|
On November 11 2009 16:54 vx70GTOJudgexv wrote:
Honestly, I was fairly indifferent about the bill for a while. I realize the American health-care is fucked up. I don't like this particular solution, but so be it. But the thing that irks me about this is that I'm going to be penalized for my own choices.
I choose not to have health insurance on my own accord. I have a fairly strong immune system at this point in my life, any injuries I sustain are small ones (rolled ankles, sprained wrist) that I can self-care for. I see no point in having health insurance, due to the combination of price and myself finding it unnecessary, at this time in my life, and I probably won't until I have a family of my own (which I have no clue if and when that will happen).
Yet the government is deciding that I need to not only help pay for someone else's insurance who can not afford it, but also that I am going to be penalized for making my own decisions about my life.
There goes one of my freedoms.
And for that reason alone, I hope that this does not pass in the Senate.
If you don't have insurance and you get hit by a car, you will still get taken to the emergency room. The county hospital will try its best to fix and patch you up. They will not let you die. After you wake up, you will have a big bill. Without insurance, you probably won't be able to pay it, so in the end you won't pay it. Maybe you'll sign up for some bull shit payment plan where you pay back thirty bucks a month. But the accountability on those are so shitty that it doesn't really matter if you don't pay. So the hospital loses money because it had to save you and you didn't have insurance. Since county hospitals are funded by the government, the government loses money. Well guess what? The government gets that money from taxes, so your accident just cost taxpayer money, when you should have paid for it. Sound fair to everyone else? No.
By requiring insurance, the government will make sure that it doesn't lose money in these scenarios. It is forcing you to buy insurance so that other people won't have to pay for your medical bill through taxes. This will also save county hospitals from losing money every year, and right now, they constantly operate in the negatives.
I think it's a smart move, just like the law requiring car insurance. It makes us individually responsible for our medical expenses, instead of having others pay for it.
Now if you want to argue how people don't pay for medicaid/medicare, well, most of those people are seniors who probably worked when they were younger, and paid their fair share of taxes. Sure, there are people who don't fit that category... but hey, that's the point of welfare.
|
United Kingdom2674 Posts
As Falling pointed out earlier in this thread, socialised healthcare systems function perfectly well in numerous other broadly capitalist, developed, democratic countries. They provide overall better performance at a lower cost than the system currently operating in the United States. It really is only in America that the issue raises the kind of hysteria we see in threads such as this.
|
Why not drive costs down with the free market? isn't the health care market in America colluded by something like 75% Govt control?
|
thank you motbob for staying on topic. i checked your blog and you are doing a fantastic job of looking over the bill.
i agree with you. i think the bill is good because it enforces some accountability for insurance companies. some of those companies are really dirty, and don't provide the coverage they promise they will when they sell you plans. this bill would make it a lot harder for them to withhold claims from deserving people who have paid years and years of premiums, then wound up in the hospital for whatever reason.
as i also mention above, it saves some of the burden that the government has in paying for the medical expenses of the uninsured. it also makes employers more accountable for the health and well being of their employees.
|
On November 11 2009 20:44 ShroomyD wrote:
Why not drive costs down with the free market? isn't the health care market in America colluded by something like 75% Govt control?
Free market would actually be better than the current system. The stranglehold of insurance companies on american healthcare, combined with other factors like malpractice cases (typically American) and american lifestyle driving costs up, has totally ruined the system.
Insurance companies should get much more control from the government (taking everybody regardless of ills, offering treatment for pretty much everything, mandatory insurance) , and more cost control (no unneeded expensive treatment, more preventment instead of curing), to solve this problem, or it should be totally replaced with either 100% free market, which is going to ruin alot of lives, or 100% government, which will bankrupt the state.
|
On November 11 2009 20:44 ShroomyD wrote:
Why not drive costs down with the free market? isn't the health care market in America colluded by something like 75% Govt control?
i'm not sure about that figure, but you need government run hospitals. why? because otherwise poor people wouldn't get health treatment.
private hospitals don't take people without insurance. if everything was free market, only the rich would be able to afford health care. free market also doesn't take into account hidden costs, such as if poor people can't work then they can't participate in the work force, resulting in less labor.
|
Since my attempt to have this thread be a question of IF not SHOULD, I'll throw my thoughts on the "moral" question at issue:
Loosely put, the argument is "Should the United States have some form of socialized medicine." Well, this is not all that specific because there are many different forms. But, judging from the comments on this post, the socialized medicine most TL'ers have in mind is one where the government runs the health-care industry. Some of the things that happen in a government run health-care industry are: (1) no one goes without insurance -- you won't die just because you don't have the $25,000 needed to have surgery (2) government controls prices associated with health-care -- this way corporations won't "exploit" the "poor" workers by charging them to make a "unfair" profit.
