i propose the following bill to replace Obamacare

[basquebromance]

"There shall be a free market in health insurance."

the end.

 

[beagle9]

"There shall be a free market in health insurance."

the end.

. Free markets yes, but with regulations that keep it from raping and pillaging this nations coffers, citizens, and our elderly. Free markets without buffers to keep checks and balances on the system is a one sided affair. Now when we talk regulations, we are talking proper regulations, and not government over reach.

 

[heil hitler]

Free markets yes, but with regulations that keep it from raping and pillaging this nations coffers, citizens, and our elderly.

Sir, I can only guess from your avatar that you are from the great generation. Sir. I must inform you that in a TRUE free market there is no government intervention. Free markets are as their name insinuates, free of any intervention. Likewise, I feel that in a truly free market you would receive the most equitable of care. Sadly, those things have long since died.

 

[emilynghiem]

"There shall be a free market in health insurance."

the end.

Dear basquebromance
What do you think of the idea of taking the two plans
and giving taxpayers a CHOICE of which to fund and be under?

Plan A - ACA as is, as shifted to the responsibility of the Congress/party members who voted for this.

Let the SUPPORTERS who vote and want this be responsible for
amending, funding, managing it and being under it and policing it for the members who want singlepayer through
a national centralized program.

Plan B - Replacement plan, where all the Congress/party members voting for this
are responsible for the costs/implementation and management etc.

Plan C - Free market choice of either of the above, or paying and
proving health care through other choices of nonprofits, businesses, etc.

As soon as people are held responsible for which bill/plan they advocate,
maybe we'll see some accountability for costs and mgmt!!!

 

[debbiedowner]

Free market = free of state regulation's, whoopee, then if the state did not require insurance companies to put so much monies in reserve in case they went belly up and the policy holder get their claims paid would be just great, would it not? I bet you never want it to come to that because crooked insurance companies, life, health and p & c could take your money all day long, not pay your claims and disappear.

 

[Political Junky]

Single payer .. Medicare for all is he answer.

 

[beagle9]

Free markets yes, but with regulations that keep it from raping and pillaging this nations coffers, citizens, and our elderly.

Sir, I can only guess from your avatar that you are from the great generation. Sir. I must inform you that in a TRUE free market there is no government intervention. Free markets are as their name insinuates, free of any intervention. Likewise, I feel that in a truly free market you would receive the most equitable of care. Sadly, those things have long since died.

. We have had to have government intervention in some institutions over the years because of abuses that were running rampant inside of some institutions. OSHA was one good example of that government intervention. Where there is abuse comes the government next as a representative of the citizens.

 

[beagle9]

Single payer .. Medicare for all is he answer.

. Could very well be.

 

[Cellblock2429]

"There shall be a free market in health insurance."

the end.

/---- all other insurance is free market

 

[debbiedowner]

If you're talking free market without regulation you are wrong, they are all regulated.

As far as Obamacare is concerned you are not buying a government plan you are buying a plan from an insurance company.

 

[beagle9]

If you're talking free market without regulation you are wrong, they are all regulated.

As far as Obamacare is concerned you are not buying a government plan you are buying a plan from an insurance company.

. And the plans aren't worth the paper they are written on. How many are paying the dam tax/penalty ? These people don't have any insurance coverage, and most of them are family members who can't be covered by their spouses employer provided plan, because it is unaffordable. Then the plans don't cover top care when needed, and that to me represents death panels. My co-worker purchased ACA for his wife, and when she tried to use it at the specialist that would best suit her needs and conditions, the plan wouldn't recognize the specialist nor would the specialist accept the plan. They dropped the ACA, and began paying the penalty. They ended up paying out of his pocket for some temporary shots to her back, yet they were not a fix in the situation. Like I said, how many are not covered, and are paying the dam penalty ?

 

[Cellblock2429]

If you're talking free market without regulation you are wrong, they are all regulated.

As far as Obamacare is concerned you are not buying a government plan you are buying a plan from an insurance company.

/--- I never said no regulations of course they are you imbecile and Obozocare restricted competition

 

[Marion Morrison]

"There shall be a free market in health insurance."

the end.

That can't be done at this point because insurance lobbyists and corrupt government officials have pyramided this thing for 20 years plus.

It can only be fixed in 5-6 steps in order to soften the shock to the system.

 

[dblack]

"There shall be a free market in health insurance."

the end.

Now when we talk regulations, we are talking proper regulations, and not government over reach.

Are we? We can all agree, I assume, that there should be laws against fraud, theft, coercion, etc... But let's be clear, those kinds of laws aren't the issue when we debate 'regulation'. The problem comes in when you want to move beyond protecting basic rights, and allow government to mandate behavior in the name of the 'social good'. That's dangerous shit. The 'social good' is basically whatever the majority decides it is - and I simply don't trust the majority to look after my best interests.

Let's keep government constrained to the role of referee, and keep them out of the coaching business.

 

[beagle9]

"There shall be a free market in health insurance."

the end.

Now when we talk regulations, we are talking proper regulations, and not government over reach.

Are we? We can all agree, I assume, that there should be laws against fraud, theft, coercion, etc... But let's be clear, those kinds of laws aren't the issue when we debate 'regulation'. The problem comes in when you want to move beyond protecting basic rights, and allow government to mandate behavior in the name of the 'social good'. That's dangerous shit. The 'social good' is basically whatever the majority decides it is - and I simply don't trust the majority to look after my best interests.

Let's keep government constrained to the role of referee, and keep them out of the coaching business.

. If they are to be a refferee, then sooner or later they are going to call a foul or strike when they see one. Yes government should be constrained, and not allowed to over reach, but someone has to make the judgement calls in representation of the citizens be it here or there or we become lawless which is where we were for the last 30 years.

 

[dblack]

"There shall be a free market in health insurance."

the end.

Now when we talk regulations, we are talking proper regulations, and not government over reach.

Are we? We can all agree, I assume, that there should be laws against fraud, theft, coercion, etc... But let's be clear, those kinds of laws aren't the issue when we debate 'regulation'. The problem comes in when you want to move beyond protecting basic rights, and allow government to mandate behavior in the name of the 'social good'. That's dangerous shit. The 'social good' is basically whatever the majority decides it is - and I simply don't trust the majority to look after my best interests.

Let's keep government constrained to the role of referee, and keep them out of the coaching business.

. If they are to be a refferee, then sooner or later they are going to call a foul or strike when they see one. Yes government should be constrained, and not allowed to over reach, but someone has to make the judgement calls in representation of the citizens be it here or there or we become lawless which is where we were for the last 30 years.

Well, I've been clear I don't want lawlessness. I just don't want the law to be a vehicle for bullies, whether those bullies represent the citizens or not.

 

[basquebromance]

U know why government expands & freedom diminishes?

Cuz it's easy to give people benefits. Its impossible to take them away.

See Obamacare

 

[debbiedowner]

If you're talking free market without regulation you are wrong, they are all regulated.

As far as Obamacare is concerned you are not buying a government plan you are buying a plan from an insurance company.

. And the plans aren't worth the paper they are written on. How many are paying the dam tax/penalty ? These people don't have any insurance coverage, and most of them are family members who can't be covered by their spouses employer provided plan, because it is unaffordable. Then the plans don't cover top care when needed, and that to me represents death panels. My co-worker purchased ACA for his wife, and when she tried to use it at the specialist that would best suit her needs and conditions, the plan wouldn't recognize the specialist nor would the specialist accept the plan. They dropped the ACA, and began paying the penalty. They ended up paying out of his pocket for some temporary shots to her back, yet they were not a fix in the situation. Like I said, how many are not covered, and are paying the dam penalty ?

Well this is where stupid comes into play, when they didn't check the network before purchasing. Probably went to the website all my their lonesome and not through a qualified insurance agent that could have suggested a plan that their provider's were in network. They blame obamacare when in fact they could have one hell of a good plan after some research.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Just do the Nixon\Kennedy plan and move on...

We're going to have single payer one day no matter my objections so let do what Nixon wanted instead...

 

[beagle9]

U know why government expands & freedom diminishes?

Cuz it's easy to give people benefits. Its impossible to take them away.

See Obamacare

. Before benefits are given, there should be a vote by the citizens to agree or disagree on such matters always.