Onyx - Not to everyone. We only give it to a few people.
Back from the dead, I'm afraid.
| mrstickball said: Onyx - Not to everyone. We only give it to a few people. |
Don't we give them to those that are unable/unwilling to be able to afford them though? I know we try to do something like that with healthcare, but it's not implemented nearly as well as the others. I think the thing is, should anyone really have to walk into an ER and have to shell out $5000 for a one night's stay to pay for what has been proven to be overpriced care and equipment used? Should jobs be able to hire full time workers and not offer benefits or enough pay to afford your own? This bill needs work, but our current system needs work far more. If it's between this bill and what we have available now, I choose the bill. I hope for a third option though.
Tag: Became a freaking mod and a complete douche, coincidentally, at the same time.
I agree Onyx.
I would personally like to see a single payer system be placed here in the US, bit I doubt it will happen.
I think Obama is trying to find a good in-between with this bill.
We'll miss you George.
PSN:Puzzleface
XBL:XpuzzlefaceX
My friends call me Hadoken because I'm down-right fierce
Honestly thinking about it.
The best way to fix healthcare would be to do three things.
1) Put in price controls. Not as much as other countries... as to not stop research and halt medical progress... but enough to cheapen stuff.
2) Give those who develop preexisting conditions before a certain age Medicare.
3) Make it impossible for insurence agencies to drop people.
That fixes about everything. Not everyone will get health coverage beceause not everyone WANTS it (until they get sick) but it's the fairest way to do it.
Better then an expensive crappy medical insurance plan like this one anyway... one of the people in opposition of this plan tried to get an ammenedment passed that everyone in government including the president and congress should use this plan.
Congress didn't want that. So i can't imagine the healthcare provided by this will be very good.
| Kasz216 said: Honestly thinking about it.
Better then an expensive crappy medical insurance plan like this one anyway... one of the people in opposition of this plan tried to get an ammenedment passed that everyone in government including the president and congress should use this plan. Congress didn't want that. So i can't imagine the healthcare provided by this will be very good. |
They are doing a good deal of #1, at least in terms of allowing Medicare and other government run programs to have more flexibility in what they will and won't pay for. And a public option would be a price control on private insurance companies.
#2 kind of falls over into the realm of what social security disability already does. And it would be a bureaucratic nightmare to make some of these determinations rather than just have you get coverage at a certain age. A simpler solution would just be to give insurance companies less ability to price discriminate based on your individual medical history.
#3 is definitely a good thing, and this is something that Congress is trying to implement. A lot of states have already done it.
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls. The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke
It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...." Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson
akuma587 said:
They are doing a good deal of #1, at least in terms of allowing Medicare and other government run programs to have more flexibility in what they will and won't pay for. And a public option would be a price control on private insurance companies. #2 kind of falls over into the realm of what social security disability already does. And it would be a bureaucratic nightmare to make some of these determinations rather than just have you get coverage at a certain age. A simpler solution would just be to give insurance companies less ability to price discriminate based on your individual medical history. #3 is definitely a good thing, and this is something that Congress is trying to implement. A lot of states have already done it. |
1) That's not what everyone on Capital hill says. Afterall that's a big reason why nobody wants to pass it. The system is modeled after the Massachuses Healthcare plan... which is currently falling apart... proving to be hugely expensive and only benefiting insurance companies.
2) There is a problem with making it so insurance companies can't price discriminate.
I thought that was possible until I ran into Dental Insurance.
I wanted to pick up Dental insurance since i grind my teeth in my sleep. However what they do with Dental insurance is you pay today... and they provide insurance a 6-motns to a year from now. They delay coverage like that because they couldn't survive otherwise.
Basically because people get cavaties... then they buy Dental insruance for a month or two. Get the surgery done and cancel.
3) Indeed that should be country wide.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
