We understand for logical reasons the critiques of Obama care. The message from America against such a large program is starting to sound like the reaction to immigration reform.
Non American readers can feel free to fall asleep.
I would like to see a standardization of auto and medical insurance policies. This would foster competition by eliminating local laws. Instead of having a situation where residents of NY could select from 10 carriers and Vermont three the consumer would have greater choice.
The National Standards should be bare minimum and the consumer should have the ability to shop for policies suited to their individual needs. Companies would need to establish niches in the market.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I don't believe in interfering with state and local laws. Leave them alone. If they get too bad, they will just tax and regulate the companies out of their states. The best thing the feds could do would be to stop taxing insurance companies, and all businesses in general. Let the states regulate them, with some federal oversight, and everything would be fine. Prices should drop exponentially, and if they don't, we do have price gouging laws to take care of the offenders.
Pagan
What we now have is a hodgepodge of confusing laws. I would rather have one standard so that all companies can compete everywhere.
On Monday, I'll be posting a personal perspective on health-insurance reform. Some of my conservative cohorts will protest, I think, but I know what this household has been through and is still going through.
Beak-
One standard set of laws might sound good to you, but unless you put teeth in those laws, they are useless. In order to give them those teeth, you have to have an established bureaucracy. That's where the problem comes in. The states are perfectly capable of coming to an accord with insurance providers and pharmaceuticals without the feds input, though I'm fine with them establishing some oversight.
It doesn't make any sense to think that the federal government is going to establish a bureaucracy, the purpose of which is to cut red tape and lower costs. It tends to work the opposite way.
Most of the red tape involved in hospitals and insurance related costs are already to a degree, wholly or in part, government related. What Obama is saying is, let's bring the government on board to solve the problem they started to begin with.
Go back to the beginning. When did health care start to become a big problem? Was it by any chance when the government started getting involved in regulating the pharmaceutical and insurance companies and hospitals. I have this strange idea that just a little bit of digging would show this is indeed the case.
How many Jonas Salks have stepped up to the plate to solve deadly diseases such as polio lately-say, ever since the FDA got involved in the process? Not too many, I'm afraid. All of the progress that has been made in the field of medicine has been in the fields of treatment to relieve symptoms and prolong life. The number of actual cures you can count on the fingers of both hands. I would suggest you would have quite a few fingers left over.
Jimmy Carter goes to Africa and helps eradicate the Jinny worm, but while he was president here, he and his cohorts established policies and regulations that would have made such a cure impossible in the US.
The government is on its last legs. They have even turned the Post Office into a joke. That used to be one of their few success stories, now they are near the point of collapse. But I'm supposed to trust them to establish a successful policy for dealing with something that amounts to one seventh of the economy?
I'm sorry Beak, but without the government, cancer would have been cured well over twenty years ago, and AIDS probably would have been eradicated before the year 2000.
Now they are starting this crap about the Swine Flu. Whoops, I better watch it there, I'd better call it by its politically correct name, N1H1, or whatever it is, otherwise the Muslim population might get worked into a frenzy and start inconveniently demanding results. Well, demanding results beyond government subsidized health care, that is.
Maybe if we're lucky they might pass a law before Hillary "accidentally" brings an ebola outbreak with her on her return from Africa.
The Pagan Temple said:
When did health care start to become a big problem? Was it by any chance when the government started getting involved in regulating the pharmaceutical and insurance companies and hospitals. I have this strange idea that just a little bit of digging would show this is indeed the case.
When we got the HIPAA Act, which guaranteed coverage for pre-existing conditions provided that one had insurance for 18 months previous to opting for COBRA, one little fact was overlooked: the substantial hike in premiums for that type of coverage, never mind that we paid health-insurance premiums for decades.
This will not be a popular statement....Government workers (local, state, and federal) have employer-based coverage with the government portion of the premiums paid by the taxpayers. Now, I'd have no problem with that -- except that most government workers have "gold-plated coverage." Those of us attempting to get such coverage privately cannot afford to do so!
Another factor in this health-insurance: the Doha Agreements.
Post a Comment