Buy some shares in a health insurance company, I assume.
Single payer has always been the endgame. The public option is nothing more than a backdoor approach to realize single payer. Obama has been talking of single payer since '03. If you don’t realize this then you are naive at best.
You seem to forget that business interactions are a two way street. If you don’t like the way credit cards treat you then cut yours up. Nobody says you HAVE to do business with institutions with rules that you consider unfair. If people demand better options and are willing to walk away from a company then the company will change its practices or new companies will come along to capitalize on this sentiment.
I believe this is the part where you need to cite your claims (especially before calling another poster naive). Obama has talked about how theoretically single-payer would be the best option, but realistically it is impossible to achieve in our society.
Theoretically you are correct. But realistically, depending on the market, there are only 3 or 4 large companies that provide the products you are buying and each one is only very similar to the next. Plus, in order to be a competitive member of society, you need to possess their products. Not to mention starting a company to fill the gaps these companies leave is impossible due to entry barriers.
Then why haven’t they? Might it have something to do with the way the deck has been stacked, that the party in power for so many years was distinctly friendly to the interests of a monied constituency? Friendly in the sense of being in bed with is usually considered “friendly”?
You could spend the rest of your day reading horror stories of people fucked over by their insurance “providers”. How did they get away with it, if everything is so simplistic as you suggest? When is this magical free market going to do its trick?
Dear Sir
Thank you for your claim. We acknowledge receipt of your premiums, for which we thank you. I note your doctor’s advice. If you consult your policy documentation (Part 13 section VcD paragraph 4.5.7B(iv)) you will see that we will f’in pay for the treatment if OUR doctor says you need it. Regrettably, our doctor says take two aspirin (enclosed).
Thank you for your custom. Get well soon.
Yours
Sandwich Insurance “a healthier happier tomorrow”
Well, the fact that insurance is so tightly coupled to employment does somewhat limit the ability to move freely between different companies.
And??
Let’s see some mother f’n cites 'round here.
http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/140918/we've_been_trapped_inside_a_bad_health_care_system_so_long%2C_we_don't_even_know_how_much_we're_missing_/ Health care chains us in many ways. We can not move jobs easily because you can wait 3 months before you get coverage on the new job. Why is that? Why should we have to go uncovered? When you are considering a new job, you have to think about the cost of insurance at the new place plus whether the coverage is good enough.
If you want to quit to get more schooling, you face going uncovered again. We have health care as a factor in many of our decisions. When you are covered, you have to worry whether they will pay. Why is that OK? Latest info is some insurance companies call spousal abuse a pre-existing condition and refuse to pay for coverage they were paid for. It is a mess.
Well hereyou can see that infant mortality rates in Georgia, South Carolina (the you lie state), North Carolina, Alabama, and Mississippi are much worse than average and the evil liberal states New York, Massachusetts, Washington, Oregon, and California are significantly better than average.
Life expectancy shows a similar pattern.
And health care ratings heresay this:
I suspect, especially given the status of Washington DC on there, is that you are looking at Caucasian/Asian versus Black/Hispanic in those charts, not Liberal versus Conservative.
Yet the best ranking of all on that chart is Utah while the worst is that conservative hotbed of D.C.
Not to mention…
Now come on, give us some real citations backing up your sweeping statement about healthcare across the states. And how about how the state governments are responsible for the differences, not just the relative wealth of the state. This cherry-picked, one-statistic crap is weak.
Well sure you can cherry pick the outliers of Utah and Washington DC, but the trend is pretty damn clear. I have provided three cites showing the deplorable health of the conservative southern states. Time for the two of you to show how conservatives are doing such a great job with the status quo.
Of course if you want to argue that state govts don’t/can’t have much influence over the quality of healthcare, then please go ahead. That pretty much undermines your objections to doing something at the national level.
Gotta catch a plane, but I’ll look into this data later today.
My what? What objection? What are you talking about?
What is your point. This sounds like the point I was making. Untethering insurance from employers would be a good start toward reform.
Even 3 or 4 companies will compete with each other. If their business models, products and prices are that similar then it sounds like collusion and the government should step in. Most companies will try to maximize profits while offering at least one thing cheaper or better than a competitor. If the public agrees that this one thing is better at one company versus another then they will switch companies. Over time you will see divergence in certain areas of these companies.
Actually I thought Sage Rat might be on to something and at the tail end Hispanic and black populations correlate, but not so much at the top. However comparing average income seems to align the best of all the data sets I’ve tried.
The top five of New Hampshire, New Jersey, Maryland, Connecticut and Hawaii all do well in your three sites with the exception of Maryland which tends toward the middle.
The bottom five of Kentucky, Wes Virginia, Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi lag behind the other states, with only Kentucky’s birthrate exceeding the bottom quarter.
So not only are liberal states healthier, they also have more robust economies. Not a very good recommendation for conservative policies. Joe Wilson in particular should STFU since his state is less healthy and poorer than the national average. It’s like the Cubs giving the Yankees advice on how to win a world series.
That may be. Can you show us some data on which states are liberal and which are not? I’d like to know how you are quantifying this before delving farther.
Can you show how Joe Wilson is responsible for the state of South Carolina’s health care and income? In 1980 SC was the third poorest state in the union based on per capita income, now it’s the 43rd. So if anything, Wilson’s time in office has shown an improvement in the state’s situation.