The argument put forth for socialized health-care are, basically, (1) it works [[whatever that means]] and//or (2) it is immoral to let a sick person die if they can be (for a "reasonable price" -- government health-care has to limit treatment because, for example, with a billion dollars the government can keep someone in better health than it can with one million, or one-hundred thousdand etc etc.) treated.
Fortunately for me, I'm only interested in socialized health-care if it it is the strongest option.
Is it "wrong" to let someone die if one dollar would heal them? Not if I have other plans for the dollar!
Why?
There is no such thing as a "right" or "wrong" and, thus, letting poor people die, starve, etc. may be "mean" (whatever that means) but it's not "wrong."
Likewise, murder, incest, rape, etc. etc. are not "wrong" either.
The closest thing to "right" is being the strongest. Let's explore this notion:
What is implicit in the "everyone has a right to healthcare" view is a statement like "you wouldn't like that (dying because of an easily treatable disease//injury) if you were poor would you?"
But that is just to say "it sure would suck to be poor!" I don't know of any who disagrees. When someone tells me that I ask, instead, "But if I were rich, i wouldn't want to give my money to those who are poor, unless it makes me stronger!"
The reply is always, "Yes, but just a little bit of your money can save their life!" So what? What do I care for their life? The only reason to save their life is if it increases my power!
Then the reply is, "Yes, but that way of living will get you crushed! Your view of things will lead to the crumbling of society!" Aha! You've just endorsed my point. You are saying that I should want national health-care, or a pity-based morality, because a "might makes right" view leads to my destruction. But that is just to say that I should care about "morality" because if I don't I will be crushed. But that means that your advice to me is simply: do what doesn't get you crushed! That is, you agree that morality's fundamental directive to me is "Be Strong!"
I'd be the first to concede that in human affairs, being strong means working together. But that doesn't mean that a strong society saves the weak. A strong society might kill the weak. It might ship them away. It might use them for experiments. The point here is simply that "strength" is a scientific concept that has to be researched. It could be that a "strong" society won't experiment on it's own members because that would cause it to eventually collapse. Etc. Etc. That's why knowledge, philosophy (the foundation of knowledge), mathematics, physics, biology, chemistry, psychology, sociology, history and political science are so important. In the human world, knowledge is power. But knowledge is always embodied.
The upshot is that this way of approaching morality avoids all the hysterical screeching from weaklings whose only strategy for survival is to make the strong think that strength is evil.
This rant is based on the my reading of Schopenhauer (the attitude of weakness) and Nietzsche (the attitude of strength)
|
I wonder how much healthcare costs would be reduced by if patents on medicines were removed.
|
On November 11 2009 21:22 ShroomyD wrote:I wonder how much healthcare costs would be reduced by if patents on medicines were removed.
Weak idea -- if patents are removed there is no incentive to do research. Right?
|
On November 11 2009 21:22 ShroomyD wrote:I wonder how much healthcare costs would be reduced by if patents on medicines were removed.
you would kill a huge incentive for R&D. the reason why pharmaceutical companies invest so much in discovering new drugs is for profit. without this, drugs would not be discovered as nearly as fast.
|
On November 11 2009 21:20 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:
Is it "wrong" to let someone die if one dollar would heal them? Not if I have other plans for the dollar!
with that line of thinking the labor force gets shot to hell.
so a country spends a lot of money educating and raising citizens from 0-18. then they work for 20 years, die because they can't get health care? you're losing another potential 20 years of work. 18 years invested, gotta milk every dollar!
|
On November 11 2009 21:34 LeoTheLion wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2009 21:20 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:
Is it "wrong" to let someone die if one dollar would heal them? Not if I have other plans for the dollar!
with that line of thinking the labor force gets shot to hell. so a country spends a lot of money educating and raising citizens from 0-18. then they work for 20 years, die because they can't get health care? you're losing another potential 20 years of work. 18 years invested, gotta milk every dollar!
