KaskadskyjKozak

right, but isn't Obama claiming he is adding more 'competition' with his plan? allowing you to purchase insurance across state lines increases competition. but, no, it's bad in this case... hmm... bad smell.

that article sounds like total BS to me. "it would be worse ... because it just would!" by allowing selling across state lines you would have more choices than you do now, and could always choose NOT to buy a policy outside your state. And no, I'm not saying this is the "solution to all our problems" (and neither is Jay)

Why is it disallowed in the first place? Sounds anti-American to me. It limits choice and competition.

Except when 1) there is nobody with a better "word on the street to switch to" 2) you have a "preexisting condition" and can't switch 3) your employer pays a large part of your premium and you can't switch without paying *all* the premium So, I raised this question before. Why the fuck can't insurers sell policies across state lines?

The major unstated premise here seems to be that, even under conditions of open competition, profits can only be realized by cheating consumers. you're going to the extreme there jay. its not "cheating consumers" its "maximizing share holder value". you see, it isn't all bad...because someone is winning! the shareholder. that why the corporation exists. I'll repeat what I said earlier. I'm all good with a doctor making a good salary and benefits - they earned it. Ditto for his/her nurses, administrative staff, etc. But I'm not good with a corporate hierarchy (or governmental one) telling the doctor how much he can/should charge to maximize profits (or implement price controls), stating what treatments are allowed and when (to control costs), etc, etc.

The major unstated premise here seems to be that, even under conditions of open competition, profits can only be realized by cheating consumers. Corporations seek to maximize profits. That leads to pressure from the board of directors, stakeholders, and senior management to do things like what we see today: - resist payouts - increase premium prices every year at an unsustainable rate - establish absolute lifetime maximums (and make these smaller) - establish guidelines on preexisting conditions - make application as difficult as possible

I proposed in an earlier thread/post to this thread requiring health care insurers, providers, etc to be non-profit. I think this would likely improve a lot of our problems. And I don't consider doctors, nurses and other health care providers making a good salary the problem here. It's more on the macro scale of large corporations (insurance companies, hospitals, etc) being profit-driven and being manipulated by stock holders, boards of directors, and senior execs ("our profit was 30 billion last year - how to increase it to 35 billion,next year??")

I proposed in an earlier thread/post to this thread requiring health care insurers, providers, etc to be non-profit. I think this would likely improve a lot of our problems. Another thing. I heard some conservative critics of the Health Care reform saying that if we want more competition, then you should be able to buy insurance from an insurer in another state. I recall the last time I bought insurance on my own (Jan 2007) that I was surprised by how few companies I could purchase from. It was one or two, if I recall correctly. Why the fuck is this? I assumed that only a few companies were willing to sell policies outside of an employer, but now wonder if there is some legal bullshit/gov't influence in this. Why can't I buy insurance from a company in Pennsylvania, Florida, or anywhere for that matter?

I proposed in an earlier thread/post to this thread requiring health care insurers, providers, etc to be non-profit. I think this would likely improve a lot of our problems.

It's not just that, there are two other issues: insurance co's stalling when you really do get sick/hurt (and are covered) and the "absolute limit" that you can hit (2 million for lifetime). Most people who are insured never really get sick or hurt. Sure there is an emergency visit here and there, a few doctor's appointments every year, etc. Only a few people really get sick and hurt, and the story I am hearing over and over again from the "our health care system is broken crowd" is that insurance companies try to avoid paying these expenses when they actually are incurred. I don't know how much of this is truth and how much hyperbole, but if it's the former, it's BS, and I could see how this is not on everyone's radar screen since it affects few - of course you are happy w/ your coverage if you've never really gotten sick/hurt and never had to make huge claims that are stalled/denied. Anyways, in general my preference is to identify the worst 2-3 problems, and improve them first. You can't fix everything all at once. And I prefer reasonable legislation/regulation to a parallel public system, or massive overhaul. The latter is what is making people really fucking nervous. So, if rising costs is the #1 problem, well, fine address that in isolation or with one or two other problems, but don't try to do it all - all at once.

Poon Tang

so is your mom. Speaking of your mom... when the hell did you get married? Jebus, last time I checked you just got yourself a new woahman. no shit. he was bragging a few months ago about how he was a 30+ something who could still get hot chicks - one after another.

Do you make more than $200,000+ a year? You wouldn't pay higher taxes under some of the proposals. Unfortunately, this provision is likely to be struck under any compromise with Republicans (who're fighting for the common man, of course). I heard all businesses would be hit with a payroll deduction under some of these proposals - whether or not your employer already pays for (some or all) of you health insurance. That is a new tax and if true, is bullshit. If I *want* to go with the public option, then I should be apply to apply my employer-paid portion to the public option, but I should not have to fund it if I am already getting coverage that I am happy with. valid concern, and point. These are the details that ought to be being discussed, not Obama's similarities to Hitler and whether Obama wants to send old people to the glue factory. I'm fucking outraged that the discussion is none at all and we risk a total defeat of opportunity to reform to everyone's benefit because of histrionic and irrational rumor and fear mongering, and political BULLSHIT. So, I hear your concerns too. Could reform *start* with just the following 1) ensuring catastrophic coverage is affordable - meaning monthly charge and a reasonable annual deductible 2) ensuring insurance companies may not stall, delay, avoid paying out - how about pay first, then ask questions, 3) figuring out a way to eliminate the "preexisting conditions" requirements balancing that with folks being "forced" to buy coverage (instead of just paying nothing until they are hurt or sick and then suddenly applying for coverage). I could also see progressive premiums (or tax credits to ensure this) for 1), but would never support zero copays/deductibles for large numbers of people.

Do you make more than $200,000+ a year? You wouldn't pay higher taxes under some of the proposals. Unfortunately, this provision is likely to be struck under any compromise with Republicans (who're fighting for the common man, of course). I heard all businesses would be hit with a payroll deduction under some of these proposals - whether or not your employer already pays for (some or all) of you health insurance. That is a new tax and if true, is bullshit. If I *want* to go with the public option, then I should be apply to apply my employer-paid portion to the public option, but I should not have to fund it if I am already getting coverage that I am happy with.

he doesn't post those. duh! ;-)

By comparison the US population is 10X that of Canada, and even with 85% coverage, our system serves at least 8.5X that of Canada, so dropping from 30th to 37th should be acceptable - explanable by the larger number of people served by our Health Care system. Problem solved!

so were the spartans - they kicked licked ass too fixed it for ya

cool translation - whose? it retains the essential alliteracy that resonates throughthe old english seamus heaney's version of the above begins "in off the moors, down through the mist bands God-cursed Grendel came geedily loping." Beowulf if ghey

Is that the name of your sheep?

I would look for the following: Fiscal responsibility Business friendly Limited Government Balanced, forward-thinking energy policy I would accept other positions not on the list and normally associated with the "left" if the net of the policies was better than what we have now (or under Bush). Examples include: Health care reform Environmental policies Reducing presence in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere; shift in foreign policy overall I'm not looking for a "moderate" party, riding the center, but one which stakes positions and works to fulfill their promises. If the party pisses off about 20% of the population on each side of the current political divide, that is a good thing. Also, we need a government that stops telling everyone what they want to hear, brush problems under the carpet, and bribe voters with payouts.

Like the South? STFU douchebag

Uh, yeah... Can't wait to see what you've got lined up for us next time around! We know what you have lined up... a tour of N. Korea would suffice to illustrate

Freedom means starving or not getting adequate health care if you choose to buy too much shit you can't afford.

agreed, except I am not sure our "standard of living" will decrease - just spending on stupid shit we don't need.