Auto insurance is important because you are using others property to drive with said vehicle. That being said I fully support laws (like in TX) that allow folks to prove financial responsibility and not be required to buy auto insurance. And no one is required to buy home insurance. If a private entity like a bank requires that as part of a business transaction so be it, its not the government's role to interfere.Originally Posted by Being
Which is different if there's a public option how?
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
The cost is spread out across a larger segment of the population than it is now.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Not quite what the OP said. Escalating costs are a problem for everyone, but especially employers. If we had a public option, we might get rid of the employer mandate, and users would be responsible for comparison shopping. That would get providers competing, making their prices public, reducing costs.
Loki, providers make deals with insurance companies for what they charge. The bigger the company and the larger their enrollment, the better the deal. They don't share prices because they bill at different rates. The highest prices are paid by individual policy holders, unless they can negotiate for "cash discounts". Co-pays aren't the same as deductibles---a major medical policy means paying 20% OOP, 80% paid by insurance.
Is public option government owned insurance? If so, I don't really support that.
Anyway, differences are that everybody pays premiums for it (with exceptions for the really poor I suppose), instead of a lot of people paying premiums and everybody paying taxes on top of that. Also if people have health insurance and get treated earlier it is often less expensive , plus they get less sick in the first place.
But yeah, basically you already have a public option, just a really crap one and expensive one.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Who will be paying that is not paying now?
Looking at GGT's OP, yes, Public Option is meant to be government-operated insurance.
My main objection is that GGT thinks "just have the government do it" is a panacea. She seems to constantly be seeking to perform some unknowing financial slight of hand by which changing the entity directly paying for the health care means that it has ceased to be an issue. She started this thread talking about what an anchor health care is on employers, but her proposal is just to have the responsibility and bill go to the government. She can't make the connection that the government is just another middle-man. Its money is just gathered from the people under it, so those employers she wants to help? They're still paying for it, they're just paying with more taxes. The people who are presently uninsured, who have been priced out of the system? They'll still paying for those prices, they'll just be doing it through the IRS.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Several million who currently don't have any coverage at all, or are priced out of the insurance market.
You managed to make a lot of assumptions about my post and its questions.Looking at GGT's OP, yes, Public Option is meant to be government-operated insurance.
My main objection is that GGT thinks "just have the government do it" is a panacea. ...snip...
If you disagree just say so, then state your preference for something else that might work. Do you have an opinion of your own, or just criticism of others?
The irony...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote