Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The public option will force all others out of business....and then the public option will not be able sustain itself without an increase in premiums...and now we will be paying the same but WITHOUT the choice as all others will be out of business.
If the government has the right to start a cell phone company using tax dollars to get it going...and it offered cell service for 10 a month...all would go into it..and the rest would die.
WHen it is realized that at 10 month, the government is losing way too much money...what will they do?
Increase the cost of service.
And now you are paying the same as you were, but without the choice to change companies.
You need to look long term Rdd
Why will the public option force private insurance out of business. If private companies offer a better/superior product they should have no problems competing. If a government run program, which everyone here is convinced will be so shitty, is able to run every insurance company out of business, what does that say for the quality of what those private companies are offering?
Becuase they will offer lower premiums...and by the time the people realize that lower premiums means less serrvie...they are stuck....why do you think that little clause about..."once you switch, you are can not switch back" was orginally put into it before the whole thing was scrapped? They knew they can win people into it...but not be able to sustain it....
Like I said...you need to think out of the box..think long term.
There isn't enough private charities out there to cover all those "little old ladies" who don't have insurance or wouldn't without medicare.
Then step up and start doing your part.
Please try informing yourself about the insurance industry. There is a widespread effort to move to electronic records management, integration of various applications (blood testing, radiology, etc.) and getting rid of paper.
If you wish to know what each one is doing, go to their websites, buy some stock, read.
I am not against the concept of insurance companies. I'm against government interference in free markets.
Oh so now you're an insurance industry expert too. Just the other day you were touting yourself as a financial expert. You never did tell us about where you got your finance degree from. How about this, tell us where you got ANY degree from? Until then, I don't think you should be trying to portray yourself as some sort of authority on topics you are clearly misinformed about.
If these innovations by insurance companies are so wonderful, how come consumers haven't seen that benefit? Where is that "more care for more people?" I see less and less care for fewer people, for more money. Innovation hard at work!
I worked for a few years at technology company with large amount of business in health care, and am quite familiar with the sector. When I speak on a serious topic, I only discuss what I know to be true - unlike sad sack little basement dwellers such as yourself. And I don't feel any obligation to provide Personal Information to sate your curiosity.
The reasons why consumers aren't benefiting is DC, bub.
Providing a public option is actually the exact opposite of removal of choice. It's adding another choice in to the market. The very thing you seem to be advocating for with your "free market".
No, it's not because as I already pointed out you have private companies competing with a public option who can confiscate money from people without choice, makes the rules for the private companies they are competing with and can shut them down. Choice means choice. Public option is complete lack of choice of those forced to pay for it. Name any other situation anywhere where the one who makes the rules and can change them at any time is a "competitor" in the game.
Who is being forced in to a public option? The whole "option" part implies choice.
No, it's not because as I already pointed out you have private companies competing with a public option who can confiscate money from people without choice, makes the rules for the private companies they are competing with and can shut them down. Choice means choice. Public option is complete lack of choice of those forced to pay for it. Name any other situation anywhere where the one who makes the rules and can change them at any time is a "competitor" in the game.
Who is being forced in to a public option? The whole "option" part implies choice.
Taxpayers are forced to pay.
And if you think government means "choice" then you are hopeless
So tell me...how does a private company make a profit out of taking care of old ladies with cancer?
I believe the same argument the Republicans were making previously about "death panels" is exactly what they are inviting into with Ryancare.
There seems to be a contradiction between providing the care these vulnerable people need and making the profit that comes from not paying for the care these vulnerable people need.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Profits are the way the economy assignes resources to needs. If the amount the economy is willing to dedicate to a product is less than it costs to produce, then that product will not be produced. If there are economic profits, the the economy shifts resources to meet the need until profits reach a rational level.
What the society wants is not what people think it should want. Why Justin Beiber is sucking in cash, and cancer cures can't be produced because their are not the resources to produce them is a problem beyond cure.
So as I said...she CAN afford the 3500...she simply opts the comfort of other desires instead.
Now do you see my point?
You have already been shown that it would be impossible for anyone to get any decent insurance for $3500 a year - I'd like to know where you get this number, anyway ( vs. what one can get through their work which would be 3 or 4 times that on the private market and would probably be crappy insurance not worth the expense) - what's the deductable due before it starts paying, $5K? It would not be cost-effective for ANYONE despite their income - don't you see? And again, any money saved living in Valley Stream would be taken up by extra transportaition cost, as I would be paying twice as much for the LIRR+ the $104 I pay every month for MTA - not to mention the extra hour commute. You just don't get it at all. And no, I don't have a roomate and I don't want one. I'm too old for that crap. I paid my dues in collge and whene I first moved here. I EARNED my own place.
