Why are various free open market advocate defending insurance companies as some kindly of free bazaar enterprise?
The insurance industry is NOT a free market industry. It has long be in bed with the organization (which is the reason why people are forced to purchase vehicle insurance in most states; in Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, probably the Republican frontrunner for 2012, signed a statute that forced people to purchase health insurance, which is an even more atrocious statute, as people who don't want car insurance are at least possible free to ride a bicycle instead).
The problem with the current system is not too little insurance, but rather too much insurance. Back contained by the days of 90% tax brackets, businesses competed for employees by offering robustness insurance (and of course, they kept adding unnecessary aspects to condition insurance; car insurance doesn't cover gasoline, yet robustness "insurance" usually covers these types of things in addition to requisite care, which allows doctors to jack up the prices since the patient doesn't pay).
What we obligation to have in strength care is a system where insurance is predetermined to covering major illnesses (and is a voluntary purchase, not forced on people at gunpoint by the government). For copious people, it is a perfectly modest choice not to purchase health insurance, despite what some fascistic-minded (yes, fascism refers to the merger of corporations and government at the expense of the individuals, which accurately describes the economic policies of the Democratic Party and of the "mainstream" of the Republican Party; racism was predominantly a phenomenon surrounded by Hitler's National Socialism, not other fascist movements and the claim that fascism is a form of capitalism is an old Comintern smear; as the fascists themselves pointed out, fascism is the middle-of-the-road movement between Capitalism and Communism) politicians might think.
It is long long-gone time to shift the debate over health care from the current false dichotomy of the current mixed system VS ObamaCare Inc. to a broader debate focusing on the merits of free bazaar medical care VS the Fascist and Communist alternatives.
Sheeple don't want to wake up.
Free open market for the poor, socialism for the rich.
It is still a choice, not a requirement, so it is 'freeer' than what is being proposed.
However, I don't want insurance companies within control either. Look at Ron Paul's plan. Even if you added subsidies of the sort of the earned income credit (health expenses where on earth the person doesn't make ample to cover it) or added an actual 'insurance policy' by govt to cover only preexisting conditions and possibly some chronic conditions, you would have a much better system which leaves the individual contained by control of their care (at least adjectives except for the preexisting / chronic situation which is the one that already has trouble.)
This would drive DOWN costs and create greater availability and cost savings for adjectives.
Support Ron Paul's bill HR 1495 the Comprehensive Healthcare Reform Act.
"> They let their ideology go and get in the way of their comon sense. Lower and middle class Republicans vote against their own best interest every time they move about to the polls. There's a book called "What's the Matter with Kansas?" that details this faultlessly. They buy into wedge isssues designed to get populace to vote Republican out of fear, then they find screwed when those Republicans get into power.
Many people do not realize that both the house and senate bills contain the 'individual mandate', forcing us adjectives to buy health insurance or be fined by the government. This is an outrage, and even stupider is their comparison to sports car insurance, which as the asker said is not mandatory since you don't have to drive a car, you can embezzle a bus, taxi, train, bike, or walk. And dumber but, are all the morons who keep repeating this comparison lacking even having the brain power to comprehend it.
This law will force us to engender payments on our lives to a company. I didn't have insurance for 8 years and saved 40 thousand dollars which I used to purchase my home. I would never enjoy been able to do this if I be forced to purchase 400++ per month coverage ( this is what it is in my state). This is why freedom and choice is important, to allow relatives to manage their own risk and better navigate their lives.
If you can figure out a way that I can payment out of pocket and not die if I get a treatable form of cancer, or need a heart transplant, later I'm all ears.
The fact is, near really IS no such way, not without political affairs intervention. The whole point of insurance is to distribute the risk of a catastrophic injury across a large group of relations, so everyone takes a small hit so they never have to verbs about taking a huge, life-destroying hit.
The entirety of the american population is the largest group we have to wrok next to. We distribute the risk associated with our defense from foreign enemies by adjectives contributing via tax to the military. I can't really think of a suitable reason why we should distribute the risk of being severely off-colour across the whole of the public as well. After adjectives, both military and health care fundamentally work towards indistinguishable goal: To protect the lives of Americans.
