Dependency Agenda
In Sunday's Washington Post there is an op-ed by George F. Will about the Democrat's health care reform plan and the
president's agenda of equality through dependency. The article goes on
to point out some interesting facts like the fact that most uninsured
people in the US are illegal immigrants or people in transition between
jobs. Those people in a job transition are never uninsured for very
long.
The article goes on to question the president's statement that his health care plan will bring competition to the market. The idea that government will bring completion is an absolute joke. The government's health care doesn't need to run at a profit so it will under cut the private market which will lead to people opting out of their employer's plan for the government plan.
What I think will happen is once the majority of Americans are dependent on government health care, it will be used against anyone who proposes tax cuts. The ad campaign will be something like this: a tax cut is a cut in your health care benefits. This will put health care on par with social security as an untouchable items in politics.
The real solution to the health care situation is to allow Americans to shop for private insurance. Health insurance should not be an job related benefit for multiple reasons. First off if you bought your own insurance, you would not have to worry about loss of coverage by switch jobs. This will resolve the issue with rejected claims because of pre -existing conditions. This will also cover the problems with people not having insurance between jobs because your coverage is no longer linked to your work.
The largest benefit of cutting the link between job and health insurance will be your ability to get the best coverage for you. Most companies offer two plans: high deductible or low deductible. The company negotiates for a plan that will meet the needs of the majority of it's employees. I believe that if people got to shop for the best health care coverage, like they do for car insurance, they would be able to cut their individual cost for health care.
I think there is a significant movement in this country to punish the successful. The health insurance companies all do very well so the government has chosen to attack them. The fact that government run hospitals are inefficient and life saving drugs are over prices in the US are the real problems. I do believe health care needs reform but not for the reasons liberals and democrats believe. I think we need to embrace a free market solution for health care instead of the quasi entitlement approach we currently have in place.
President Obama believes that government should take care of all of it's citizens needs. I find this concept against what the founding fathers wanted when they created this country. I believe it to be anti-capitalism, anti-free markets and anti-American. The constitution says "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" not Life, Liberty and the ENTITLEMENT of Happiness.
Source: Washington Post
The article goes on to question the president's statement that his health care plan will bring competition to the market. The idea that government will bring completion is an absolute joke. The government's health care doesn't need to run at a profit so it will under cut the private market which will lead to people opting out of their employer's plan for the government plan.
What I think will happen is once the majority of Americans are dependent on government health care, it will be used against anyone who proposes tax cuts. The ad campaign will be something like this: a tax cut is a cut in your health care benefits. This will put health care on par with social security as an untouchable items in politics.
The real solution to the health care situation is to allow Americans to shop for private insurance. Health insurance should not be an job related benefit for multiple reasons. First off if you bought your own insurance, you would not have to worry about loss of coverage by switch jobs. This will resolve the issue with rejected claims because of pre -existing conditions. This will also cover the problems with people not having insurance between jobs because your coverage is no longer linked to your work.
The largest benefit of cutting the link between job and health insurance will be your ability to get the best coverage for you. Most companies offer two plans: high deductible or low deductible. The company negotiates for a plan that will meet the needs of the majority of it's employees. I believe that if people got to shop for the best health care coverage, like they do for car insurance, they would be able to cut their individual cost for health care.
I think there is a significant movement in this country to punish the successful. The health insurance companies all do very well so the government has chosen to attack them. The fact that government run hospitals are inefficient and life saving drugs are over prices in the US are the real problems. I do believe health care needs reform but not for the reasons liberals and democrats believe. I think we need to embrace a free market solution for health care instead of the quasi entitlement approach we currently have in place.
President Obama believes that government should take care of all of it's citizens needs. I find this concept against what the founding fathers wanted when they created this country. I believe it to be anti-capitalism, anti-free markets and anti-American. The constitution says "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" not Life, Liberty and the ENTITLEMENT of Happiness.
Source: Washington Post
I like your comments and your suggestion. I do not like the idea of government having its own health care policy. In Canada, where there is government run health care, people are opting to pay for their own insurance. I think Medicare is generally good, but even now we have a supplelment insurance to cover costs. And even so we pay a certain amount. I also think we should have a cap on malpractice suits, because doctors also order too many tests, not necessary just to cover themselves. '
We should recognize that doctors are fallible, just like everyone else
Reply to this
Obama won't cap malpractice suits because the tart lawyers are a strong democratic fund raising group. He was booed by the AMA for a reason.
BTW the president's approval rating are down. Health care hurt the Clinton, will it back fire against Obama?
Reply to this
This legislation is too important to be rushed through by August recess. It needs scrutiny.
However, the longer it takes, the harder it might be to pass.
People want care, but are cautious of the government intruding into their lives.
Reply to this
The facts from both sides are contradictory - not sure who is reporting the right data.
Issues for which fixes are needed: (I'll take any side that can fix them)
1) Why do we have Employer based health insurance anyways? is it for bulk rates? It is definitely a pain - between jobs.
2) Insurance companies have the incentive to deny unhealthy people insurance. Result: Only healthy people have insurance.
I propose a Govt' health plan for folks not employed or turned down by insurance companies for 1) or 2). A safety-net plan.
3) Doctors/Nurses have excess Administrative costs dealing with the assortment of complex insurance plans with complex rules - later passed on to patients.
4) Insurance companies have excess Administrative costs creating and managing complex plans with complex rules - later passed on to patients.
5) Patients have to deal with complex plans with complex rules.
6) Insurance companies have the incentive to deny claims. Result: Many who felt safe with their insurance see the full brunt of this incentive only when they get sick. There is also added administrative costs dedicated to solely denying sick people their claims - later passed on to patients.
7) Patients have insurance plan bureaucrats with no medical experience calling the shots on what treatment they can receive instead of doctors (as opposed to Gov't bureaucrats on a national health plan which may only be slightly better).
I think its very important that consumer protection laws be passed to protect patients against 6) and 7).
Reply to this
mmbjklof http://macxizys.com qzgvxbmr csrgrmet
Reply to this
By the time I'd grown up, I naturally supposed that I'd be grown up.
Reply to this
It's wonderful what we can do if we're always doing.
Reply to this
You should not live one way in private, another in public.
Reply to this
[URL=http://awioucxj.com]tdyvdsgj[/URL] mowdnfzi http://vjzqxspa.com kemnukcz vduftaic uvbsnuvd
Reply to this
hgacqrkg http://uxphzpmj.com vcvuglkv bmbabjiy
Reply to this
The better part of valor is discretion, in the which better part I have saved my life.
Reply to this
Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong.
Reply to this
There's always one who loves and one who lets himself be loved.
Reply to this
It is not always the same thing to be a good man and a good citizen.
Reply to this
Clearly my spam filter is not doing a good job. I'm guessing since the user names are all drug names I'm getting hit by a spam bot.
Reply to this
There are several good protections against temptations, but the surest is cowardice.
Reply to this
An honest politician is one who, when he is bought, will stay bought.
Reply to this
I've been on a diet for two weeks and all I've lost is two weeks.
Reply to this
Challenge is a dragon with a gift in its mouth?Tame the dragon and the gift is yours.
Reply to this