Profits are the way the economy assignes resources to needs. If the amount the economy is willing to dedicate to a product is less than it costs to produce, then that product will not be produced. If there are economic profits, the the economy shifts resources to meet the need until profits reach a rational level.
What the society wants is not what people think it should want. Why Justin Beiber is sucking in cash, and cancer cures can't be produced because their are not the resources to produce them is a problem beyond cure.
Who is being forced in to a public option? The whole "option" part implies choice.
Taxpayers are forced to pay.
And if you think government means "choice" then you are hopeless
Not if they don't want to. Hence....option. Seriously?
Why will the public option force private insurance out of business. If private companies offer a better/superior product they should have no problems competing. If a government run program, which everyone here is convinced will be so shitty, is able to run every insurance company out of business, what does that say for the quality of what those private companies are offering?
Becuase they will offer lower premiums...and by the time the people realize that lower premiums means less serrvie...they are stuck....why do you think that little clause about..."once you switch, you are can not switch back" was orginally put into it before the whole thing was scrapped? They knew they can win people into it...but not be able to sustain it....
Like I said...you need to think out of the box..think long term.
What clause? I hadn't heard of this. I'm genuinely interested. Do you have anywhere I can read about this? Are you sure this isn't dealing with open enrollment periods and avoiding people switching mid year?
Profits are the way the economy assignes resources to needs. If the amount the economy is willing to dedicate to a product is less than it costs to produce, then that product will not be produced. If there are economic profits, the the economy shifts resources to meet the need until profits reach a rational level.
What the society wants is not what people think it should want. Why Justin Beiber is sucking in cash, and cancer cures can't be produced because their are not the resources to produce them is a problem beyond cure.
With essientials like health care, food and energy that rule does not apply.
It does with computers, cars, and shoes though.
Becuase they will offer lower premiums...and by the time the people realize that lower premiums means less serrvie...they are stuck....why do you think that little clause about..."once you switch, you are can not switch back" was orginally put into it before the whole thing was scrapped? They knew they can win people into it...but not be able to sustain it....
Like I said...you need to think out of the box..think long term.
What clause? I hadn't heard of this. I'm genuinely interested. Do you have anywhere I can read about this? Are you sure this isn't dealing with open enrollment periods and avoiding people switching mid year?
The original draft of the public option had a clause in it that siad no one will ever be forced into the public option....but once yuou are in it, you must stay in it.
That was why it was removed....it would not work unless people would be forced to stay in it......and no one was willing to explain the need for that clause...so it was quietly dropped.
So you want a shorter commute (by a matter of minutes) and no roommate....and as a result you can not afford health insurance.
Becuase they will offer lower premiums...and by the time the people realize that lower premiums means less serrvie...they are stuck....why do you think that little clause about..."once you switch, you are can not switch back" was orginally put into it before the whole thing was scrapped? They knew they can win people into it...but not be able to sustain it....
Like I said...you need to think out of the box..think long term.
What clause? I hadn't heard of this. I'm genuinely interested. Do you have anywhere I can read about this? Are you sure this isn't dealing with open enrollment periods and avoiding people switching mid year?
The original draft of the public option had a clause in it that siad no one will ever be forced into the public option....but once yuou are in it, you must stay in it.
That was why it was removed....it would not work unless people would be forced to stay in it......and no one was willing to explain the need for that clause...so it was quietly dropped.
I worked for a few years at technology company with large amount of business in health care, and am quite familiar with the sector. When I speak on a serious topic, I only discuss what I know to be true - unlike sad sack little basement dwellers such as yourself.
The reasons why consumers aren't benefiting is DC, bub.
Please explain your last comment or cease and desist with rash talking points and generalizations.
Obamacare for one, have you heard of it?
Lack of real interstate competition, have you heard of it?
Lack of malpractice reform, have you heard of it?
The coupling of employment with health insurance so that the consumers of health care are not the purchasers of it, have you heard of it?
A company's ability to make profit enables it to make the innovations to provide more care to more people, bub.
A company's ability to make profit enables it to make the innovations to provide more care to more people, bub.
Do you happen to have a list of the Health Insurance Companies list of inovations they have created for the healthcare industry over the years?
