The best health care in the world

[Dr.Who]

Are you suggesting that those who cry "share the wealth" should actually share THEIRS?

What an "insensitive ...ideology".

Actually I would say that every single American can share something whether they are wealth or not whether they make that cry or not. More importantly they should be sharing it from their personal wealth through their own choices of what is the best way to do that.

Personally I think that those with more would be wise to share more of what they have and I might even mention that to them. Personally I think that sharing should begin with people one actually knows rather than with strangers.

 

[Dr.Who]

you keep talking about goverment health care, yet the Republicans attack goverment health care all the time...you use it as a excuse to not do anything for the many who have no insurance, or not enough insurance...While at the same time you try to hack it away. Maybe one day you will be lucky enough to have a really had health issue that cost a fortune...even for those who have insurance...let alone those with poor or little.

some 20-45,000 a year die from lack of Insurance...tell me when enough are dieing for you care and say hey, you know maybe they don't get enough care without insurance.

Yes I do. the fact that we already have a system that provides for 100% of the population means that we do not need to expand that system at all.

Additionally I would want to see that gov system replaced by a private system that did not leave anyone uncovered. Were it structured correctly there could even exist a gov system that provided some assistance to the poor in the event that a private system did not (which has yet to be shown by anyone that this would happen). So how could a government system of redistribution of wealth to the sick and poor from the taxpayers work? First it would not be designed to help only the sick and poor at the expense of the taxpayers. It would have to be designed to help all Americans and be paid for by all Americans. Providing free polio vaccines to all Americans helps all Americans for example because when the disease is eradicated all benefit.

Gov health care deserves to be attacked because it is so piss poor AND con trary to the constitution. We need only constitutional systems and they need to be as effective as possible.

 

[Dr.Who]

you keep talking about goverment health care, yet the Republicans attack goverment health care all the time...you use it as a excuse to not do anything for the many who have no insurance, or not enough insurance...While at the same time you try to hack it away. Maybe one day you will be lucky enough to have a really had health issue that cost a fortune...even for those who have insurance...let alone those with poor or little.

some 20-45,000 a year die from lack of Insurance...tell me when enough are dieing for you care and say hey, you know maybe they don't get enough care without insurance.

When people without insurance but with health care then get insurance it is the sellers of insurance who benefit.

How can a person with health care die for lack of insurance? Only if the health care they have is bad gov health care. That means we need to fix the bad health care it does not mean we need to make insurance as bad as the gov healthcare.

There is indeed a statistical figure that a certain number of people die for lack of insurance. But statistics do lie. We cannot point to any actual person who dies from lack of insurance without first finding a person who died from bad gov healthcare. So put the blame where it belongs and then fix the gov healthcare.

 

[Dr.Who]

The cost?. . . . it is about 1/3 to 1/2 cheaper than our system
The quality? . . .life expectancy and birth survival is better under their system
The access? almost 100% of the people in the other systems have access to health care, without having to resort to "charity" pretence

So, what is YOUR argument for limiting real competion by rejecting a public OPTION?

We get better service for more money and what I want is better service.
Since I pay for my own health care stay out of my business.

Life expectancy and birth survival are only TWO measures. They are in fact just about the ONLY two on which he US does worse which is why they are brought up so much and they are highly effected by lifestyle choices.

100% of Americans get health care too so there is no difference.

The public options we have been offered would do more to restrict real competition than anything else.

The gov option limits real freedom at every step and is contrary to the constitution that we have that these other countries do not have.

 

[Dr.Who]

you know a better person when they yelled something was a lie..would back it up with something....but don't worry I never expect you to. Let me show you a example
http://blog.chron.com/medblog/2011/09/census-confirmed-texas-had-highest-uninsured-rate-in-2010/

see that, its called evidence..try it..maybe one day then someone will care what you say.

How is a stat showing that some people in Texas do not have the privilege of giving money to insurance companies in any way evidence that they do not have health care?

Why I would think that was written by an insurance salesman.

 

[Dr.Who]

I've often wondered about that. Why not allow companies to sell insurance nation wide? Not that doing so would be anything close to comprehensive health care reform, of course, but increased competition should help keep costs down.

Oh, Here's why.





You'd have to read the whole thing to get the picture, but the idea is that companies would simply find the state with the loosest regulations, and sell insurance from that state. As it is now, a New York (as an example) company can sell insurance in California (as another example), through a subsidiary, but it has to follow the laws of California.

So you would limit the competition that would force all insurance companies to provide the best product they can at the best price because insurance companies "would" be regulated by the state with the loosest regulations?

What makes you think the state with the loosest regulations has bad regulations?

And of course what makes you think that the competition would not be a stronger factor than that one states regulation?

You might as well say that NO PRODUCT can be sold across state lines for the same reason and clearly there are tons of products that are sold across state lines just fine.

Of course if it came to be that insurance companies sold across state lines then they would be subject to the commerce clause of the constitution (for real and not just in pretend world) and we would have federal regulations. So the whole "loosest state" argument is a balloon with a hole in it.

 

[Openmind]

If we are going to compare taxes then we can[t just compare their 50% income tax to our total taxes. We would need to compare their total taxes to our total taxes.

