Wood is brown… Think about it… It is… now technically it might different shades of brown but none the less it brown… This is something I told my fellow Marines while teaching them about Meteorology. Sometimes if you over think about something all you do is confuse yourself and make it harder then it has to be. This is what the government has done with healthcare. We have over thought, and over fought it.
The first thing that needs to be done to fix the problem is to repeal Obama care. Obama care is over thought, over written, 1,147,271 word political statement. Passed by people who didn’t read, fought by people who don’t believe it and paid for by tax payers that can’t afford it.
What the government had forgot about is a multibillion dollar industry emulated by talked lizards and ducks. The America car insurance industry. A industry that works, that puts thousands of people to work from the agent that sells it to you to the doctor that heals you. Healthcare reform can be and needs to be closely modeled after it.
Now I understand that Healthcare and car care are different… but a big part of the Car Insurance industry is working in the healthcare. Car insurance compaines are paying everyday for healthcare caused by car accidents… they have half the battle figured out.
We need to get government out of Healthcare… let the great American Insurance industry embrace it with out Government acting as a big brother. Open up free markets…. no boundaries… If you live in California and want to buy healthcare from a company based in Texas, because TX has made it cheaper for that company to operate cheaper thus making it cheaper for you, them you buy it from them.
Politics makes real “Healthcare Reform” a bigger issue then its has to because it secures votes.
As an active duty Marine I have seen first hand the what government run healthcare is. Its enough to keep you breathing. Although major combat injuries are being treated with a high level of care its the everyday injuries that are hurting. Its the injuries that could be fixed but are not because it is not in the best interest of the doctor or military, not the patient. It’s the bare minimum… it’s socialist healthcare at its best.
Moe Lane
PG DeFreese
Victoria Coates
Daniel Horowitz
Dan Spencer
Nicely put.....
texastaxpayer (Diary) Saturday, January 28th at 1:37AM EST (link)Thanks for the service BTW….. Love the marines, definitely who you call if you want to fight. However if you want to end the fight call the air force.
“Texas will again lift it’s head and stand among the nations. It ought to do so, for no country upon the globe can compare with it in natural advantages.” Sam Houston
The buying policies across state lines thing is a bit misleading
JSobieski (Diary) Saturday, January 28th at 1:46AM EST (link)There are plenty of insurance companies that sell health coverage in many different states (as is also true with auto insurance).
However, insurance (both health and auto) is regulated at the state level. So each state decides what the minimum requirements are in that state.
It is an example of the down side of federalism.
There are states with very low minimal requirements, so consumers have lots of options.
There are states like Mass. where the “minimal” requirements are quite high.
Auto insurance really does work the same way, but it is less complex and more of a commodity than health insurance.
Another way of saying “selling insurance across state lines” is “having the federal government override decisions made by the state government”.
I agree with the override because so much federal money is sucked into the blackhole of healthcare, but I think it is important to look at the issue from a slightly different perspective.
My rules of the road for primary season.
Rule #1: Vote for YOUR first choice in the primaries
Rule #2: Vote for the R in the general.
Rule #3: Don’t let anyone convince you to violate Rule #1 or Rule #2
Rule #4: When in a center-right argument, reaffirm Rules #1-#3–it will help us all to get along better.
Rule #5: If you are using the language of the left, you probably aren’t furthering conservativism
Rule #6: The priority is issues first, candidates second, and supporters third. Nobody is bigger than the issues. Conversely, if you spend your time focusing on supporters, you are wasting everyone’s time.
STOP THE MADNESS!
A reduction in the rate of spending increases is NOT a cut!
In-state tuition for illegals is NOT amnesty!
Requiring someone to pay their medical bills is NOT an individual mandate!
Reducing tax rates is NOT a tax increase!
States
Gary Stein (Diary) Saturday, January 28th at 8:19AM EST (link)States could still set the minimum. But I can see how that could conflict… Let say I buy health insurance in Arizona where I live and for the sake of my point has a lower minimum then California… But I go on vacation to California and break my leg… would i be able to be seen in CA even though my insurance does not meet there standards? This is something that would have to be set by the federal government… a national insurance minimum.
We need to reward people for staying healthy… if you work out 3 times a week, eat right, and take care of yourself it would be like being a driver with no tickets… but if your that guy that smokes, eats unhealthy and doesn’t know what a treadmill is you are the bad driver… No people with health conditions that are out of their control is a whole other story… and that I have not wrapped around my head yet.
That is what precisely causes a problem now in healthcare insurance
JSobieski (Diary) Monday, January 30th at 8:39AM EST (link)The reason why a person in Mass. can’t buy a policy issued in Montana is that the Montana policy doesn’t satisfy the minimum set by Mass. Blue states in particular regulate mandatory minimums to a point where the market doesn’t allow for less expensive plans.
You don’t lose you insurance because you are in a different state. Depending on your policy, you are likely to be out of network on everything, but that doesn’t mean your policy is null and void.
The problem is not setting an “adequate” national minimum. To the contrary, we would be better off if the federal government prohibited states from requiring too high of a minimum.
In my view, it should be possible to purchase insurance limited exclusively to “change of condition” (i.e. insuring against the risk of subsequently incurring a pre-existing condition that would make it hard to get insurance in the future). That should be the floor.
My rules of the road for primary season.
Rule #1: Vote for YOUR first choice in the primaries
Rule #2: Vote for the R in the general.
Rule #3: Don’t let anyone convince you to violate Rule #1 or Rule #2
Rule #4: When in a center-right argument, reaffirm Rules #1-#3–it will help us all to get along better.
