|
||
(1) National health care will punish the insurance companies. |
||
You want to punish insurance companies? Make them compete.
As Adam Smith observed, whenever two businessmen meet, "the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." That's why we need a third, fourth and 45th competing insurance company that will undercut them by offering better service at a lower price.
Tiny little France and Germany have more competition among health insurers than the U.S. does right now. Amazingly, both of these socialist countries have less state regulation of health insurance than we do, and you can buy health insurance across regional lines -- unlike in the U.S., where a federal law allows states to ban interstate commerce in health insurance.
U.S. health insurance companies are often imperious, unresponsive consumer hellholes because they're a partial monopoly, protected from competition by government regulation. In some states, one big insurer will control 80 percent of the market. (Guess which party these big insurance companies favor? Big companies love big government.)
Liberals think they can improve the problem of a partial monopoly by turning it into a total monopoly. That's what single-payer health care is: "Single payer" means "single provider."
It's the famous liberal two-step: First screw something up, then claim that it's screwed up because there's not enough government oversight (it's the free market run wild!), and then step in and really screw it up in the name of "reform."
You could fix 90 percent of the problems with health insurance by ending the federal law allowing states to ban health insurance sales across state lines. But when John McCain called for ending the ban during the 2008 presidential campaign, he was attacked by Joe Biden -- another illustration of the ironclad Ann Coulter rule that the worst Republicans are still better than allegedly "conservative" Democrats.
(2) National health care will "increase competition and keep insurance companies honest" -- as President Barack Obama has said.
Government-provided health care isn't a competitor; it's a monopoly product paid for by the taxpayer. Consumers may be able to "choose" whether they take the service -- at least at first -- but every single one of us will be forced to buy it, under penalty of prison for tax evasion. It's like a new cable plan with a "yes" box, but no "no" box.
Obama himself compared national health care to the post office -- immediately conjuring images of a highly efficient and consumer-friendly work force -- which, like so many consumer-friendly shops, is closed by 2 p.m. on Saturdays, all Sundays and every conceivable holiday.
But what most people don't know -- including the president, apparently -- with certain narrow exceptions, competing with the post office is prohibited by law.
Expect the same with national health care. Liberals won't stop until they have total control. How else will they get you to pay for their sex-change operations?
(3) Insurance companies are denying legitimate claims because they are "villains."
Obama denounced the insurance companies in last Sunday's New York Times, saying: "A man lost his health coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because the insurance company discovered that he had gallstones, which he hadn't known about when he applied for his policy. Because his treatment was delayed, he died."
Well, yeah. That and the cancer.
Assuming this is true -- which would distinguish it from every other story told by Democrats pushing national health care -- in a free market, such an insurance company couldn't stay in business. Other insurance companies would scream from the rooftops about their competitor's shoddy business practices, and customers would leave in droves.
If only customers had a choice! But we don't because of government regulation of health insurance.
Speaking of which, maybe if Mr. Gallstone's insurance company weren't required by law to cover early childhood development programs and sex-change operations, it wouldn't be forced to cut corners in the few areas not regulated by the government, such as cancer treatments for patients with gallstones.
(4) National health care will give Americans "basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable" -- as Barack Obama claimed in his op/ed in the Times.
You want to protect consumers? Do it the same way we protect consumers of dry cleaning, hamburgers and electricians: Give them the power to tell their insurance companies, "I'm taking my business elsewhere."
(5) Government intervention is the only way to provide coverage for pre-existing conditions.
The only reason most "pre-existing" conditions aren't already covered is because of government regulations that shrink the insurance market to a microscopic size, which leads to fewer options in health insurance and a lot more uninsured people than would exist in a free market.
The free market has produced a dizzying array of insurance products in areas other than health. (Ironically, array-associated dizziness is not covered by most health plans.) Even insurance companies have "reinsurance" policies to cover catastrophic events occurring on the properties they insure, such as nuclear accidents, earthquakes and Michael Moore dropping in for a visit and breaking the couch.
If we had a free market in health insurance, it would be inexpensive and easy to buy insurance for "pre-existing" conditions before they exist, for example, insurance on unborn -- unconceived -- children and health insurance even when you don't have a job. The vast majority of "pre-existing" conditions that currently exist in a cramped, limited, heavily regulated insurance market would be "covered" conditions under a free market in health insurance.
