Why Doesn't Obama Use Romney Care as an Example?

[Foxfyre]

Well, I don't know about the cost of insurance for health care in New Mexico....it could be cheap, but for an individual policy for health care in Maine for my husband and I, 2 healthy people, non smokers, taking absolutely no prescription for anything, with a $5000 deductible before the insurance pays for the whole thing, is $25,000 a year...yes A YEAR....in a state where we have some counties with the average male worker only making $18k a year and the average female working only making $16k a year....it is cost prohibitive for the average joe to be able to buy their own health insurance and without a 'group plan' rate and their employer's help....

But when you have a state that is filled with potato and blueberry farmers, fisherman, lobster-men, small ocean side hotel owners waiting for the summer tourists, and Loggers....anywhere from mid state on up....these fields of work do not offer any kind of health care benefits....they just can't afford to....the best company you could work for up here so that you get benefits is a paper-mill or perhaps as a health care worker... and they are jobs hard to come by....

My state only has 2 Insurers, insuring 88% of all the people that have health insurance....it is a Duopoly, with no competition....

And I believe maine went through some health care reform before we moved here...? Sheeeeesh...if what we have here now is health care reform, then I'll sell ya a brooklyn bridge.

In most states, health care costs are cost prohibitive...maybe not yours, but there is a huge problem...one that will send more businesses off shore so that they don't have to supply it anymore....one that will end up bringing companies down, unless they drop the coverage for their employees....then what, all of you will end up having to buy individual policies for the two at $25k a year plus the $5k out of pocket first.....? Only the very wealthiest can afford fees as such....even if the hubby and I were living off of $100k a year gross salaries, we could NOT afford the $25k A YEAR....along with all other expenses.

We have a problem with health care costs and the yearly double digit rise in their costs...states should have addressed this...somehow, (And I don't know the how) imo.

I do understand your dilemma. I really do.

But let's assume the cost of insurance in New Mexico is less expensive than that. (And I believe it is because we don't have as much of a monopoly or duopoly as some states do.) What if you could buy your insurance from a New Mexico company?

What if the Federal government utilized anti-trust laws, which they certainly could legitimately do, and make it legal to buy across state lines everywhere? That alone would bring down the cost of insurance by a large percentage in many states. Why hasn't the Federal government done that? I think it is because they know it would show that there are ways to substantially lower costs without Federal control of the system. They aren't about to do anything at this point that weakens their argument that the feds need to control it.

What if the Federal government would use racketeering laws to initiate tort reform with an option for states to opt out if they wanted to. (I'm guessing no state legislature would have the balls to opt out even if they won't initiate it themselves.) The actual cost of litigation (2%) coupled with doctors and hospitals not having to order so much redundancy and unnecessary tests could bring down costs a whole bunch more. Again, the Federal government doesn't dare do something like that before they have control of the system. They know it might work.

What if the Federal government pushed to allow people to own their own policies that they could take anywhere rather than have the employers own the policies? The employers could still pay all or part of the premium if they wanted to or increase salaries and benefits instead if they wanted to do that? That would eliminate the problem of losing your insurance if you lost your job or changed jobs.

There are so many things that can be done to give us more freedom, more choice, more options, and lower costs before we have to initiate federal control of the healthcare system.

If freedom doesn't solve the problem, THEN they should look at something else. But not before.

Ahh yes tort reform brings freedom from responsibility to the medical community and freedom from legal redress for wrongs for the victims. And all for a single digit percentage savings in health care costs.

Hmmm, I didn't think I wrote anywhere that I think the medical community should be excused from responsibility or that victims should have no legal redress. Perhaps you could cite my exact statement where I said that?