Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by tommy_boy
If it means that everyone that milks the system has to get coverage as well, YES!
Aren't most of the people milking the system the ones that the government pays insurance for?
Just take the example of a woman on welfare who has 4 kids. Why not have 5? The government pays for it.
IMO, milking is being done by those insured, those uninsured, and those billing the insured and uninsured.
Exactly! We will still be paying for those who are on government funded ins. plans & we will still be paying for those who don't pay their medical
bills. The only difference is now those unpaid medical bills will fall under the public option which the TAXPAYERS will foot the bill for.
So how is this an improvement on the current sytem or reform? IMO, it's not.
Reform would be capping the "mark-up" on medical procedures.
Reform would be the ins. companies having to compete for our business outside of our employer's choice. (edit to add, I know one of these bills had
something like this, but since so many different bills have been floating about, who knows for sure if it's in that 1,900 page monster)
Reform would be limiting malpractice lawsuit amounts.
Reform would be going after the wide-spread fraud.
Any number of things would reduce actual out-of-pocket costs to the consumers but instead we get a bloated, taxpayer nightmare. Um, thanks, but no
thanks.
[edit on 8/11/2009 by lynn112]