-
Insurance companies already ration. There is no system which does not require some kind of limits. The proposed public option would focus on efficiency of treatments, not the “productivity” of the person (which was another huge Palin lie).
-
Palin wasn’t talking about rationing anyway, she was talking about a provision which would allow people who wanted end of life counselling to have it paid for under the public option. There was nothing that said anybody HAD to get end of life counseling, only that they could get it paid for if they wanted it.
Yes it is.
Ever try to sue an HMO?
Arbitration, yes, family members have. Same for other types insurance policies.
Heh. Arbitration.
I can buy policies based on need. NHS policies are limited in this regard. You can spin and stomp your feet all you want but we, the people, do not want government run insurance.
Actually plenty of people want the public option. Also you wouldn’t be required to get it. So essentially, you’re saying that because you don’t want it, you want to deny others the right to get it.
Why are you trying to suppress other people’s freedom? What do you get out of it?
I think some people don’t really grasp what the word “option” means.
People are free to buy insurance and would be FORCED to do so under the now dead proposal. It died because a government subsidized program would be used to leverage out private insurance and thus become an end-run to a fully socialized system.
And yet the current proposal is dead on arrival. What do the politicians know that you don’t?
It’s not a question of what they know, it’s a question of what they get from the insurance companies.
And that changed how in the last 2 weeks?
We don’t know that it has yet.
I really hate to be the one to tell you this, but YOU, the PEOPLE, already have government run insurance.
I realize I’m a Canadian, with a weak military, and have no place lecturing you, so I’ll just conclude by telling you that most states currently require auto insurance, and most mortgage providers require home insurance. Is requiring health insurance such a bad thing? Are there that many people that say, “fuck it, I’ll take much chances with cancer?”
That’s not really the question. We’re working toward full coverage. The how of it is the question.
We could tax everyone and let the payments be deducted toward basic insurance and HSA’s. That way we can tailor it to age so younger people can leverage good health against a deductible and bank the HSA money toward future events. It wouldn’t limit people from buying more insurance.
I have no idea what you just said.
I’m not a government-run-UHC type of guy, but your idea sounds interesting.
HSAs are nice and you can get more if you want.
If you could combine that with the previous idea of universal catastrophic insurance, you’d have a winner.
I get your point. Ms. Palin should be a wacky Rep gal rather than a central figure, but it is also true that, at least here, many people are obssesed with everything she does or doesn’t do. It could well have the unintended effect of making her more of a figure than she is or needs to be and this needless exposure can be a bargaining chip for her.
She gets a headlne a four thread here every time she buys a tampon.
If Dems/liberal/people want her to go away, do not feed her.
We don’t want her to go away. We want her to be the GOP nominee for President in 2012. Don’t spook her. .
But there is no downside for an insurance company to deny coverage, since you cannot sue for punitive damages. The worst that will happen is they will have to pay for the benefits they should have paid for anyway. Civil action without punitive damages creates no deterrent. They have everything to gain by rationing care, and nothing to lose.