HOw about comparing their "relative" satisfaction with the level of taxes they pay, with our (GOP"S) COMPLETE disatisfaction with taxes that are much lower. . ..but do not provide half the safety net and infrastructure spending that the European enjoy?

 

[PLC1]

So you would limit the competition that would force all insurance companies to provide the best product they can at the best price because insurance companies "would" be regulated by the state with the loosest regulations?

What makes you think the state with the loosest regulations has bad regulations?

And of course what makes you think that the competition would not be a stronger factor than that one states regulation?

You might as well say that NO PRODUCT can be sold across state lines for the same reason and clearly there are tons of products that are sold across state lines just fine.

Of course if it came to be that insurance companies sold across state lines then they would be subject to the commerce clause of the constitution (for real and not just in pretend world) and we would have federal regulations. So the whole "loosest state" argument is a balloon with a hole in it.

According to the link I gave, insurance companies can compete across state lines now. They have to have a subsidiary in the state where they are selling policies, and have to comply with the regulations in that state.

If that link is accurate, then insurance companies can already compete across state lines, so why does the issue keep coming up? Could it be that it's easier to discuss a non issue than to actually address the issue of health care?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

According to the link I gave, insurance companies can compete across state lines now. They have to have a subsidiary in the state where they are selling policies, and have to comply with the regulations in that state.

If that link is accurate, then insurance companies can already compete across state lines, so why does the issue keep coming up? Could it be that it's easier to discuss a non issue than to actually address the issue of health care?

they can set up a PO box in the Islands as there "hq" for taxes...but its to hard to have a building for there insurance in the state.

 

[Dr.Who]

HOw about comparing their "relative" satisfaction with the level of taxes they pay, with our (GOP"S) COMPLETE disatisfaction with taxes that are much lower. . ..but do not provide half the safety net and infrastructure spending that the European enjoy?

Satisfaction does not seem to be a good measure of how appropriate a thing is. Satisfaction is too fickle and too dependent on propaganda. If they are satisfied I don't care it is their system to do with what they want.

But rightfully we should be concerned with our own system regardless of what they do. We need to do what is right for us independently of what they do. We have our culture and our constitution and what is right for us may be totally different than what is right for them.

I would prefer to have an even larger safety net than they have but it should be constitutional therefore not provided by the gov.

Infrastructure is better there? Lets define it and then research that on a new thread. Lets also stop subsidizing Europe's defense spending and see what happens when their defense budget increases by a multiple of something and ours decreases.

 

[Dr.Who]

According to the link I gave, insurance companies can compete across state lines now. They have to have a subsidiary in the state where they are selling policies, and have to comply with the regulations in that state.

If that link is accurate, then insurance companies can already compete across state lines, so why does the issue keep coming up? Could it be that it's easier to discuss a non issue than to actually address the issue of health care?

I don't know the answer to that. It would not be the first time that a non issue was made big while real issues were ignored. Maybe the real issue is congress manipulating all of us after all.

 

[PLC1]

I don't know the answer to that. It would not be the first time that a non issue was made big while real issues were ignored. Maybe the real issue is congress manipulating all of us after all.

No, that isn't the first time, and yes, it's likely that Congress is manipulating us. Did you read the link I gave? It's only a page or two.

I wondered why competing across state lines was such a big deal, why it should be controversial at all. Now I know.

 

[Dr.Who]

No, that isn't the first time, and yes, it's likely that Congress is manipulating us. Did you read the link I gave? It's only a page or two.

I wondered why competing across state lines was such a big deal, why it should be controversial at all. Now I know.

When I thought that it was summarized by the "loosest state" theory I did not. But now that you have indicated it says that insurance companies sell across state lines I decided I would. And it does not say that. It says that companies with a national profile have subsidiaries in each state that follow the rules for each state - and that is not the same as selling across state lines.

 

[PLC1]

When I thought that it was summarized by the "loosest state" theory I did not. But now that you have indicated it says that insurance companies sell across state lines I decided I would. And it does not say that. It says that companies with a national profile have subsidiaries in each state that follow the rules for each state - and that is not the same as selling across state lines.

If a North Dakota company wants to sell insurance in New Jersey, it can. It just has to abide by the regulations in New Jersey.

The industry is regulated by the states, not the federal government, so any company has to abide by the regulations that prevail in t he state where they want to do business.

The "let insurance companies compete across state lines and costs will go down" mantra is based on misinformation at best, and is a distraction from the real problems at worst.

 

[BigRob]

If a North Dakota company wants to sell insurance in New Jersey, it can. It just has to abide by the regulations in New Jersey.

The industry is regulated by the states, not the federal government, so any company has to abide by the regulations that prevail in t he state where they want to do business.

The "let insurance companies compete across state lines and costs will go down" mantra is based on misinformation at best, and is a distraction from the real problems at worst.

No its not. Each state varies in terms of regulations and in many cases smaller providers are simply unable to compete in those states because they cannot get through the web of regulations, and are unable to offer mandated policies in each of the states.

What needs to happen is instead of having 50 state markets, we have 1 national market, which eliminates all of these burdensome barriers to market entry for smaller companies and actually allows for competition across state lines...hence the "allow companies to sell across state lines" mantra.