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.

 

Obama Threatens Insurers' Anti-Trust Exemption

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 

No we are not vehicles, but we should pay into the system even when we are healthy, because when we are not, the cost is greater than what we pay for insurance. That is how insurance works. Everyone pays a premium and that goes toward paying for the ones that actually need it. Anything left over is profit for the insurance companies. If they don't have enough people paying in to cover the cost of customers making claims, they charge the remaining customers more with higher premiums, or else they just stop doing business if there is no profit in it.

If it is mandatory that everyone buys insurance then the premiums for everyone will go down. And it is also the honest thing to do. If you only start paying for health insurance when your not healthy, it is no different than an entitlement and we know how the right feels about entitlements. It is like getting something for nothing. How is not paying for health insurance when you don't need it any different?




posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Hal9000
 


I can see this logic, but we have to consider today's economic outlook. If unemployment is a leading indicator(As it has proven to be) then a mandate for health insurance, no matter how affordable, will be out of reach for millions of people. Add to that the fact that they are criminalizing being poor in these circumstances with provisions in the bill that could land you in jail, then we have a serious conflict here and it seems less reform and more apparent tyranny.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 

For those that can't afford it, they would be already covered by medicare. It is the people who CAN afford it but don't buy it, that we are talking about here. I agree that it appears to be very constricting and un-independent if that is a word. It does go against our American ideology, but with the population we have today, we can no longer think we can continue to live as independently as we have in the past. It is a fact of life that conservatives will have to come to grips with.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Hal9000
 


Agreed. You should know I'm not a conservative. I'm a Constitutionalist, and I'm a free-market capitalist a la Friedrick Von Hayek, and I believe that when charity is forced, it is theft. While NO ONE is independent, is it important to recognize individuality. And let communities meet their needs as they come at the local and state level, because blanket policy tend to leave many, many people behind-and in some cases, as we are seeing now, can run up debts and obligations that are unsustainable. I'm not saying government doesn't have a role, I actually believe that if the economics are sound, and if we can afford it without running a deficit, we can have Universal Health care, but such a responsibility must be delegated at the state level with a federal framework so that states can assess by demographic and medical statistics relevant to their populations to address their needs. In this manner we can allow flexibility, and full coverage. The only way this would ever work is to remove the power of the FED to arbitrarily set interests rates and let the markets do that, cut the size of the government significantly and LEAVE IT THERE, by eliminating the empire, ending the wars, abolishing institution that threaten the freedoms of America, remove Marijuana from the prohibition list, and end the corporate welfare system. We should also reform welfare so that people can actually get out of it instead of being trapped in it. Stories about scores of people leeching off the well-fare system are overblown, and don't do anything to help the problem, it only creates stigma.

There are free-market solutions, American solutions, that can and will allow us to meet the challenges of the future by understanding the context of our past, and follow the Constitution, the answers are there. But when it is done by fraud, subterfuge, and ignoring the Constitution we run into a situation where EVERY piece of legislation is tainted by the corporate power, and we wind up literally selling our freedom away until one day we wake up in chains we can actually see. What we are seeing today is not an exercise in fairness, it is an exercise in Fascism.

[edit on 18-10-2009 by projectvxn]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
There are free-market solutions, American solutions, that can and will allow us to meet the challenges of the future by understanding the context of our past, and follow the Constitution, the answers are there.

Music to my ears, but I fear it is a lost art.



But when it is done by fraud, subterfuge, and ignoring the Constitution we run into a situation where EVERY peace of legislation is tainted by the corporate power, and we wind up literally selling our freedom away until one day we wake up in chains we can actually see. What we are seeing today is not an exercise in fairness, it is an exercise in Fascism.

This was more true in the previous administration, as well as today. Lets not try to side step that fact. It appears you are trying to lay blame on the footsteps of the current administration that it doesn't deserve (yet).



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Hal9000
 


I'm not biased against this administration, every president since Nixon pisses me off because they're unimaginative usurpers of everything that makes us American. I actually spend a lot of time in policy circles, I can tell you it is as true today as it was in the last administration. Or is Goldman Sachs' preferential treatment in every regulatory body just a coincidence?