You clearly didn't read my whole post!
|
On November 11 2009 21:25 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2009 21:22 ShroomyD wrote:I wonder how much healthcare costs would be reduced by if patents on medicines were removed. Weak idea -- if patents are removed there is no incentive to do research. Right?
Patents destroy the incentive for innovation~~ monopolies suck right?
|
On November 11 2009 21:57 ShroomyD wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2009 21:25 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On November 11 2009 21:22 ShroomyD wrote:I wonder how much healthcare costs would be reduced by if patents on medicines were removed. Weak idea -- if patents are removed there is no incentive to do research. Right? Patents destroy the incentive for innovation~~ monopolies suck right?
I don't understand what you are arguing. You could be totally right that those companies with patents will charge monopoly prices on their drugs. What I am saying -- and what LeotheLion wrote above -- is that if you don't protect patents you won't have anyone doing drug research at all. I'd choose expensive drugs over no drugs. But if you can show me why researches will invest in the -very- expensive act of creating a drug just so they can watch another company analyze the drug and then sell it without having put capital in the act of research, then I'm all ears to your solution!
|
United Kingdom2674 Posts
On November 11 2009 21:20 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:
The argument put forth for socialized health-care are, basically, (1) it works [[whatever that means]] and//or (2) it is immoral to let a sick person die if they can be (for a "reasonable price" -- government health-care has to limit treatment because, for example, with a billion dollars the government can keep someone in better health than it can with one million, or one-hundred thousdand etc etc.) treated.
Fortunately for me, I'm only interested in socialized health-care if it it is the strongest option.
Is it "wrong" to let someone die if one dollar would heal them? Not if I have other plans for the dollar!
Why?
There is no such thing as a "right" or "wrong" and, thus, letting poor people die, starve, etc. may be "mean" (whatever that means) but it's not "wrong."
Likewise, murder, incest, rape, etc. etc. are not "wrong" either.
The closest thing to "right" is being the strongest. Let's explore this notion:
What is implicit in the "everyone has a right to healthcare" view is a statement like "you wouldn't like that (dying because of an easily treatable disease//injury) if you were poor would you?"
But that is just to say "it sure would suck to be poor!" I don't know of any who disagrees. When someone tells me that I ask, instead, "But if I were rich, i wouldn't want to give my money to those who are poor, unless it makes me stronger!"
The reply is always, "Yes, but just a little bit of your money can save their life!" So what? What do I care for their life? The only reason to save their life is if it increases my power!
Then the reply is, "Yes, but that way of living will get you crushed! Your view of things will lead to the crumbling of society!" Aha! You've just endorsed my point. You are saying that I should want national health-care, or a pity-based morality, because a "might makes right" view leads to my destruction. But that is just to say that I should care about "morality" because if I don't I will be crushed. But that means that your advice to me is simply: do what doesn't get you crushed! That is, you agree that morality's fundamental directive to me is "Be Strong!"
I'd be the first to concede that in human affairs, being strong means working together. But that doesn't mean that a strong society saves the weak. A strong society might kill the weak. It might ship them away. It might use them for experiments. The point here is simply that "strength" is a scientific concept that has to be researched. It could be that a "strong" society won't experiment on it's own members because that would cause it to eventually collapse. Etc. Etc. That's why knowledge, philosophy (the foundation of knowledge), mathematics, physics, biology, chemistry, psychology, sociology, history and political science are so important. In the human world, knowledge is power. But knowledge is always embodied.
The upshot is that this way of approaching morality avoids all the hysterical screeching from weaklings whose only strategy for survival is to make the strong think that strength is evil.
