It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Blaine91555
When a sink drain springs a leak you don't tear down the house, dig up the whole drainage system and rebuild everything. You fix the leak.
We don't need to spend trillions on an all encompassing plan and further bankrupt our nation to fix what amounts to a few leaks. We need to fix the leaks.
Tort reform to stop the law suit madness.
Open competition with no artificial borders at state lines legislated to reward special interests.
Regulation to remove the pre-existing condition nightmare.
Prosecute those who game the system.
Government funded health care ONLY for those who can not pay themselves and nobody else.
Insurance pools or co-ops to increase the buying power of small business and individuals.
Nothing else is needed or desirable. Everything else is simply pandering to special interests or members of tiny groups of people who want to completely change the country and control everyone. Don't let them fool you. It is all about control to force you to believe and do what they want you too. It is not about freedom.
Government has never successfully run a business without massive waste and fraud. Not once in its history has it done that. To think they can do it now is delusional.
Ask yourself why exactly has neither Party ever done the simple common sense things I listed above? They are not dumb. They know what is needed and what is not needed.
I'm all for health care reform but we don't need to let ourselves be further controlled by our government. Yes some need help and everyone should have good health care. No we don't need to flush our system down the toilet of history to accomplish that.
We need to ask ourselves -
Why are attorney's allowed to file a constant barrage of frivolous law suits and get ridiculous settlements helping to drive up the costs? Could it be they have the politicians in their hip pockets and that most politicians are attorneys?
Why is there artificial borders that Insurance companies can not cross and offer their products for better prices? Could it be they buy these borders by buying politicians?
Why do Insurance companies charge one group of people a higher price for identical services than they do another? Why are they not mandated to charge everyone the same and make it a true pool? Could it be they have also bought politicians?
Why does the government want to take over the parts of health care that are not broken and are working instead of just fixing what is broken? Could it be that they want more control over our lives?
Originally posted by KrazyJethro
I find it rather endearing that you don't consider your proposal "tearing the house down". I do, but that's not to say it's bad.
And to be frank, your ideas are pandering to the other side of the coin, but still the same end-game.
I'm confused, you are against government control, but yet suggest it as part of the solution to curbing the insanity.
How do you reconcile that?
- in a land of billions of laws, all legal conclusions are possible given the correct reasoning. This will not change with MORE laws, but rather fewer laws.
Answer - Because we allow people to live in states that apply government directly proportional to what the people ask for. This is to our benefit if we decide to see it like that.
The solution to your issues lies in that.
Same reason life insurance is more when you are 75 and smoked for 40 years you get charged more; because you cost more. That's business and life isn't always fair.
Because that's what government does. Government only has one tool and always has: Force.
It can not do anything other than that. To increase power you must increase your capacity to exhibit force.
Originally posted by Blaine91555
I see it more as a renovation and each item as a leak to be fixed or a door to be replaced.
It is impossible to have a discussion without some part of what we say agreeing with one side or the other. It does not mean a person is pandering. If you see merit to idea's from both sides, a person will always be thought to be siding with one side or the other due to the prejudices the others bring to the debate. I need not attack either side to discuss the issue.
That is a false conclusion based on your personal prejudices. You are trying to pigeon hole me into one point of view or another. I am not anti-government. It is common sense we need laws and regulations to have a civil society. We do not need however people in power controlled by special interests who do not have our best interest at heart.
When we categorize one another we make honest debate impossible.
In a way you are pointing out the exact same thing I am. We actually agree in that we need less laws. We need more effective and fair laws. The quickest way to put an end to the ambulance chasers is to simplify the law and remove the loopholes they use.
One of the biggest lies going is that laws need to be complex or written in a way that not everyone can understand. It is a bald faced lie to protect the attorneys ability to empty our wallets. Most cases other than criminal cases should not even require an attorney. Courtroom trickery could be eliminated easily and to say otherwise is yet another lie.
Not really. If it was a genuine pool with the risk shared by all, no matter age or behavior, it could be cheaper for everyone. We would pay the same from birth to death no matter who we are and there is no way that would not benefit us. The only reason we see this debate is people can not see past their own prejudices to understand how it could be. Without shared risk the whole concept of insurance is a farce.
Or, serve the people and do the jobs they were elected to do. Just because it is one way now does not mean it MUST be that way. Fatalism is giving up. I don't buy into that argument. You do frame the problem very clearly however.