MANDATORY health insurance, part 2 - Page 29 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-25-2010, 08:12 PM   #561
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 01:39 PM
From what I know about medical device companies(I've worked for two) this sounds like a bluff.

Out of everyone they are probably the ones that will feel it the most, but in the big scheme of things that's not saying much. Medical device companies that manufacture anything outside of soft goods do not survive outside the US. They can't for many reasons, we use to outsource our braces, but there was no way to outsource implants.
__________________

BVS is offline  
Old 03-25-2010, 10:27 PM   #562
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,297
Local Time: 02:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
but, if you do that, how will you be able to casually dismiss them all with sweeping generalizations and bold assertions about the superiority of America in everything ever?
Again, I was responding to Indy and using his frame of reference. Plenty of countries have single payer, and its clear that this is what he was trying to insinuate the US Democrats, myself included wanted. No secret, he has been doing it for months rather publicly. Again, having already been accused of being a wind bag, I did not want to start looking up the design of every European country's health care system.

I stand corrected 1, 2, 3 and however many more times over I need to be corrected about broad brushing every single European country. I'll just remind you again, I was responding to how it was characterized by Indy.

In so far as single payer and government administered systems are used, I think what was passed by Congress and signed by the President is superior. The US health care system has always been and will continue to be excellent on quality. The major problems of course were cost and as a direct result of cost, access. Also, the shocking ability of the health care companies to do whatever they want, i.e. arbitrarily drop coverage that policyholders paid for. I think we have kept what works and in the coming years, will make alot of progress toward fixing what doesn't as reform phases in.

I would not say and did not say that America is superior in everything all the time. Hell, looking at the filibuster obstruction, the one man Bunning hold up on government, etc, our very system of governance probably has something to learn from parliamentary systems in Europe and elsewhere. You know, where compromise, coalition building and getting something done is actually the rule as opposed to the exception. Staying in our mechanics of government discussion, the way we finance elections has to end. Special interests of the left and the right have both been responsible, at one time or another, for trying to slow down or kill this health care effort because it did not have anything or everything they wanted. The lobbyist influence is a big reason why we are where we are now with respect to health care, etc.

How about culture? I am all for responsible gun ownership, responsible, clean record citizens carrying guns for self defense, etc, and so are many other countries. There are more guns in Canada and some European countries. However, the culture of street violence and shooting someone for looking at you the wrong way or for running with the wrong group is largely a unique blight on American society. Remember Bullet from the Elevation DVD? We are certainly not superior there.

Stay on culture- it is hard to imagine an honest to God anti intellectual, ignorant worshipping movement developing in today's society in countries of Western Europe. The tea partiers are simply an extreme version of that all American of ideals- populism, and the idea that the people know better than some "elite power structure." A good ideal, but its been perverted into anti intellectual know nothing activism in America for quite some time now. As if people elected by a majority, responsive to a majority every 2, 4 or 6 years represent some kind of elite power structure that is recklessly ignoring the people.

Now, think In God's Country here. There is something great about America both in ideals and in practice, and though we do not always live up to our ideals as a government or as a people, I think most of us here who are Americans are very proud of it. I am sure yourself included, Irvine.

The US has the largest economy in the world and the best military and have done numerous great things, along side some not so great things.(WWI, II, The Marshall Plan, Berlin airlift, etc) The largest, strongest economy has certainly been challenged and will continue to be by the rise of the EU,India, China, Brasil, etc, etc. We have always held as our ideal equal opportunity and a chance to climb the ladder, GI Bill, etc. This commitment and our commitment to education and infrastructure has fallen, European and other countries are ahead of us here now. That will have implications for our economy. As Obama said in the 3rd debate with McCain, no country has ever led the world in military and diplomatic terms without maintaining their economic strength. So we're a great nation worthy of praise, respect, etc, but certainly not perfect.

MOST IMPORTANTLY, IF YOU READ NOTHING ELSE READ THIS:

Whether one country is better than or superior to another is:
1.)Difficult to define and

2.) a rather moot point, and is stupid in the grand scheme of things as a wise person once said "one love, one blood, one life..."

In the end, criticisms justifiably in place and imperfections readily acknoweldged, I am glad to live in a country developed on the very notions of freedom, self governance, private property, checks on government, democracy, etc that people all over the world aspire to.

Hope I cleared things up.
__________________

U2387 is offline  
Old 03-25-2010, 10:38 PM   #563
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,297
Local Time: 02:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
From what I know about medical device companies(I've worked for two) this sounds like a bluff.

