Interstate competition has another problem that no one seems to want to talk about. Insurance is only helpful if you can find a doctor who accepts it. So instaed of negotiating with two or three organizations, doctors will be pestered by dozens or perhaps hundreds of provider coordinators trying to get them to sign on. Considering that doctors already blow at least half a day a week listening to pharmaceutical reps, there won’t be enough hours in a week for them to see enough patients to cover their overhead.
This is incorrect. Even if you assume that everyone is willing to sell every asset they own for the chance to save themselves, you still have a demand curve defined by how much each member of the market can actually get together.
I"ve said it before, but I think that Americans are hooped when it comes to changing anything to do with health care insurance in a substantive way.
Your political system gives much power to individual states - this makes a federal initiative very hard to accomplish.
There is a deep cultural meme that states that government is bad, government workers are inefficient, and government programs don’t work. Mistrust of “government” is huge in the US - more than in any country I’ve lived in.
The opposite of this is the respect in the US given to individuality and not relying on others for handouts.
There is a tremendous private industry (insurance) that will fight any change tooth and nail. This is not their “fault”, it makes total sense from their perspective.
The polarized political system means that there are many who cheer for their “team”, and oppose the other “team” no matter what. This makes decision making very difficult if the other “team” is simply opposing anything and everything. I don’t think we would have gotten UHC in Canada those many years ago if we did not have a situation where a left-leaning 3rd party (NDP) occasionally gets into power provincially, and sometimes holds the balance of power in a minority situation nationally.
I’m not sure I buy this. According to those opposed all insurance companies will move to the state that has the least regulation. Many will not be able to compete and the number of companies will be smaller. Yes, the companies we can choose from will be larger and competition will be greater. This just might result in lower prices.
Competition between more providers has resulted only in very rapid price increases. How is tightening an oligopoly going to reverse that, Mr. Common Sense?
I gave up, myself. If you want us to read something specific, link to it. Linking to a site that we’re supposed to explore in hopes of finding those wonderful gems of truth that you swear are there doesn’t cut it.
We’d actually like to know just what substantive and constructive policy proposals, presented in good faith by a national-interest-driven Republican leadership, were so peremptorily dismissed by the partisan Democrats.
Why? I don’t see how that post gets you to the idea that everyone has a right to health care or that it proposes some specific way to reform the current system.
I don’t see what is so hard about this. Here is what is allegedly requested -
So I posted this link, which says right on the front fucking page that it is a foundation founded in 2003 by Newt Gingrich to bring about health care reform. Newt Gingrich is certainly a Republican, he is certainly a leader, he has said a great deal more than “nothing” about health care reform, there isn’t a fucking word about “death panels” anywhere, 2003 certainly qualifies as “the last few years” and, far from voting No on everything, it lists a number of initiatives that Newt was instrumental in bringing about. I grant you, you have to scroll down two whole paragraphs to see it, but is that so tough?
The other link has eighteen links and a video, which ElvisL1ves stated falsely was a single page pamphlet with nothing following it.
So, every single, solitary word that he said was demonstrably wrong.
It gets tiresome spoon-feeding you people, especially since you don’t pay any attention when I do.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink. Much the same is true about a jackass, especially for a party who chose one as their symbol.
No. This is where the argument is. We have agreed as a society to provide *emergency *care. Not healthcare. If a person gets hit by a car we’ll patch him up. If someone twists his knee and cold use a new ACL, that’s not anything we agree to provide as a society. So, you’re framing the debate in a way that begs the question. If you were correct, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. The point we are at as a society is deciding to what degree are we willing to provide care. We agree on emergency care. That’s it.
You make a statement in GD. I give a reasoned explanation as to why I think your point is incorrect. You respond like a 4-year-old. And you wonder why you guys just got your ass kicked in MA.:rolleyes:
But, PLEASE, continue with that strategy.
On preview, I see that you might have been responding to John Mace’s terse reply. If so, my apologies, as your reasoned rebuttal is mere keystrokes away.:dubious:
Are there any facts in evidence that indicate that someone who is considered to be uninsurable would, in fact, be eligible for insurance through an employer?
But you did stumble across a good point, that “health care” is not a single concept and that there can be gradations as to what types of it we as a society have agreed to provide. It’s certainly good to see you part ways with the GOP on that.
There has been a very interesting debate over the decades as to how to implement that commitment more efficiently and effectively. The immediate topic, though, is how and why a minority party has been able to get away with simple obstructionism rather than substantive participation.