Rule #5: If you are using the language of the left, you probably aren’t furthering conservativism
Rule #6: The priority is issues first, candidates second, and supporters third. Nobody is bigger than the issues. Conversely, if you spend your time focusing on supporters, you are wasting everyone’s time.
STOP THE MADNESS!
A reduction in the rate of spending increases is NOT a cut!
In-state tuition for illegals is NOT amnesty!
Requiring someone to pay their medical bills is NOT an individual mandate!
Reducing tax rates is NOT a tax increase!
In that vein
In The Hook (Diary) Monday, January 30th at 8:45AM EST (link)McCain actually had a pretty good policy platform when it came to insurance and selling across state lines. I understand why Romney basically has no platform other than “repeal Obamacare.” And I think he needs to avoid getting in the weeds about it at all. But I thought McCain and his campaign actually came up with a decent plan regarding health insurance, except that it had a fairly substantial hole when it came to out of pocket expenses. Patch that up and we might be in business.
“Hello? You play to win the game.”
Support conservatives that can win.
http://www.marcorubio.com
Buying across states lines is a little different from what you say
Kyle-MI (Diary) Monday, January 30th at 9:01AM EST (link)As far as I understand the issue, the idea of selling across states lines is that the insurance company only has to meet the minimums where they are located, not where the buyer is located. In other words, the state laws apply to the insurance company, not to the person taking out the policy. At the very least, the federal government has the power to define which laws apply to whom through the commerce clause. And it would actually be a legitimate use of the commerce clause.
Part of the problem is that states mandate coverage for (what I consider) silly things like acupuncture and alternative medicine. Some states have a huge list of mandated coverages. You could bring down the cost a lot by getting rid of a lot of this mandated garbage. This could be done without interfering with the states by just allowing people the freedom to buy across state lines. It is the same freedom they have buying any other product.
I support the idea, but it is contrary to concept of federalism
JSobieski (Diary) Monday, January 30th at 9:23AM EST (link)because the federal government essentially tells states that their decisions don’t matter.
The distinction of location of consumer vs. location of insurance company won’t matter once states are told that they can’t control the policies sold within their states. No state is going to care about
My point was not disagree with the “across state lines” mantra. Rather, it was to point out the following:
(1) What we are really saying is that the federal government can prevent states from setting minimums
(2) (1) is at least somewhat contrary to the concept of federalism
My rules of the road for primary season.
Rule #1: Vote for YOUR first choice in the primaries
Rule #2: Vote for the R in the general.
Rule #3: Don’t let anyone convince you to violate Rule #1 or Rule #2
Rule #4: When in a center-right argument, reaffirm Rules #1-#3–it will help us all to get along better.
Rule #5: If you are using the language of the left, you probably aren’t furthering conservativism
Rule #6: The priority is issues first, candidates second, and supporters third. Nobody is bigger than the issues. Conversely, if you spend your time focusing on supporters, you are wasting everyone’s time.
STOP THE MADNESS!
A reduction in the rate of spending increases is NOT a cut!
In-state tuition for illegals is NOT amnesty!
Requiring someone to pay their medical bills is NOT an individual mandate!
Reducing tax rates is NOT a tax increase!
Put another way---it would interfere with power of states to regulate
JSobieski (Diary) Monday, January 30th at 9:30AM EST (link)the insurance policies sold within their state.
The “purpose” of regulating insurance policies is ostensibly to “protect” consumers. That is the basis/justification of state regulation of insurance, and the “across state lines” change would destroy that ability.
I agree it is a good idea and that it is legal. However, it does go against a broader 10th Amendment philosophy.
You want to hear a liberal democrat invoke federalism and states rights? This is the issue that will do it.
My rules of the road for primary season.
Rule #1: Vote for YOUR first choice in the primaries
Rule #2: Vote for the R in the general.
Rule #3: Don’t let anyone convince you to violate Rule #1 or Rule #2
Rule #4: When in a center-right argument, reaffirm Rules #1-#3–it will help us all to get along better.
Rule #5: If you are using the language of the left, you probably aren’t furthering conservativism
Rule #6: The priority is issues first, candidates second, and supporters third. Nobody is bigger than the issues. Conversely, if you spend your time focusing on supporters, you are wasting everyone’s time.
STOP THE MADNESS!
A reduction in the rate of spending increases is NOT a cut!
In-state tuition for illegals is NOT amnesty!
Requiring someone to pay their medical bills is NOT an individual mandate!
Reducing tax rates is NOT a tax increase!
But the states have no say in what other states do
Kyle-MI (Diary) Monday, January 30th at 1:32PM EST (link)It should be the same as buying groceries across states lines, or buying t.v.’s or light bulbs. You can regulate the businesses in your state, but you cannot regulate the businesses in other states, especially if they do not have a physical presence in your state. Any exceptions can only be determined by the federal government. States have no say in interstate commerce except through their elected federal representatives.
This is the flip side of federalism. It really and truly is interstate commerce. There is great freedom in allowing states to set most of their own rules, but they only apply to the businesses in their state.
A few other problems
Death_of_the_Donkey (Diary) Saturday, January 28th at 9:01AM EST (link)with this comparison:
1) Many states mandate auto insurance in order to drive/have a license.
2) Auto insurance is always capped and due to its nature most people will never hit a big claim (whereas in healthcare, most of your lifetime costs happen in the last 6 months to 1 year of life and everyone dies).
3) Preventative care is a huge difference, as catching/preventing disease with healthcare can dramatically reduce later costs, but there is typically little incentive for either the patient or the insurer to use such options.