Interesting. It has been quite some time since I have seen someone declare so openly and with such clarity that they are quite simply a deeply unpleasant human being.
|
ya. Ive actually met a few neocons like that IRL too. Its quite sad. Pregnant women get insurance (medicare or something im not exactly sure so dont quote me) when they are pregnant here in Michigan (maybe nationally?) and this bitch had the audacity to complain about that saying why should she have to pay for some pregnant womans health insurance  .
|
On November 11 2009 21:20 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:
Since my attempt to have this thread be a question of IF not SHOULD, I'll throw my thoughts on the "moral" question at issue:
Loosely put, the argument is "Should the United States have some form of socialized medicine." Well, this is not all that specific because there are many different forms. But, judging from the comments on this post, the socialized medicine most TL'ers have in mind is one where the government runs the health-care industry. Some of the things that happen in a government run health-care industry are: (1) no one goes without insurance -- you won't die just because you don't have the $25,000 needed to have surgery (2) government controls prices associated with health-care -- this way corporations won't "exploit" the "poor" workers by charging them to make a "unfair" profit.
The argument put forth for socialized health-care are, basically, (1) it works [[whatever that means]] and//or (2) it is immoral to let a sick person die if they can be (for a "reasonable price" -- government health-care has to limit treatment because, for example, with a billion dollars the government can keep someone in better health than it can with one million, or one-hundred thousdand etc etc.) treated.
Fortunately for me, I'm only interested in socialized health-care if it it is the strongest option.
Is it "wrong" to let someone die if one dollar would heal them? Not if I have other plans for the dollar!
Why?
There is no such thing as a "right" or "wrong" and, thus, letting poor people die, starve, etc. may be "mean" (whatever that means) but it's not "wrong."
Likewise, murder, incest, rape, etc. etc. are not "wrong" either.
The closest thing to "right" is being the strongest. Let's explore this notion:
What is implicit in the "everyone has a right to healthcare" view is a statement like "you wouldn't like that (dying because of an easily treatable disease//injury) if you were poor would you?"
But that is just to say "it sure would suck to be poor!" I don't know of any who disagrees. When someone tells me that I ask, instead, "But if I were rich, i wouldn't want to give my money to those who are poor, unless it makes me stronger!"
The reply is always, "Yes, but just a little bit of your money can save their life!" So what? What do I care for their life? The only reason to save their life is if it increases my power!
Then the reply is, "Yes, but that way of living will get you crushed! Your view of things will lead to the crumbling of society!" Aha! You've just endorsed my point. You are saying that I should want national health-care, or a pity-based morality, because a "might makes right" view leads to my destruction. But that is just to say that I should care about "morality" because if I don't I will be crushed. But that means that your advice to me is simply: do what doesn't get you crushed! That is, you agree that morality's fundamental directive to me is "Be Strong!"
I'd be the first to concede that in human affairs, being strong means working together. But that doesn't mean that a strong society saves the weak. A strong society might kill the weak. It might ship them away. It might use them for experiments. The point here is simply that "strength" is a scientific concept that has to be researched. It could be that a "strong" society won't experiment on it's own members because that would cause it to eventually collapse. Etc. Etc. That's why knowledge, philosophy (the foundation of knowledge), mathematics, physics, biology, chemistry, psychology, sociology, history and political science are so important. In the human world, knowledge is power. But knowledge is always embodied.
The upshot is that this way of approaching morality avoids all the hysterical screeching from weaklings whose only strategy for survival is to make the strong think that strength is evil.
This rant is based on the my reading of Schopenhauer (the attitude of weakness) and Nietzsche (the attitude of strength)
Unfortunately for you we live in Reality and not Rapture. Acording to your post you´d hate this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights
According to this People DO have the right to be feed, clothed, housed etc..., to be exact:
“everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of oneself and one’s family, including food, clothing, housing, and medical care.”
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act has been criticized by the American College of Emergency Physicians as an unfunded mandate.
This doesn´t mandate "Socialism" directly but the United States don´t provide adequate Healthcare for all it´s citizens. At LEAST the uninshured (and a lot that pay money to Insurers) only have access to Emergency Rooms.
Emergency rooms are NOT adquate. Emergency rooms are for Emergencys.
|
On November 11 2009 22:40 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2009 21:20 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:
The argument put forth for socialized health-care are, basically, (1) it works [[whatever that means]] and//or (2) it is immoral to let a sick person die if they can be (for a "reasonable price" -- government health-care has to limit treatment because, for example, with a billion dollars the government can keep someone in better health than it can with one million, or one-hundred thousdand etc etc.) treated.
Fortunately for me, I'm only interested in socialized health-care if it it is the strongest option.