[edit on 18-10-2009 by projectvxn]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Hal9000
 


Remember also that we are now, facing incredible unemployment millions of people has lost jobs, hundred of thousand will lose their jobs, before this bill is even in effect if passed, then what.

Who is going to support all those millions that will be included into the Medicare.

Life in America for the working class that still holds a job is going to become very hard and oppressive.

Specially when you have not choices because everything that has to do with your check is mandatory, wages are becoming very stagnant and your earnings will keep shrinking.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 

I'll agree to that, and I'm sure we both agree that in general corporations have too much control of our government. That is why I have to laugh when people make claims of socialism with this administration. They claim that the government is taking over the corporations, but the fact is the exact opposite. The corporations already own the government, and that my friend is closer to fascism than socialism.

Edit to add: I just reread your previous post and see you said the same thing about fascism. Great minds think alike.


I think that if Obama were to eliminate this exemption, that would show that he is for real health care reform and not trying to socialize the system. That's why I think we should wait and see before we make assumptions.


[edit on 10/18/2009 by Hal9000]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Great discussion! I am thrilled that Congress is looking at these anti-trust exemptions. They need to go away!

I don't see that Obama "threatened" them with taking the exemptions away for "disagreeing with his stance on healthcare reform." If he did indeed threaten them, it was for taking gross advantage and profiting from sick people while enjoying their exemptions.

This is great news and I'm glad he's having some rough words with them!
It's about freaking time!



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 

I understand that right now there are fewer people able to pay into the system because of fewer jobs, but one of the reasons for fewer jobs is the high cost of health care. Companies are more reluctant to hire fulltime workers just because of that. We have to reduce the cost now so that companies will hire more people.

I think one way would be to make insurance mandatory, but it is not the only way. If we can reduce the cost of health care without it, that would be great. I know you have your doubts that Obama will not do what best for us, but I'm not convinced that he won't. For me, the jury is still out and I think we should wait and see.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Hal9000
 


Exactly, if he really was all for the help of the people banks would have been regulated, they are now gouging the consumers, power houses bonuses would have been cut and the health care reform would have been passed with heavy regulations and change of laws against private insurance and more for the Medicare recipients.

But do you know that next year the seniors on Social Security will not be getting increases on living standards? while everything else goes up they have to do with less.

Now this also will affect retirees and anybody that is on government pay rolls, from the elite down as usual.

But Wall street will be getting their outragous bonuses the biggest ever in the biggest recession in history.

What that tells America is that it has never been about socialism, or take over of government on anything but the protection of the wealth of the few while main street America falls in decay.

Like you say every time I see the argument about socialism I just feel so powerless.

But then again lately is been less and less those that still think is about government take over.

Still everybody are as powerless as I am.

Thanks for reading my posts.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman



I don't know the reasoning behind the insurance industry's anti-trust laws exemption, but if they have a good, legal rationale behind it, then Obama should never threaten them with losing it. This is the definition of blackmail.



The anti trust should be popping either way. same with the drug co.'s

Anyone want to buy $6.00 bottle of pills for $365.00???

"...No pa,,, it's free market, capitalist and the basis of America's greatness-"


"As long as long as they starting providing some free ass cream with my Lipitor, son, it is starting to hurt just to drive to Rite aid"

[edit on 18-10-2009 by Janky Red]

[edit on 18-10-2009 by Janky Red]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by Hal9000
 


Exactly, if he really was all for the help of the people banks would have been regulated,


I believe Barney (not the purple dinosaur) has that in the works now.

Will it be socialism, fascism, anti American and the real question; will Ayn Rand break dance in her coffin?

Certainly late -

I suggest stocking up on some pop corn to see the way conservatives will spin this biatch, I am laughing right now thinking of the wonders we will see.

I recall -" we tried to regulate the market" (even though we hate regulation, we did it for the good of the country!) - Might put some of that cream deep in each ear hole is my suggestion.

We will see many a liars here emerge from the coming battle.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join