I am 23, an American Citizen with government run health care.

page: 3
57
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
+5 more 
posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 03:26 AM
link   
Here's the thing about my taxes ...

I figure if we're going to spend billions on killing some folk we might as well do the same for healing some others.

But hey, that's just me I guess.




posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
Here's the thing about my taxes ...

I figure if we're going to spend billions on killing some folk we might as well do the same for healing some others.

But hey, that's just me I guess.


I figure we should do neither.

Tax payers and people with health insurance pick up the tab for the uninsured currently...why do you think it's so expensive?



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by yellowcard
 


That would violate State Rights.. the Governors agreed to that long ago. Each state as a sovereign nation makes final decisions on who can and cannot practice in their boundaries. In insurance, a Insurance corporation is based in lets say Texas.. that is a Domestic corporation. Any insurance corporation based in another state but practices in Texas would be considered an Alien Corporation .. it's operating from a foreign base. The head of the states insurance board, most often called a Superintendent can revoke a charter or approve a charter... Most insurance corporations are regional, and only operate in a select amount of states depending on which laws benefit them. Some states are so strict in regulation that companies avoid them all together.

The Federal Government does not regulate anything what so ever when it comes to insurance, aside from investment practices. Everything comes down to the States, whether the State and corporations accept each others terms.. as an agent I was licensed in several states, and at first it was surprising to see the difference in costs from states with lax regulation like Ohio, Texas or Indiana (just some examples) to extremely expensive states like New Jersey, New York or California.. The more strict the state, or I should say, the more government involvement the higher the premiums. The difference for a family policy could be +$200 a month extra.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 03:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


I agree. earlier this year, alberta abolished "provincial" public fees, because alberta had the money. Now one only need pay for blue cross.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by VinceP1974
The problem with medical insurance, generally is this.


Governemnt ---> $$$$ (Tax incentives) ----> Your Boss ---> $$$$ ---> Your Insurance Company -----> $$$$ ---> Your doctor





YOU




You explained it almost perfectly, I assume you've read this: www.hoover.org...

If you haven't, then you'd enjoy it...I encourage everyone to read it.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by St Vaast

All is well with your world right now

and that allows you to spit on those for whom life has not always been

peachy.


And please .. if you EVER dip into the tax dollars of those other 300 million Americans, for whatever reason



Hmm. All is not well for many people and we all have our problems but they are our problems. We should work for the best and expect the worst but nobody is entitled to take from another without their consent, no matter how crappy life gets.

Those tax dollars for 300 million? Nope it's actually about 145 million and steadily dropping each day. Most of those have crappy insurance and those insurance premiums are what is getting taxed for healthcare. That insures that everybody on the bottom bears an unreasonably high proportion of the bill. The folks on the bottom that are barely covering their healthcare will get added taxes and ultimately higher premiums. They will be the ones buying cheaper food and giving up buying the kids school clothes or new coats for winter so that they can keep covering premiums while politicians and non providers will get their healthcare for free.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by yellowcard

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
Here's the thing about my taxes ...

I figure if we're going to spend billions on killing some folk we might as well do the same for healing some others.

But hey, that's just me I guess.


I figure we should do neither.


Well yc, if you figure out how to stop the former I'll get to work on the latter.


Till that happens however, I'll stick with my yingie yangie.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by yellowcard
 


That would violate State Rights.. the Governors agreed to that long ago. Each state as a sovereign nation makes final decisions on who can and cannot practice in their boundaries. In insurance, a Insurance corporation is based in lets say Texas.. that is a Domestic corporation. Any insurance corporation based in another state but practices in Texas would be considered an Alien Corporation .. it's operating from a foreign base. The head of the states insurance board, most often called a Superintendent can revoke a charter or approve a charter... Most insurance corporations are regional, and only operate in a select amount of states depending on which laws benefit them. Some states are so strict in regulation that companies avoid them all together.

The Federal Government does not regulate anything what so ever when it comes to insurance, aside from investment practices. Everything comes down to the States, whether the State and corporations accept each others terms.. as an agent I was licensed in several states, and at first it was surprising to see the difference in costs from states with lax regulation like Ohio, Texas or Indiana (just some examples) to extremely expensive states like New Jersey, New York or California.. The more strict the state, or I should say, the more government involvement the higher the premiums. The difference for a family policy could be +$200 a month extra.


That doesn't violate state rights, because the states are deemed under the constitution to have no tariffs against one another and they all must have free trade with one another. I don't see how healthcare is any different.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by yellowcard
 


It's not a tariff because the Government isn't taxing them? It's simply a matter of regulation based on what the State has decided is best for their citizens. If the corporation decides it's to expensive to operate in a state that is to strict in their laws, then they don't come to an agreement and don't operate there.

It's the same thing with Car insurance.. hence you cannot get coverage from the same companies all over the country..

For the Federal Government to regulate all of health care without state approval it would be illegal per the 10th amendment.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by yellowcard
 


It's not a tariff because the Government isn't taxing them? It's simply a matter of regulation based on what the State has decided is best for their citizens. If the corporation decides it's to expensive to operate in a state that is to strict in their laws, then they don't come to an agreement and don't operate there.

It's the same thing with Car insurance.. hence you cannot get coverage from the same companies all over the country..

For the Federal Government to regulate all of health care without state approval it would be illegal per the 10th amendment.


I don't think so, I maybe wrong, but the Federal government has control over commerce between the states. You don't buy your cell phone provider just for your state, etc etc. Even if it is a state decision, the states can just sign off on a bill that allows interstate commerce between health insurance providers (though I think that's already possible Constitutionally)



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 03:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by yellowcard


You explained it almost perfectly, I assume you've read this: www.hoover.org...

If you haven't, then you'd enjoy it...I encourage everyone to read it.