I've hit my word limit on liberal lies about national health care without breaking a sweat. See this space next week for more lies in our continuing series.
You didn't read the article, or have trouble comprehending the english language.
The reason you have had the problems you've had is because thanks to the government, the insurance companies have a monopoly. Other insurance carriers cannot go into another state to offer competition.
The government Healthcare plan would make it worse in that the problem would be the same, plus the government would dictate what they would, or would not have to cover.
It's obvious from this post why you are so adamantly for a plan that would screw everybody else (young and old ) to make your own situation better. Typical democratic thinking. The politicians do it for more votes.
"Liberals think they can improve the problem of a partial monopoly by turning it into a total monopoly. That's what single-payer health care is: "Single payer" means "single provider."
It's the famous liberal two-step: First screw something up, then claim that it's screwed up because there's not enough government oversight (it's the free market run wild!), and then step in and really screw it up in the name of "reform."
You could fix 90 percent of the problems with health insurance by ending the federal law allowing states to ban health insurance sales across state lines. But when John McCain called for ending the ban during the 2008 presidential campaign, he was attacked by Joe Biden -- another illustration of the ironclad Ann Coulter rule that the worst Republicans are still better than allegedly "conservative" Democrats."
Just remember, what ever you ask for from the government now, if you have kids they and their kids will be screwed just as bad, and probably worse.
Speaking of kids, I have a visual of you with one of those 4 seater baby buggies full of rug rats, and one in the hopper. I figure you are probably illegal, and your husband isn't listed as living with you. If he works, he doesn't get HC. You are collecting ADC Plus welfare so you can't buy insurance either. This is why you can't, or don't want to grasp that whatever the dumbocrats have in mind will be more detrimental to you and your family than not having any insurance.
Just for kicks, try doing for yourself for a change instead of relying on the government to do it for you.
It really isn't rocket science. Just avoid the crap that the fast food industry pushes, buy organic which includes personal, and household products that are not loaded with chemicals. Refuse to take any drugs, including cold medicine, and tylenol, etc. Instead, use colloidal silver, and practice EFT. Stay away from soda pop, and other drinks laced with Aspertame. Have your root canals removed, and amalgam fillings replaced with composit.
Doing this will cut your need to see a doctor by 95%. The other 5% can be fixed at the local hospital where they can't refuse you treatment. Of course you may have to wait for hours, but that will be a preview to what you would have gotten from a government run healthcare plan. Well, if like Canada, you might have to wait months. That is if you're not over 50, or under 15. Otherwise kiss your A$$ goodby according to what NoBama plans to do.
Oh, I forgot to mention daily exercise.
Well, I said a visual, and it was based on what you say.
Sorry to hear your husband has MS. I might know of something that will help, I don't know.
A week or so ago I was watching the local PBS station and there was a movie in progress called "Eating", by Mike Anderson. He also wrote books, one of which is called the "RAVE" Diet.
I liked what I did see of the movie, so I bought the DVD, and the book at Amazon.com http://url2it.com/bcag
I just started the book so I can't comment on it, but the video makes some statements about diet in relation to many health problems including MS that might make it worth your while to purchase it. It is only $10, and the Book is $16 for the 3rd edition.
At approximately 54:42 of the time line of the DVD they say that MS patients who were blind from it reversed it to be able to see. Others that were so debilitated they couldn't move were completely healed.
A lot of people are going to be put off by the fact that this diet is 100% plant based. No meat, no dairy, no eggs, but if I had a debilitating disease, I would give up whatever it took to cure it. This wouldn't bother me as I have been a lacto Ovo vegitarian since the 60's.
Check it out. It also deals with just about every disease you can think of.
However, my husband, despite our "clean living and good food" was diagnosed with MS.
In my opinion, MS should be categorized within emotional and energetic diseases. I am not a doctor. An example might be when an individual doesn't deal with emotions appropriately then the body manifests it physically. Explained more specifically, I suspect when the individual suppresses emotions it can be manifested physically in the body. This is just an opinion from a conservative right winger.