Yes because auto insurance always covers people all the time in those situations and always at 100%. :lol:
But ok Ill edit my thought to show my point for you…
… How about cancer? Or Aids? Or heart disease? If you flop over dying of a heart attack do you think that it is financially better for the health insurance company to have you die or to spend the tens of thousands of dollars on open heart surgery?
Look at who you are defending. Or better yet GIVE ME AN ALTERNATIVE TO CONSIDER!
you really think that the government is gonna bend over backwards for you in these situations? Last time I checked, the government doesn’t have a pot to piss in, let alone pay for cancer treatments.
:lol:
government…money in = money out
private…money in = profit, then money out
idunno, the us government is in a lot of debt… I just don’t think that it can possibly be that clear cut.
^^The insurance companies aren’t in the hospital, Obama’s henchmen will be.
Remind me to register Democrat if this thing passes.
You really aren’t that naive. I know you’re not.
Coming to a hospital near you. :tinfoilhat:
Give me a break.
I’m still waiting on your alternative solution to fixing healthcare.
Wow… simply wow…
i was making the point of not for profit vs. for profit. :rolljerk:
most healthcare organizations are “not for profit”, but somebody is always getting paid…
I think it is safe to assume the inefficiency costs waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more than the profit and there is ZERO return on inefficiency.
I wonder if the rates will all of a sudden drop this year. Maybe some good will come of this debate.
I disagree. Medicare’s administrative costs <<<< profit insurance companies’
I love this right wing “you watch, the rates will drop”
what a horrible thing!!! oh noes.
Well I am sure Yugos profits are lower than Mercedes. Which would you rather have when it comes to your well being?
And where do you get that comparison? Seriously get some material to back up that shit claim.
[SIZE=“1”]Still waiting on that alternative…[/SIZE]
The alternative is for the government to regulate the costs and the coverage. They should step in, and provide consumer protection.
Healthcare companies will still be able to turn a profit, probably not the disgustingly high profits they see now though. I think as americans, we all can agree that health insurance companies pull in more profit than they know what to do with.
So create a federal watch dog that would artificially drive the price down? Make insurance companies unable to turn people away for pre-existing conditions? Levy some sort of penalty when the insurance companies fall out of line?
How would we be able to do this when you have so many congressmen receive substantial contributions from the healthcare industry?
Creating a separate non-political agency I think has a better chance at driving costs down.
And while I respect the fact the someone finally decided to post an alternative to a public option, this is not what the Republicans are proposing, in fact they haven’t proposed anything yet.
yeah, of course there is a lot of ground to cover in the details, but no matter WHAT the plan, it must be well though out. I don’t have the answers to your questions.
I know that it isn’t what Repubs are proposing, quite frankly, I don’t like ANY of the options that are on the table. I do believe we can make the current system work though. ATM, I don’t think the government should take over the whole thing.
See there is the misconception right there. While I see the benefits of a universal system outweighing the negatives (and by negatives I mean the real negatives not the ones drummed up by those in tinfoil hats) that is not what this plan does.
yeah, I know…but don’t tell me that the president doesn’t plan to take it there.
