It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by jimmyx
when my wife retired, we had the "choice" of three health care companies, they were all with 10 to 15 dollars a month of each other for our premium payments. this is not competition. this is called a monopoly.
[edit on 16-9-2009 by jimmyx]
[edit on 16-9-2009 by jimmyx]
Originally posted by jimmyx
Originally posted by jibeho
Tort reform passed in Texas in 2003 and insurance premiums went down by 30%. My uncle, a retired surgeon in Dallas, was paying 100k+ in premiums before he retired in 1990. Hell, he was named in lawsuits from patients that he never saw just because he was a department officer. He bore the full burden of his own legal fees for no reason.
Tort reform also passed in California and they realized a 40% drop in premiums.
Tort reform is especially beneficial to obstetricians who face monumental premiums due to the actions of trial lawyers like John Edwards. Tort reform will result in more doctors wanting to enter such risky practices. We need the doctors in fields where trial lawyers have chased them away.
i live in california and the 40% drop in premiums were not passed on to the consumer. please show the 40% drop to patients healthcare insurance.
question for you... if a doctors mistake put your healthy child in a coma or caused life-long medical care...would you simply accept his apology, while you go bankrupt paying for your childs care, or would you want to make sure the doctor pays for your childs medical care?
[edit on 16-9-2009 by jimmyx]
Originally posted by mikerussellus
Originally posted by jimmyx
when my wife retired, we had the "choice" of three health care companies, they were all with 10 to 15 dollars a month of each other for our premium payments. this is not competition. this is called a monopoly.
[edit on 16-9-2009 by jimmyx]
[edit on 16-9-2009 by jimmyx]
THAT'S MY POINT, JIMMY.
You had the choice of three. In a country that has over 1,300 companies.
But because of the laws in place, you can't have access to them.
Thank you for proving my point.
Originally posted by mikerussellus
It is a noble ideal to make sure that everyone is happy and safe and healthy and secure.
But once we open the door to mandating insurance for all, what's next? Mandating houses for all? Mandating cars for all? Mandating food for all?
Originally posted by Muckster
But hey... I’m not American so I guess I don’t really understand... but from where I am it seems Racist.
[edit on 16-9-2009 by Muckster]
Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by buddhasystem
I have to disagree. In a nanny state, the government takes care of its people because they can't or won't take care of themselves.