Out of everyone they are probably the ones that will feel it the most, but in the big scheme of things that's not saying much. Medical device companies that manufacture anything outside of soft goods do not survive outside the US. They can't for many reasons, we use to outsource our braces, but there was no way to outsource implants.

Of course it is a bluff.

Show me someone who wants to be taxed, and I'll show you my secret bootleg evidence of U2 having played Acrobat full band live just this year.

I would worry if I found a bunch of independent objective sources telling us that the medical device tax is a job killer, will lead to outsourcing(any more than we have now...) et cetera, but I have not found that anywhere. More health care system use equals more demand more medical devices so they'll more than make up for the tax.

Besides, these companies would not have had this scrutiny brought on to them and been such low hanging fruits so to speak had they not been in cahoots with the insurance companies and lobbyists for so many years rigging the system.

It is a modest exicse tax assessment, and maybe they'll pass a little bit of it along to consumers(though they have pretty hefty profits to absorb a tax) but it will not be enough to cancel out the net cost reductions consumers will see from this bill for health care services.

The premise of health care reform is that, in order to work, everyone must share in the responsibility of paying for it. In the end, it is better than saddling consumers with a direct tax, better than taxing small businesses, better than taxing large companies who are already doing the right thing, etc.

In short, I am not worried and its the same kind of bluffing that all industries use when faced with a fee or tax or regulation of any kind. The sky has never fallen after modest assessments were levied on anyone.
U2387 is offline  
Old 03-25-2010, 10:57 PM   #564
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,297
Local Time: 02:39 PM
Quote:
“With unemployment in my state near 10 percent, placing a tax on medical devices is the absolute last thing we should be doing right now,” said Brown in a statement, as he filed an amendment that would repeal the tax.
Mr Brown missed the memo that the tax would start in 2013.

Unemployment will be a little less than 10% in Massachusetts then.

The exemptions seem to cover a lot of what is made by companies headquartered or having significant presence in Massachusetts anyways.

The more sophisticated makers generally have higher margins, but even with the lower margin companies, you are talking about a 2.3% sales tax, not exactly something that will shake the earth. Lets look at the low profit margin little old lady who goes out to lunch with her friends once per week in South Burlington Vermont or Chicago Illinois or any place with a local sales tax on meals, on top of the state rate. Have people stopped going out to eat? Have new restaurants stopped opening, even during the recession? Absolutely not.(not saying I support local option meals taxes, but you get the idea)

It will affect some people, but in terms of their ability to provide jobs, make money, etc, that is threatened alot more by the insolvency of many hospitals, the many who can not afford health care and therefore, the devices, etc.

Ultimately, they can still buy a device or component parts to a device and have a high demand for it that allows them to sell it to a pretty steady industry- health care that will most likely be alot better off than it is now under reform.

I will be surprised, no I will be shocked, if the life sciences industry in Massachusetts or elsewhere is noticeably affected by this in terms of quality/quantity of product and ability to hire and pay employees and contribute to the state's economy.

If the negative affects somehow materialize, then as Patrick said, we can make modifications. I can think of about 100 other ways to get $2billion per year.
U2387 is offline  
Old 03-26-2010, 02:43 AM   #565
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,841
Local Time: 08:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post
I did not/will not ever claim to have some vast knowledge of how any European country's health system works.
That's OK. It's even difficult for me to have a good knowledge how the Dutch health care system works.
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 03-26-2010, 03:55 AM   #566
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,841
Local Time: 08:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
as a Dutch person, you might enjoy this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/ma...uropean-t.html
Thanks, that was an interesting read. It also addresses all these 'socialist' comments that are again showing up in the health care debate:
Quote:
This points up something that seems to be overlooked when Americans dismiss European-style social-welfare systems: they are not necessarily state-run or state-financed. Rather, these societies have chosen to combine the various entities that play a role in social well-being — individuals, corporations, government, nongovernmental entities like unions and churches — in different ways, in an effort to balance individual freedom and overall social security.
The Dutch health care system is more capitalistic than the US system (we don't have a Medicare-like insurance anymore), but with some balancing it has become universal.
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 03-26-2010, 11:34 AM   #567
Refugee
 
A stor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: U.S.A. East Coast
Posts: 2,464
Local Time: 06:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
Indeed, fully 'socialist' health care systems are the exception rather than the rule in Europe. It is mainly a mix of private and public.
Thanks, I didn't know this. I live in the U.S. Have private insurance through my place of employment. I, like many Americans. Are not sure what this new health care bill will cover. And what will happen if you already have insurance. I would appreciate any info.
A stor is offline  
Old 03-26-2010, 11:55 AM   #568
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 06:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
Indeed, fully 'socialist' health care systems are the exception rather than the rule in Europe. It is mainly a mix of private and public.
So is Canada.
AliEnvy is offline  
Old 03-26-2010, 12:37 PM   #569
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,392
Local Time: 02:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post

Hope I cleared things up.


i was totally kidding.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 03-26-2010, 04:44 PM   #570
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,297
Local Time: 02:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
i was totally kidding.




Reading it in retrospect, I completely understand. I was tired last night, haha.
U2387 is offline  
Old 03-26-2010, 04:49 PM   #571
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,297
Local Time: 02:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A stor View Post
Thanks, I didn't know this. I live in the U.S. Have private insurance through my place of employment. I, like many Americans. Are not sure what this new health care bill will cover. And what will happen if you already have insurance. I would appreciate any info.
If you have insurance through your employer, you keep it. No requirement to join the exchanges or participate in anything. No tax increase.

The only thing that will likely change is over time your premiums will be lower, and starting this year, the insurance companies will not be able to drop you when you get sick or set arbitrary caps on coverage you have paid for.

I know it sounds like a partisan thing to say, but if you go on the Whitehouse website, they have a whole section on how the bill will affect different people in different circumstances. It is very user friendly, and it has not been demolished by fact check or any other independent organization yet.
U2387 is offline  
Old 03-26-2010, 09:17 PM   #572
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 12:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post
If you have insurance through your employer, you keep it. No requirement to join the exchanges or participate in anything. No tax increase.
That simply isn't true. If you have insurance through your employer you don't own it and you can't keep something you don't own. If you leave the job or your employer drops or changes coverage... it's gone. Republicans had a plan giving ownership and portability to the individual. Too radical I guess.

Quote:
The only thing that will likely change is over time your premiums will be lower


Quote:
and starting this year, the insurance companies will not be able to drop you when you get sick or set arbitrary caps on coverage you have paid for.
Also in the Republican bill.
INDY500 is offline  
Old 03-26-2010, 09:27 PM   #573
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 12:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post

The real thing regarding European care has its good points but ultimately leads to rationing, waiting lines...
Thank you my friend !!
Quote:
Remember, Obama's original plan said nothing of the public option, never mind Euro care
Obama, "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care plan."



Quote:
Indy, I will give you everything I own if a public option even comes up again in the next few years, never mind gets passed. Anything even remotely like Europe will not happen ever, period. Our political culture in the US is way too deeply ingrained, and that is fine by me.
Well... I hope you're right and I'm doing my best to keep it that way.

Quote:
The Congressional Progressive caucus 60 as a whole objected to the lack of a public option. Of those 60, I highly doubt that any more than Kucinich plus 8 or 9 are hard core single payer advocates. Single payer, not the public option, is the European test.
Some of us would argue that the public option is a leg in the door to single-payer. And many liberals are quoted saying as much.
INDY500 is offline  
Old 03-26-2010, 11:53 PM   #574
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,297
Local Time: 02:39 PM
Quote:
That simply isn't true. If you have insurance through your employer you don't own it and you can't keep something you don't own. If you leave the job or your employer drops or changes coverage... it's gone. Republicans had a plan giving ownership and portability to the individual. Too radical I guess
.

Yes it is true. There is nothing in the bill that makes you join the exchanges or makes your employer do so. While it is certainly true that you do not own it and in some cases you are subject to loss of said plan should your employer change coverage or you change jobs, there is nothing in the bill that makes this more likely to happen. This has always been true- the problem with full individual ownership is of course the fact that the employer pays some of the premiums, or in alot of cases most of the premiums. If the policy were 100% owned by the individual, it would be a lot more expensive as employers have bargaining power in the market. So that is probably not the best, most cost effective way to go.

Portability of health coverage is hardly controversial, and you can already do it to a great extent. Not a radical idea. It was overwhelmingly a bipartisan idea. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) - Privacy / Data Protection Project (c)2002-2005. Kassebaum-Kennedy act of 1996. Moderate Republican, liberal Democrat and numerous other sponsors from both parties, signed by Clinton.

You successfully changed the subject. The bottom line answer to what A Stor was asking is there is nothing in the bill that either changes your employer provided coverage or makes it more likely than you are now to lose it.


Listen to him carefully. He says and the independent numbers back him up that the rate of increase will be slowed down. So he gets negatives for being honest? Of course, premiums will go up, minimum at the rate of inflation, probably much more as medical inflation has been higher. It is very unlikely that the overall cost of medical care will get cheaper. What we are talking about is making it more efficent and cost effective compared to what is projected out from the status quo. This is why the CBO has said that we will be $143 billion lower on the deficit end than we would be w/o health care reform.

