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 mnemeth1
reply to post by Southern Guardian
We don't have free market healthcare in this country.
What we have is a fascist
It does nothing to improve quality or reduce costs.
All it does is steal from the elderly to provide care for the poor.
Its a joke, just like socialism is a joke.
We don't have free market healthcare,
insurers are not allowed to sell cross state,
'
massive regulatory overhead, etc.. etc..
HB 1184 was approved 108-55 despite long and boisterous opposition from Democrats.
The big Republican idea to bring down health-care costs is to "let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines." Jon Chait has some commentary here, but I want to simplify a little bit.
Insurance is currently regulated by states. California, for instance, says all insurers have to cover treatments for lead poisoning, while other states let insurers decide whether to cover lead poisoning, and leaves lead poisoning coverage -- or its absence -- as a surprise for customers who find that they have lead poisoning. Here's a list (pdf) of which states mandate which treatments.
The result of this is that an Alabama plan can't be sold in, say, Oregon, because the Alabama plan doesn't conform to Oregon's regulations. A lot of liberals want that to change: It makes more sense, they say, for insurance to be regulated by the federal government. That way the product is standard across all the states.
Conservatives want the opposite: They want insurers to be able to cluster in one state, follow that state's regulations and sell the product to everyone in the country. In practice, that means we will have a single national insurance standard. But that standard will be decided by South Dakota. Or, if South Dakota doesn't give the insurers the freedom they want, it'll be decided by Wyoming. Or whoever.
Health care bill or no, how can we be proud if we deny help to those who need, when it is within our power to help them? And I'm not talking about 'tax-payers,' I'm talking about the flesh and bone people who had the means and opportunity to tell the bureaucrat, "No, we don't allow people die because you can't profit from it."
Originally posted by mnemeth1
Health care bill or no, how can we be proud if we deny help to those who need, when it is within our power to help them? And I'm not talking about 'tax-payers,' I'm talking about the flesh and bone people who had the means and opportunity to tell the bureaucrat, "No, we don't allow people die because you can't profit from it."
we have to allow people to profit from it or else we devolve into slavery.
without doctors making a profit, no one would become a doctor.
the state would have to enslave people and force them at gun point to become doctors.
until we realize that healthcare is a good, like any other good, people must be allowed to profit from it.
there is no other way - other than slavery.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
we have to allow people to profit from it or else we devolve into slavery.
without doctors making a profit, no one would become a doctor.
until we realize that healthcare is a good,
Yeah, the health care bill would have, could have, should have.... but the child is dead... deemed somehow to have been ineligible for compassion. And aside from the parents, everyone looked at their shoes and let it happen.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
free markets provide better, cheaper, and more accesable care to a wider portion of the population than socialist nonsense.
"Free" care is impossible.
Costs must be contained by price controls in a socialist system.
Price controls DEMAND RATIONING.
You can not have price controlled medical care without rationing. It is an economic impossibility.
Never in the known history of man has something been placed under price controls AND been unlimited in its accessibility besides infinitely reproducible goods such as electronic media.
[edit on 27-3-2010 by mnemeth1]
Originally posted by Southern Guardian
What kind of world must you live in to force a newly born baby to cost the parents the second shes born? Better yet how the heck is this going to help the structure of the family in this country?
[edit on 27-3-2010 by Southern Guardian]
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by mnemeth1
This thread desperately wants to be a long drawn out advertisement for the insurance industry, ironically from those who claim to have serious problems with the insurance industry. The advocates of this horrid legislation clearly revile the insurance industry, and free market principles, but expect the insurance industry to foot the bill for their medical costs anyway.
As to the clear and obvious problems that exist in the health care field they offer no viable answers, not even solutions, other than mandating insurance coverage on health. Rather than advocating a government more active in zealously defending the rights of an individual from abrogation and derogation, and if an insurance company is guilty of any breach of contract, then those harmed by that breach have a right to rely upon the courts for a redress of grievances, they instead advocate a legislative bill that does nothing more than empower the very industry they claim to revile.
Your attempts at special pleading, and arguing that everyone should have health insurance because you believe the cost of your health care will become insurmountable, and bad things will happen if we don't all just play along and buy insurance, while our legislatures continue to tinker with their legislation, (and quite probably much of the tinkering is due to the emotional nature of the crafting of the Bill), is just more fallacy. Why is the cost of health care becoming so insurmountable? This is the issue, and to a lesser extent, why is it you believe you will need to pay for this insurmountable health care?