If people want insurance get a job that has benefits. I go to work I daily and now if insurance is too expensive for my company to have it, I must pay a fine :facepalm: Fucking criminals
If people want insurance get a job that has benefits. I go to work I daily and now if insurance is too expensive for my company to have it, I must pay a fine :facepalm: Fucking criminals
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
hedgehog said:
There are enough jobs with benefits anymore. There is no way for that to happen. Well if your company didn't offer insurance, you wouldn't buy insurance?
There are only, what, 6-8 possible states that determine who wins anyway. Unless you live in one of those swing states, you might as well vote for anyone but the big2 just to make a statement. Even if you did live in a swing state I wouldn't agree with the spirit of what you are suggesting.
That's an excellent point...if you don't live in a swing state it doesn't matter. If you don't live in a swing county in that state it doesn't matter.
What does matter is that someone gets a message that the voters understand what is happening and it's not acceptable.
Like them or not, the Tea Party succeeded in bringing tax issues and the economy to the forefront.
Vote for an alternative party and lay a foundation for future real change plus you can leave the voting booth feeling alot better.
Bleeding...one thing they should do is remove insurance coverage as the responsibility of the employer. Let consumers buy emergency and primary/preventive care on the open market, make those providers post their pricing and then concentrate universal coverage for catastropic care where you need a large risk pool due to the costs.
That will build a level of competion and consumer awareness into the process that will force down pricing.
What does matter is that someone gets a message that the voters understand what is happening and it's not acceptable.
Like them or not, the Tea Party succeeded in bringing tax issues and the economy to the forefront.
Vote for an alternative party and lay a foundation for future real change plus you can leave the voting booth feeling alot better.
Bleeding...one thing they should do is remove insurance coverage as the responsibility of the employer. Let consumers buy emergency and primary/preventive care on the open market, make those providers post their pricing and then concentrate universal coverage for catastropic care where you need a large risk pool due to the costs.
That will build a level of competion and consumer awareness into the process that will force down pricing.
............................................................
I like this idea overall.
Here is a question I do not know the answer.
why for so many years have we not been able to buy health insurance from only the state we live in.
How did that start and why did they do that ?
I think this is honestly a look at what is partially wrong with this country. Someone who IMO doesn't appreciate what a great country we live in BECAUSE of the way it is run and that it is a country of laws, and would rather have anarchy instead (which I don't believe, but it sounds cool to say it, I guess).
Then, the same person says they believe in what one party stands for, but votes for another. Of course, nobody needs my opinion, but I would take a bit of time to think about what I've said, if I'd said these things.
I've been to several countries that don't really have many laws that support and protect citizens. I would not want to live there.
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
You should be happy for all these 'bullshit laws'. If it wasn't for these laws, your fat ass would be one of the first targeted for whatever assets you have. They go for the weak first.
Plus Hedgie you discriminate about the government telling people what to do unless it goes along with your beliefs,
1. Abortion, you want the government to control that.
2. Gay right, you want the government to not give any.
1. Abortion, you want the government to control that.
2. Gay right, you want the government to not give any.
That's a good question KOD.
From what I understand, it is one of those issues where because of the way it is, it is impossible to change.
That is to say that each state has an insurance commission that has set-up regulations that are specific to that state. An insurance company can choose to do business there based on the regulations and if they think they can be profitable.
If there is competition, the states would then have to create a more favorable environment to invite competition and, therefore, would have to adjust their regulations...something they don't want to do.
In other words, states say it can't be done because rules and regulations are different but, those states have established the rules.
Confusing I know but, this is the party line on why insurance can't cross states. Mags is an insurance expert but, it seems to me that if risk can be spread to a larger pool (more states) premiums would drop.
From what I understand, it is one of those issues where because of the way it is, it is impossible to change.
That is to say that each state has an insurance commission that has set-up regulations that are specific to that state. An insurance company can choose to do business there based on the regulations and if they think they can be profitable.
If there is competition, the states would then have to create a more favorable environment to invite competition and, therefore, would have to adjust their regulations...something they don't want to do.
In other words, states say it can't be done because rules and regulations are different but, those states have established the rules.
Confusing I know but, this is the party line on why insurance can't cross states. Mags is an insurance expert but, it seems to me that if risk can be spread to a larger pool (more states) premiums would drop.
Ralph Nader managed about 2% of the vote. Gary Johnson will do well to get 2%.
Lay a foundation? Really? Ask anyone what foundation Nader laid.
Huh? Ralph who?
But if jerking yourself off makes you feel better....:0074
I've never bought into this Republican argument. The theory is, a CA consumer could buy a UT policy which would not contain the CA specific mandates that companies licensed in CA have to abide buy - these are usually specific benefit provisions that a legislator had a preference for in the past that must be included in all policies and are not "routine" health conditions.
Yes, there could be some savings to some customers, but it just is not that big of a deal. In fact, there are many nationwide health insurers that sell in many states, having their product filed and approved there - like Aetna or Humana for example.
The biggest reason why this is not a big issue for insurers is the fact that most insurers (like a BCBS) are regional - usually within the same state. They own their providers (like Docs and Hospitals). So, if the CA Blue Cross Plan wanted to sell in, say Georgia, they'd either have to purchase Hospitals and Docs (extremely expensive) or they'd have to rent facilities there (which is more expensive than owning your own). So, for most regional plans, it is just not feasible.
This is just a talking point, in this case at least, with no real world benefit in my opinion.