Bottom line, you pay lower premiums than you would have without reform.

While raw premiums will keep increasing, the exchanges and other cost containment measures will ensure the rate is slower. Also, in terms of your out of pocket expenses, many people and especially small businesses will be eligible for subsidies and tax credits and will be paying much, much less as a result.

Take a look at what factcheck says starting at "both men are misleading." The only significant increase in premiums will be from individuals using the health care reform benefits to buy better coverage than they have now. Such subsidies, tax credits, etc will ensure that most of them pay less out of pocket than they do now.

You can also look at what Ezra Klein of the Washington Post wrote regarding CBO's projections. Then look for any demolition of it on a fact check site, you won't find it. Ezra Klein - To repeat, the CBO found that premiums go down under health-care reform


Quote:
Also in the Republican bill.
Oh, no, no, no. That was one of the biggest myths of the entire debate.

GOP Alternative Will Not Bar Discrimination Based On Pre-Existing Conditions – Talk Radio News Service

The expansion of high risk pools is a brain dead idea that in no way addresses the prolfieration of pre existing condition denials. If you have a pool just for those people, it will be a train wreck, as they would either be prohibitively expensive to cover the constant pay outs or go into the red permanently. Any economist will tell you that, in order for health care to work and be cost effective, you need the high risk people in the same pool as the low risk people. They counterbalance eachother- the plan has a few high risk who need alot of paid out services, yet they have a bunch of healthy people paying premiums but not taking a hell of a lot more than routine visits and procedures out. Of course, John Boehner does not have an economics degree and shows no interest in listening to people who have them(CBO, health economists, etc).
U2387 is offline  
Old 03-27-2010, 12:22 AM   #575
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,297
Local Time: 02:39 PM
Quote:
Thank you my friend !!
You are more than welcome. Glad we've called eachother friends now. I really, truly do not want to come across as an angry red faced jerk.

Quote:
Obama, "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care plan."

All you really have to do is look at the placard on the podium. It is something called pandering, and all politicans do it almost daily, the President I support included. AFL CIO has long been active in Democratic primaries, and have a long standing position in support of single payer. It was also a women's and human rights forum, these kind of activists would tend to be more pro single payer.

Where is the reality of his position, then?
1.)Lets have a look at the video. Obama had much less gray hair! He looks pretty damn young. Then there is that little thing about how we need to take back the White House AND take back Congress. So one does not have to be in the CIA or be a detective to figure out he was speaking around 2005 or 2006.

2.)His health care proposal that he unveiled in 2007 in Iowa City said nothing of single payer or even a public option. In fact, commentators left and right noted how centrist it was compared to Hillary and Edwards. The health care plan he ran with in the campaign came from Kerry, who actually stole it from Biden. Biden is not a lunatic liberal.

3.)Have a look at what Obama said as he was running for President:
Obama health care ad casts him as offering the moderate choice -- Eye on Ohio | Openers Archive Site - cleveland.com

4.)The principles he set forth for Congress upon being elected drew some lines in the sand, but none with respect to single payer or the public option. The Public option was almost entirely a project of the House Liberals, Pelosi herself really not too enamored with it but rolling with it to keep a part of the caucus happy.

5.)His position has been pretty damn consistent since at least 2007 on health care. Even before that, we have one speech before a biased interest group versus some 2004 policy papers and 2005/06 Senate statements that make plenty of mention of the reforms in the bill, but no mention of single payer.

6.)Everthing Obama has proposed or enacted has reflected statements, web sites and policy papers Obama has put out in support of moderate health care reform since 2004. Nothing making it to a campaign proposal, a bill or a law has ever reflected the statement he made in support of single payer. I am not denying the video you posted, that would be lunacy, maybe there are similar ones out there. However, I submit that, given what he has formally proposed and enacted, you could find him giving statements that are the opposite of what you posted to the AARP or business groups or conservative Dems in downstate Illinois or town halls in Iowa in 2004-08.

Quote:
Well... I hope you're right and I'm doing my best to keep it that way.
It is a concern of middle class and wealthy people to have to pay a tax for government health care when they already have good health care from a competitive private sector. Competition and private enteprise are pretty ingrained in our culture. Besides, I have not done a poll, but I would not imagine that single payer plays well with independents, the people who decide who sits in the oval office.

From an individual rights and social justice standpoint, I really do not see Americans, with their inherent sense of opportunity and fairness, going for a system where the guy working at Burger King pays a tax to cover Bill Gates' health care.