I'll check it out. Thanks.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 03:42 AM
link   
reply to post by yellowcard
 


It's not a matter of commerce, like something you would buy at a store.. it's more to do with Corporations not wanting to operate in those specific states..

The states won't (and cannot) refuse to allow the Corporations to operate in their borders so long as they abide by the state laws and regulations. Since many corporations deem certain states to be to regulated they just don't operate there.

I think your looking at it from the wrong angle. It's not the states refusing the corporations, its the corporations refusing the states based on that states laws.

Think of it like this... a truck can legally cross borders without being stopped or needing a passport. Lets assume the truck is driving in West Virginia, the speed limit is 75 because that's what the state says it is. It crosses into Pennsylvania where they drive like grandma's on their way home from church and the speed limit is 55. If the trucker keeps up at 75, he gets pulled over and fined. If he refuses to drive under 75, he may just avoid PA all together. The state isn't blocking them from crossing the border.. they just want him to drive slower.


Hope that helps.

[edit on 8/15/2009 by Rockpuck]



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck

Think of it like this... a truck can legally cross borders without being stopped or needing a passport. Lets assume the truck is driving in West Virginia, the speed limit is 75 because that's what the state says it is. It crosses into Pennsylvania where they drive like grandma's on their way home from church and the speed limit is 55. If the trucker keeps up at 75, he gets pulled over and fined. If he refuses to drive under 75, he may just avoid PA all together. The state isn't blocking them from crossing the border.. they just want him to drive slower.


Hope that helps.

[edit on 8/15/2009 by Rockpuck]


Hopefully you or someone can answer this.

When "they" say medical insurance can't be purchased from out of state firms is that because the Fed Govt has prohibited such activity, or is it because of the mechanisms you stated above resulting in the poor market that there is?

If in fact you have been answering this question all along by what you wrote above... I guess I missed that portion of the explanation



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 03:49 AM
link   
Another aspect not being discussed about this Government plan..

Let's assume it passes, and millions jump onto the Government insurance plans... it's safe to assume millions will also drop private coverage and join such a plan as well. For every person that drops from the insurance companies pool of premiums, the premiums for everyone else will sky rocket.

Those that have employer based benefits for coverage.... don't count on it. It will almost certainly be cheaper for any business unless they make huge profits with a small employee base, to jump on the government plans. Under the government plan the business pays an 8% tax over having to pay for private health benefits (which will also rise because millions fled to join the Gov) .... So while it starts out as "You have a choice!" .. It will certainly end up with "Oh.. you no longer have a choice" ... and we will all get the same crappy health care except the rich folks who will still have private health care.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 03:51 AM
link   
reply to post by VinceP1974
 


The Insurance corporations have a list of approved medical providers that are covered by the plan.. like associations... nothing is stopping you from having out of state insurance, but you would be hard pressed to find a provider that accepts the coverage..

Most insurance corporations offer plans for people who travel extensively to cover them anywhere for anything for a slightly higher premium, including internationally.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 03:52 AM
link   
If you believe "rich" people are going to pay for this healthcare proposal, I want some of what you are smoking.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 04:09 AM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


exactamundo...

I find it ironically hilarious the same people who idley sat by and watched a poor innocent country get bombed back to the stone age in awe with their lips tightly shut (and in some cases even cheered with vigor) have been so anxiously and scornfully filled with disgust over what amounts to not much more than a proposed system that is an alternative to the crappy systems in place...

so many of us just sat and watched "shock and awe" and were mezmerized by the awesomeness of our military might it makes me sick to sit here and watch some of these people go bonkers over an idea that has not even been finalized yet...or passed...

While it is a very good thing that people voice their concerns and let the politicians know they dont like what they see (especially when we hear low IQ comenst such as "we need to hurry this bill through"...bailout anyone?), I find some of the reactions nothing more than some exaggerated drama queen trying to make a scene shouting about how their ex lover just cheated on them with the new maid...

im all for heckling some of these bastard democrats and their stinky agendas, but for Christ sake, cant there be a discussion? cant we at least hear what is in the works? what happened to at least a small degree of civility? does America need the belt pulled out on their asses??



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by open_eyeballs
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


exactamundo...

I find it ironically hilarious the same people who idley sat by and watched a poor innocent country get bombed back to the stone age in awe with their lips tightly shut (and in some cases even cheered with vigor) have been so anxiously and scornfully filled with disgust over what amounts to not much more than a proposed system that is an alternative to the crappy systems in place...


I guess you didn't mind Iraqis living another decade under UN Sanctions and under the OH. (Original Hussien)

You are soooooooooooooo compassionate.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 04:15 AM
link   
reply to post by open_eyeballs
 


I believe that if the invasion of Iraq required a tax increase the majority would protest. As it is.. we got a small tax reduction .. and a war to boot! .. Like a two for one special! .. if free health care meant...... free... then I imagine many opposing would join the bandwagon for it!

Americans love "all for nothing" specials. The war didn't effect people like health care will. Effected Iraqi's for sure. But mind you this is a country that asking the average American to locate America on the map is a challenge, I imagine asking them to find Iraq would be damn near impossible.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by open_eyeballs
 


I believe that if the invasion of Iraq required a tax increase the majority would protest. As it is.. we got a small tax reduction .. and a war to boot! .. Like a two for one special! .. if free health care meant...... free... then I imagine many opposing would join the bandwagon for it!

Americans love "all for nothing" specials. The war didn't effect people like health care will. Effected Iraqi's for sure. But mind you this is a country that asking the average American to locate America on the map is a challenge, I imagine asking them to find Iraq would be damn near impossible.


The Iraq War prevented a Nuclear Iraq and a Nuclear Libya.

I say, price well paid.





new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join