Is it "wrong" to let someone die if one dollar would heal them? Not if I have other plans for the dollar!
Why?
There is no such thing as a "right" or "wrong" and, thus, letting poor people die, starve, etc. may be "mean" (whatever that means) but it's not "wrong."
Likewise, murder, incest, rape, etc. etc. are not "wrong" either.
The closest thing to "right" is being the strongest. Let's explore this notion:
What is implicit in the "everyone has a right to healthcare" view is a statement like "you wouldn't like that (dying because of an easily treatable disease//injury) if you were poor would you?"
But that is just to say "it sure would suck to be poor!" I don't know of any who disagrees. When someone tells me that I ask, instead, "But if I were rich, i wouldn't want to give my money to those who are poor, unless it makes me stronger!"
The reply is always, "Yes, but just a little bit of your money can save their life!" So what? What do I care for their life? The only reason to save their life is if it increases my power!
Then the reply is, "Yes, but that way of living will get you crushed! Your view of things will lead to the crumbling of society!" Aha! You've just endorsed my point. You are saying that I should want national health-care, or a pity-based morality, because a "might makes right" view leads to my destruction. But that is just to say that I should care about "morality" because if I don't I will be crushed. But that means that your advice to me is simply: do what doesn't get you crushed! That is, you agree that morality's fundamental directive to me is "Be Strong!"
I'd be the first to concede that in human affairs, being strong means working together. But that doesn't mean that a strong society saves the weak. A strong society might kill the weak. It might ship them away. It might use them for experiments. The point here is simply that "strength" is a scientific concept that has to be researched. It could be that a "strong" society won't experiment on it's own members because that would cause it to eventually collapse. Etc. Etc. That's why knowledge, philosophy (the foundation of knowledge), mathematics, physics, biology, chemistry, psychology, sociology, history and political science are so important. In the human world, knowledge is power. But knowledge is always embodied.
The upshot is that this way of approaching morality avoids all the hysterical screeching from weaklings whose only strategy for survival is to make the strong think that strength is evil.
Interesting. It has been quite some time since I have seen someone declare so openly and with such clarity that they are quite simply a deeply unpleasant human being.
"Booo! Hiss!" To you too!
|
On November 11 2009 23:12 Unentschieden wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2009 21:20 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:
Since my attempt to have this thread be a question of IF not SHOULD, I'll throw my thoughts on the "moral" question at issue:
Loosely put, the argument is "Should the United States have some form of socialized medicine." Well, this is not all that specific because there are many different forms. But, judging from the comments on this post, the socialized medicine most TL'ers have in mind is one where the government runs the health-care industry. Some of the things that happen in a government run health-care industry are: (1) no one goes without insurance -- you won't die just because you don't have the $25,000 needed to have surgery (2) government controls prices associated with health-care -- this way corporations won't "exploit" the "poor" workers by charging them to make a "unfair" profit.
The argument put forth for socialized health-care are, basically, (1) it works [[whatever that means]] and//or (2) it is immoral to let a sick person die if they can be (for a "reasonable price" -- government health-care has to limit treatment because, for example, with a billion dollars the government can keep someone in better health than it can with one million, or one-hundred thousdand etc etc.) treated.
Fortunately for me, I'm only interested in socialized health-care if it it is the strongest option.
Is it "wrong" to let someone die if one dollar would heal them? Not if I have other plans for the dollar!
Why?
There is no such thing as a "right" or "wrong" and, thus, letting poor people die, starve, etc. may be "mean" (whatever that means) but it's not "wrong."
Likewise, murder, incest, rape, etc. etc. are not "wrong" either.
The closest thing to "right" is being the strongest. Let's explore this notion:
What is implicit in the "everyone has a right to healthcare" view is a statement like "you wouldn't like that (dying because of an easily treatable disease//injury) if you were poor would you?"
But that is just to say "it sure would suck to be poor!" I don't know of any who disagrees. When someone tells me that I ask, instead, "But if I were rich, i wouldn't want to give my money to those who are poor, unless it makes me stronger!"
The reply is always, "Yes, but just a little bit of your money can save their life!" So what? What do I care for their life? The only reason to save their life is if it increases my power!