I honestly do not think you will have to worry. Obama just yesterday told a kid who was yelling for a public option that the votes were not there in Congress, that it was the idea of some in Congress and that there was "no need to shout young man." Obama really is not as far left as people think he is.
Quote:
Some of us would argue that the public option is a leg in the door to single-payer. And many liberals are quoted saying as much.
Very true. But again, even the public option had nowhere near enough votes in a overwhelmingly Democratic Congress and almost no appetite in the Senate. Even if the public option were passed, it really resembles private plans more than it does single payer. Additionally, the vast majority of its proponents argued for it not as a foot in the door, but as a check on private insurance and a means of competition.

The people who would argue it as a foot in the door are much fewer in number, and their arguing this way is playing to the base and a testament to the existence of wishful thinking. They are the same pundits, activists and Congressional Progressive caucus members who did not even have the votes for Public Option, never mind single payer.

It is unlikely that, with the positie effects we will see from this bill, there will develop a major movement for single payer that picks up momentum in Congress.

1.)Democrats who voted for a very moderate bill are already literally in the crosshairs just for that. You think they will go for single payer, especially when it would put many campaign contributors out of business?

2.)One would think with all the stories of cancer patients dropped and left for dead, the 60% premium increases, the 50 million w/o health care and the record profits of insurance companies, that single payer support would be at its highest point right now. Probably is... and guess what, it did not even make the most partisan bills this year.

I doubt ,with companies better regulated and more access to the quality of care we already provide to those who have it, that we will see a massive outcry for single payer any time soon.
U2387 is offline  
Old 03-27-2010, 10:00 AM   #576
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 01:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
That simply isn't true. If you have insurance through your employer you don't own it and you can't keep something you don't own. If you leave the job or your employer drops or changes coverage... it's gone. Republicans had a plan giving ownership and portability to the individual. Too radical I guess.
This falls under the "well no shit Sherlock" category. If you know how employee set up insurance works you know why it's not portable after you leave or get fired.

Did you read their "portability" plan, it was basically Cobra, it was crap.

Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Obama, "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care plan."

But U2387 was correct it was never found in the original plan, so once again reality vs quotes. Reality will win.
BVS is offline  
Old 03-28-2010, 06:21 PM   #577
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,297
Local Time: 02:39 PM
Quote:
This falls under the "well no shit Sherlock" category. If you know how employee set up insurance works you know why it's not portable after you leave or get fired.

Did you read their "portability" plan, it was basically Cobra, it was crap.
Even that may have been window dressing as we at least know how Jim Bunning and now Tom Coburn feel about COBRA benefits! They're something to obstruct.

Bottom line is if you lose your employer provided health insurance in 2014 once the plan has been phased in, you lose it the same way you lose it now. By getting laid off, fired or if the employer drops coverage.

The bill creates no new means or incentives through which employers will drop coverage.

If there exists a plan to provide real portability or ownership(setting aside the wisdom of such a policy) I have not seen it and certainly not from the Republicans. I think Kassebaum-Kennedy was the last bit of progress made on this issue.
U2387 is offline  
Old 03-28-2010, 08:52 PM   #578
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 12:39 PM
Sometime around 2014 one of the multitudes of new commissions, boards, agencies or panels will issue mandates that ALL health insurance policies must comply with. If yours does not... you will lose your current coverage. Assuming, of course, your employer has not already chosen to pay the minimal tax fine and dropped health care insurance for its employees.

Unintended consequence # 35 of Obamacare.
INDY500 is offline  
Old 03-28-2010, 09:03 PM   #579
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 01:39 PM
So weeding out inferior plans = bad thing?

Is this what I'm hearing?
BVS is offline  
Old 03-28-2010, 09:17 PM   #580
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 12:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
So weeding out inferior plans = bad thing?

Is this what I'm hearing?
Who said anything about weeding out 'bad" insurance. Maybe if you're 28 you want a high deductible plan. Maybe if you're a practicing Mormon or Baptist you don't need coverage for alcohol & drug abuse treatment.

That's one of the problems with Romneycare and why premiums have soared in MA. People had to buy more insurance then they want or needed because they were mandated to and couldn't buy (cheaper) insurance from another state.
__________________

INDY500 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Dog Lovers.... Part 3 U2Fanatic4ever Lemonade Stand 1019 05-19-2012 03:35 AM
Hell-th Insurance WARNING: LONG POST! BluRmGrl Zoo Confessionals 7 10-26-2006 09:04 PM
On (not) having health insurance wolfeden Zoo Confessionals 14 03-24-2004 11:15 AM
White House seeks control on health, safety Scarletwine Free Your Mind Archive 1 01-13-2004 04:54 PM
Bono today at the conference in Africa U2Kitten Everything You Know Is Wrong Archive 9 01-15-2002 09:29 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×