They have regulations
Related Questions:
The problem with the current system is not too little insurance, but rather too much insurance. Back contained by the days of 90% tax brackets, businesses competed for employees by offering robustness insurance (and of course, they kept adding unnecessary aspects to condition insurance; car insurance doesn't cover gasoline, yet robustness "insurance" usually covers these types of things in addition to requisite care, which allows doctors to jack up the prices since the patient doesn't pay).
What we obligation to have in strength care is a system where insurance is predetermined to covering major illnesses (and is a voluntary purchase, not forced on people at gunpoint by the government). For copious people, it is a perfectly modest choice not to purchase health insurance, despite what some fascistic-minded (yes, fascism refers to the merger of corporations and government at the expense of the individuals, which accurately describes the economic policies of the Democratic Party and of the "mainstream" of the Republican Party; racism was predominantly a phenomenon surrounded by Hitler's National Socialism, not other fascist movements and the claim that fascism is a form of capitalism is an old Comintern smear; as the fascists themselves pointed out, fascism is the middle-of-the-road movement between Capitalism and Communism) politicians might think.
It is long long-gone time to shift the debate over health care from the current false dichotomy of the current mixed system VS ObamaCare Inc. to a broader debate focusing on the merits of free bazaar medical care VS the Fascist and Communist alternatives.
Sheeple don't want to wake up.
Free open market for the poor, socialism for the rich.
It is still a choice, not a requirement, so it is 'freeer' than what is being proposed.
However, I don't want insurance companies within control either. Look at Ron Paul's plan. Even if you added subsidies of the sort of the earned income credit (health expenses where on earth the person doesn't make ample to cover it) or added an actual 'insurance policy' by govt to cover only preexisting conditions and possibly some chronic conditions, you would have a much better system which leaves the individual contained by control of their care (at least adjectives except for the preexisting / chronic situation which is the one that already has trouble.)
This would drive DOWN costs and create greater availability and cost savings for adjectives.
Support Ron Paul's bill HR 1495 the Comprehensive Healthcare Reform Act.
"> They let their ideology go and get in the way of their comon sense. Lower and middle class Republicans vote against their own best interest every time they move about to the polls. There's a book called "What's the Matter with Kansas?" that details this faultlessly. They buy into wedge isssues designed to get populace to vote Republican out of fear, then they find screwed when those Republicans get into power.
Many people do not realize that both the house and senate bills contain the 'individual mandate', forcing us adjectives to buy health insurance or be fined by the government. This is an outrage, and even stupider is their comparison to sports car insurance, which as the asker said is not mandatory since you don't have to drive a car, you can embezzle a bus, taxi, train, bike, or walk. And dumber but, are all the morons who keep repeating this comparison lacking even having the brain power to comprehend it.
This law will force us to engender payments on our lives to a company. I didn't have insurance for 8 years and saved 40 thousand dollars which I used to purchase my home. I would never enjoy been able to do this if I be forced to purchase 400++ per month coverage ( this is what it is in my state). This is why freedom and choice is important, to allow relatives to manage their own risk and better navigate their lives.
If you can figure out a way that I can payment out of pocket and not die if I get a treatable form of cancer, or need a heart transplant, later I'm all ears.
The fact is, near really IS no such way, not without political affairs intervention. The whole point of insurance is to distribute the risk of a catastrophic injury across a large group of relations, so everyone takes a small hit so they never have to verbs about taking a huge, life-destroying hit.
The entirety of the american population is the largest group we have to wrok next to. We distribute the risk associated with our defense from foreign enemies by adjectives contributing via tax to the military. I can't really think of a suitable reason why we should distribute the risk of being severely off-colour across the whole of the public as well. After adjectives, both military and health care fundamentally work towards indistinguishable goal: To protect the lives of Americans.
They have regulations
Related Questions:
- What is the logical reasoning aft employer providing condition insurance instead of the free bazaar?
- How can I return with free form insurance?
- Insurance Adjuster-I obligation free reliable weather reports to settle claims? Any design?
- Cheap condition insurance for free-lancers?
- Can you travel for free and put together money? Get free insurance?