Instead of healtcare streamlining, let set national guidelines for form insurance n allow free competition across?
state lines?
What do you think? Lets see where that take us first instead of jumping the gun and socialing healthcare
Answers:
You can legislate private industry like that.
your idea didn't work for the bank system, it probably won't work for insurance. What most people do not grasp is the idea that insurance companies are contained by business to make money and they are only a middleman. They lift premiums and pay doctors. They are, indeed, between you and your doctor. All government run form care will do is give you a choice, but short the overhead costs that insurance companies have, with no million dollar salary for top executives who are getting rich, and eliminate advertising costs. A elected representatives run program can provide competition and reduce YOUR cost. Say you want to mail a note.You can go to fed ex or ups and repay them much more money, OR, you can go to the post office and correspondence that same letter for what, 44 cents? Which carrier do you choose? Likely, the post organization, because it's cheaper. But if the post office is eliminated, you'll own to pay higher costs to feed ex or ups. Make sense? And has the post office hurt private enterprise? I'm thinking no, since feed ex and ups are both making money. With health care, it's equal principal, and no one is asking you (or making you) give up your coverage. Think roughly the economics of the BIG PICTURE, and quit thinking in terms of "socializing" anything.
that could be a "part" of health care redeployment, but why limit it. There are a number of other things that could benefit the consumer, including a "public option".....
That seems to be a more sensible approach than the proposed "robustness care reform" bills.
I am particularly against the thought of making it mandatory to buy health insurance. We are in a weighty recession and over 6 million people have lost their job. Forcing those people to buy health insurance is unsympathetic.
ok
That is what Health Insurance Exchange within the House Bill 3200 does.
Without this exchange, insurers would target healthy zip codes and screen from those in unhealthy closure codes. No real change from the current system.
We stipulation a new product.
A health insurance policy close to a life insurance policy.
The younger you buy it, the cheaper it is. You pay premiums your unharmed life or until you retire at the same rate when you enrol.
Your rate comes out of your paycheck just like it does presently but, you don't have to negotiate with your employer.
No co-pays, no deductibles.
If you use plan doctors and services, you get a rebate. So, when you go to the doctor, instead of paying, you procure a check or a credit toward your remaining premiums at your option.
If you use off-plan doctors, the bill is paid but near is no rebate.
Everybody wins.
So, instead of cheaper, better and more accessible healthcare, let's continue to make insurance companies bigger and richer? No appreciation....
besides this goes against the 10th Amendment.
I don't resembling the sound of "national guidelines." I think we should hold a completely free insurance market for a few years, then see who's complaining.
Free marketplace solutions cost ~$0, so why aren't we even TRYING them?
But that would ruin Obama's healthcare plan. Democrats would a bit have people die
Wow regulating interstate commerce violates 10th, but system run public option does not.
Libs stop drinking your Kool Aid, will you
make sense to me..but, when did libs and Obama EVER use sense?
Related Questions:
What do you think? Lets see where that take us first instead of jumping the gun and socialing healthcare
Answers:
You can legislate private industry like that.
your idea didn't work for the bank system, it probably won't work for insurance. What most people do not grasp is the idea that insurance companies are contained by business to make money and they are only a middleman. They lift premiums and pay doctors. They are, indeed, between you and your doctor. All government run form care will do is give you a choice, but short the overhead costs that insurance companies have, with no million dollar salary for top executives who are getting rich, and eliminate advertising costs. A elected representatives run program can provide competition and reduce YOUR cost. Say you want to mail a note.You can go to fed ex or ups and repay them much more money, OR, you can go to the post office and correspondence that same letter for what, 44 cents? Which carrier do you choose? Likely, the post organization, because it's cheaper. But if the post office is eliminated, you'll own to pay higher costs to feed ex or ups. Make sense? And has the post office hurt private enterprise? I'm thinking no, since feed ex and ups are both making money. With health care, it's equal principal, and no one is asking you (or making you) give up your coverage. Think roughly the economics of the BIG PICTURE, and quit thinking in terms of "socializing" anything.
that could be a "part" of health care redeployment, but why limit it. There are a number of other things that could benefit the consumer, including a "public option".....
That seems to be a more sensible approach than the proposed "robustness care reform" bills.
I am particularly against the thought of making it mandatory to buy health insurance. We are in a weighty recession and over 6 million people have lost their job. Forcing those people to buy health insurance is unsympathetic.
ok
That is what Health Insurance Exchange within the House Bill 3200 does.
Without this exchange, insurers would target healthy zip codes and screen from those in unhealthy closure codes. No real change from the current system.
We stipulation a new product.
A health insurance policy close to a life insurance policy.
The younger you buy it, the cheaper it is. You pay premiums your unharmed life or until you retire at the same rate when you enrol.
Your rate comes out of your paycheck just like it does presently but, you don't have to negotiate with your employer.
No co-pays, no deductibles.
If you use plan doctors and services, you get a rebate. So, when you go to the doctor, instead of paying, you procure a check or a credit toward your remaining premiums at your option.
If you use off-plan doctors, the bill is paid but near is no rebate.
Everybody wins.
So, instead of cheaper, better and more accessible healthcare, let's continue to make insurance companies bigger and richer? No appreciation....
besides this goes against the 10th Amendment.
I don't resembling the sound of "national guidelines." I think we should hold a completely free insurance market for a few years, then see who's complaining.
Free marketplace solutions cost ~$0, so why aren't we even TRYING them?
But that would ruin Obama's healthcare plan. Democrats would a bit have people die
Wow regulating interstate commerce violates 10th, but system run public option does not.
Libs stop drinking your Kool Aid, will you
make sense to me..but, when did libs and Obama EVER use sense?
Related Questions:
- Why isn´t free nurture or free insurance similar to contained by Europe contained by usa?
- I own BlueCross insurance and lost my eyeglasses, can I obtain a investigational duo for free?
- How do i capture free insurance at 17 years outmoded?
- How do associates achieve 6 weeks free dog/cat insurance when you buy a puppy or kitten?
- Are proceeds of Life Insurance toll free?