« Two Thumbs Up 4 Thor | Main | War Powers Inaction »

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Comments

jacobfite


Healthcare is not subject to normal market forces! Anything that you have to buy at any random moment in order not to die is not something to which a rational supply/demand calculus can apply. Check out "Penny Health Insurance" articles on how to reduce the cost of insurance.

duggersd

jacobfite, I respectfully disagree with your statement about not being subject to normal market forces. The fact is as long as there are regulations about what you have to have and not have, you are right. However, why should a woman who is over 50 years old carry maternity care? Why should a man carry maternity care? Being allowed to choose what kinds of coverages one believes he/she needs is just one step in allowing market forces have an effect.
Currently, I have a choice of several plans. One plan has a much higher deductible. With that higher deductible, I decide what kinds of treatments I should choose. I also tend to be a little more selective when it comes to my treatment. The more that comes out of my own pocket, the less likely I will be to choose a more expensive treatment. If I have insurance coverage, I tend to be more likely to choose the more expensive treatment. This choice is not going to be allowed under the new plan. The new plan will dictate what kinds of coverages I have and what kind of deductible I have.
Point is, if fewer people are choosing the less expensive treatments, what kind of pressure do you believe would there be on the more expensive?
Ken, how about a third? Using the threat of the government is a very effective way to get certain companies and industries be more compliant to government wants. That waiver could be a valuable tool to the Administration.

George Mason

Again and again and again we have the nationalization of Chicago politics. Hizzoner mayor Daly would be proud. Obama rewards his friends and punishes his "enemies." Waivers from Obamacare, requirements for bidders on fed. contracts to reveal both company and individual political contributions, the 1099 fiasco. One only has to be a little paranoid to imagine that if you have ever registered in a Republican primary the IRS will be knocking on your door to audit your returns for the last 10 years.

Jimi

"Yes we Can" - pass a Health Care Bill that discriminates against poltiical enemy's

"Change You can Beleive In" - but it doesn't mean you should

"We are the one's we have been waiting for" - to destroy the greatest Health Care system in the world

"HealthCare is a Right, Not a Priviledge" - but only if you vote Democrat

Donald Pay

Your sources have distorted this. The Hill reports the request for waivers are coming from a Republican who administer a flex plan. Pelosi didn't have any input in this. Thanks for pointing out that Obamacare has flexibility and that the administration is willing to work with Republicans and businesses meet local concerns.

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/161673-hhs-pushes-back-as-gop-leaders-slam-health-reform-waivers-in-pelosis-district

Stan Gibilisco

The bill is a mess. I fear it will give us the worst of all worlds. Why can't we get it into our heads that the entire "medical insurance" notion contains fundamental flaws?

None of us will ever leave this world alive! Unless you're lucky enough to get cut down on a golf course during a thunderstorm, you'll likely face a time when you'll be flat-on-your back sick and wondering which lawyer to call first.

I'd like to see an economic feasibility study for a plan that would, by constitutional amendment:

(1) Make it illegal for insurance companies to offer health insurance
(2) Automatically enroll every American citizen in the equivalent of Medicare
(3) Establish a new national retail sales tax to cover the cost
(4) Make it illegal to use the proceeds from the national sales tax for any purpose other than "Medicare for all"

I don't know what the percentage of sales tax would have to be in order to make this work. That's what the economists would have to figure out. Maybe it wouldn't work at all.

But imagine: No more medical insurance premiums. No more worry about this or that or the other policy hangup. No more having to stay in a hateful job for the medical insurance benefits. No more having to worry about what might happen if you relocate. None of that.

One big tack-on to everything you buy, clearly stated on the receipt. What? Twenty percent? An okay tradeoff for the insurance premium savings, and no putting the load on the backs of the workers.

Oh, I can hear it now, talk of death panels and bureaucrats deciding who should get what treatment, what organ, whatever. So be it. Let all the bureaucrats be physicians, and let each person's doctor automatically be among the group that decides. If done right, it would surely be better than what we have now, eh?

No more choosing between destitution and death. Why not look at Sweden, Germany, or some place where people relatively happy with their health care system?

Just thinking, just dreaming this rainy night as a flash flood threatens to make me even more all wet than I am already.

Guess the teabaggers can crucify me now. But -- not until the results of the economic feasibility study, okay? Sooner or later the American people are going to revolt against the current system and demand truly radical change.

Then the nightclub elites will be in exactly the same boat as the recently laid-off South Dakota department-store checkout clerk, or the writer who watches his livelihood ravished by Internet pirates.

Annelie

The HIPAA privacy rule expalins this issue. Every time you see a doctor or a health plan company you are given a statement saying that you have received a copy of the HIPAA rules. If you are hurt on the job an employer has a right to your records. Otherwise no one that you do not authorize has a right to your records. Or your medical information. It is illegal for them to access your information without your authorization.

Alfitri

I am searching for any itnarmofion on what is actually involved in order to be waived, and it seems non existant WHAT are they waiving? Its not clear to me if they are making it mandatory for business's to purchase insurance for their employee's, or indivuduals are supposed to purchase it for themselves through their employers. Forcing people to pay into a for profit parasitic middle man is an ill concieved idea in the first place. It strikes me if its the mandatory purchasing of health insurance for employees, why are they waiving ANY company thats large with deep pockets isn't it supposed to be the small pocket industry's with fewer than 100 employees who need it, not McDonalds and such? Guess I am clueless about this issue to make a judgement one way or the other. Perhaps those of you who are attacking this could explain it better. As to Pelosi getting it for her district, lets see how it washes out, Just because Pelosi is first in line with applications doesn't mean it isn't going to be distributed fairly when all applications are finally processed.

The comments to this entry are closed.