mandate of employers - however, a minimum level of employees should be set and/or a gross income requirements
The only thing I gather from your rambling "let the government" bullet points is you must support a completely government controlled single payer system? Or your one of those that believe you have the right to be irresponsible and let everyone else pay for your health care and are just trying to spin it so you don't sound selfish? Which is it?