Then the reply is, "Yes, but that way of living will get you crushed! Your view of things will lead to the crumbling of society!" Aha! You've just endorsed my point. You are saying that I should want national health-care, or a pity-based morality, because a "might makes right" view leads to my destruction. But that is just to say that I should care about "morality" because if I don't I will be crushed. But that means that your advice to me is simply: do what doesn't get you crushed! That is, you agree that morality's fundamental directive to me is "Be Strong!"
I'd be the first to concede that in human affairs, being strong means working together. But that doesn't mean that a strong society saves the weak. A strong society might kill the weak. It might ship them away. It might use them for experiments. The point here is simply that "strength" is a scientific concept that has to be researched. It could be that a "strong" society won't experiment on it's own members because that would cause it to eventually collapse. Etc. Etc. That's why knowledge, philosophy (the foundation of knowledge), mathematics, physics, biology, chemistry, psychology, sociology, history and political science are so important. In the human world, knowledge is power. But knowledge is always embodied.
The upshot is that this way of approaching morality avoids all the hysterical screeching from weaklings whose only strategy for survival is to make the strong think that strength is evil.
This rant is based on the my reading of Schopenhauer (the attitude of weakness) and Nietzsche (the attitude of strength)
Unfortunately for you we live in Reality and not Rapture. Acording to your post you´d hate this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rightsAccording to this People DO have the right to be feed, clothed, housed etc..., to be exact: “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of oneself and one’s family, including food, clothing, housing, and medical care.” The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act has been criticized by the American College of Emergency Physicians as an unfunded mandate. This doesn´t mandate "Socialism" directly but the United States don´t provide adequate Healthcare for all it´s citizens. At LEAST the uninshured (and a lot that pay money to Insurers) only have access to Emergency Rooms. Emergency rooms are NOT adquate. Emergency rooms are for Emergencys.
Why am I quoted in your human-rights rant? I don't get it.
|
On November 11 2009 15:43 Tyraz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2009 04:31 Undisputed- wrote:On November 10 2009 04:27 agorist wrote:
Nobody is mentioning how the bill forces all Americans to acquire a government-approved insurance plan. Most of these options are private. Those who don't are fined.
Does nobody give a shit that the government is FORCING you to BUY something? Double edged sword I guess, if you don't have health insurance and get injured badly. They can't just turn you away. Who pays for that? Wrong. If you don't have the cash they CAN turn you away. Show nested quote +On November 11 2009 02:51 Undisputed- wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
"The new House bill, H.R. 3962, builds on its predecessor from July in increasing the financial burden on low-income and moderate-income Americans.
The Individual Mandate. Like the earlier version, this bill requires the uninsured to pay an extra income tax — 2.5% of adjusted gross income above the filing threshold, capped at the national average premium. Paying that tax wouldn’t “buy” anything; those paying this tax would remain uninsured. However, in a bid to decrease the government’s costs, this bill contains higher premiums that low- and moderate-income individuals and families would have to pay for health coverage to avoid the tax. Those premiums would increase rapidly with income, amounting to an additional tax on those with incomes below 4 times the federal poverty level (equivalent to about $88,000 per year for a family of four) ranging from 1.5% to 12%. This tax on low and moderate income Americans would be in addition to a “surtax” on higher incomes ranging up to 5.4%.
The Employer Mandate. The bill imposes a new 8% payroll tax on employers who don’t cover specified percentages of their employees’ health insurance. Employers would have to get the money to pay the tax from someplace, and much of it would come from cutting wages or other benefits. This tax would also not go to pay for any coverage; the bill specifically says that the tax paid by the employer “shall not be applied against the premium of the employee.” Furthermore, since this tax would be lower than the cost of providing health care, especially for low-income workers, this would reduce the incomes of those most likely to be uninsured, or cause them to lose their coverage.
Furthermore, health plans would have to meet new requirements to be specified later by the new “Health Choices Commissioner.” If your employer’s health plan doesn’t meet those requirements, you couldn’t keep it – employers would have five years to bring their plans into compliance. The Commissioner could require coverage of services people don’t want (increasing premiums), and then in the name of “cost containment” prohibit plans from covering services people want but that the Commissioner doesn’t want.
The bottom line is: Almost everybody will pay more, and a new appointed bureaucrat will make your health care choices for you."
heritage.org
Aegraen... is that.. you?
Nope they really can't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
