I agree, but this isn't taxation in the normal sense of the word.
It's essentially the same sort that forces you to have coverage on your automobile to keep me from having to carry you if you're in an accident.
What will this "protection" do for us?
Provide health care and lower costs associated with millions forced to seek uninsured care at emergency rooms across the country, diminish disease and suffering and death...that sort of thing.
Here's one thing I rather suspect will be provided: required testing for Ds in utero. Why?
Unsupported by anything other than your ire and suspicion. It just isn't reasonable or in any bill before Congress. You could make the same argument for insurance companies who, unlike the government, have a vested interest in the lowest expenditure possible. They're here to make money, right?
Don't go trying to tell me, either, that the government has the capacity to care about the plight of these infants in the womb or to count life as more important than dollars
I don't need to. You just did...and it's true, but only to the extent we can change American attitudes about certain, limited uses for abortion.
Why wouldn't it?
What does it mean - "adequately counseled?"
I don't know. I'd bet they have an established criteria though.
And do these women desire information on the day-to-day life with a child with Ds, or are they just interested in killing that child?
It would depend on the woman and her character, don't you think?
There are plenty of reasons for us to be angry with this one. I can tell you, I can barely survive with the costs I currently have. The only hope I can find in my future with the increased costs of this "insurance" is in the possibility of repeal or revolution.
Actually, if it works as advertised you shouldn't see anything but a help in that regard.
What in the plan suddenly makes you unable to continue to be home with your kids or removes any of the medical possibilities you have in front of you now? Literally, other than your fear this will be the case. Show me how the legislation passed robs you of anything on your list? You think your premiums are going up? Why?
What do you call gross misconduct? Dumping high-risk clients? Not allowing pre-existing conditions?
Among other things, sure. Growing multi billion dollar war chests, raking in thousands of dollars from patients while paying out hundreds per.
You do realize that insurance is a gambling sort of business?
Sure. With human lives, in the case of health care.
Insurance companies are businesses - they must make money -
No one is saying they can't do that.
though their margin is woefully short -
Are you taking medically legal marijuana? They are among the most profitable and richest corporations in the world. Again, having fought them now and then in court, they have billions of dollars set aside for litigation alone.
and that money is made by balancing risks with premiums.
Not much risk, actually. They have the math like the casino has the odds figured. And they've gotten greedy with those margins...
Re: your article.
First, the AAPS is a recognized group of conservative physicians (formerly grouped under the less people/PR friendly Medical Sentinel title) who have a political track record for anyone interested in it. Among their claims? That secular humanists have conspired to usurp the "creation religion of Jehovah" with evolution (Conspiracy--Part III, by Curtis W. Caine, MD. Published in Medical Sentinel, 1999;4(6):224.) and that HIV doesn't, in fact, cause AIDS.
lain:
And here we are in 2010, two years after the teetering of the Swiss system and the facts don't support the anecdotal and misleading attack. That said, I suggested looking at the Swiss, not copying them whole cloth.
Your second reference is a three year old report by the NCPA. That group is on Right Watch and is affiliated with right wing think tanks that put out policy spin. Anyone confusing Swedish health care with a third world country probably doesn't understand either or has a less than objective axe in need of sharpening.
Here's a general
link to Swedish health care (you might want to look at the dental bit, NM) to get things started. From that, "for many years Sweden's health care system has regularly ranked at or near the top of most comparative analyses of various international health care systems."
But don't take their word for it. Do a little research. Sweden's life expectancy has continued to rise and concerns over delays in certain surgical procedures led to the country addressing it with a 90 day guarantee. By late 2008, 75% of patients received treatment within that window.
Those waiting lists increase patients' anxiety, pain and risk of death.
You know what else does that? Not being able to get an operation at all.
lain: And not being able to go to the doctor when you're simply sick and need to work. That sort of thing...
lain:
Sweden's system does not hold down costs and results in rationing of care.
Though they manage to hold costs down significantly better than some other countries...say...us. Have any idea what 1% of our GDP translates to? Now try 6% plus.
The rationing bit simply isn't sustained by any current study I've seen.
The second lesson is that market-oriented reforms must permit the market to work. Specifically, government should not protect health care providers that fail to provide patients with a quality service from going out of business.
Without real competition that's fairly meaningless rhetoric. And if we aren't going to have that competition or have the sort of faux competition we see among big oil, good riddance to bad rubbish and absent care.
:e4e:
