Sensible Health Care Plan

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Southern Man
Explain to me how tort reform and private competition is "nonsense".

Well one, no one is calling for getting rid of private competition. The problem is, is that the market is not addressing the issue of cost control or competition. Health care is to expensive or unavailable for far to many people and Wall Street has made the system less competitive not more. The reforms preposed would actually make things more competative. So that claim she made is nonsense.

Number two, as for tort reforrm. There's no more egocentric self centered group then small business people. I'm not about to give up my consumer protection rights so she can make an easy buck. That's nonsense.

Leave it to small business and corporations and we would be getting loans at 75% interest compounded daily and their private security thugs would be breaking our arms if we didn't pay on time and you would be able to get a license to practice cardiac surgery off a cracker jack box and any business would be able to dump their hazardous waste in my back yard cause "It's good for business.". Business is important and so is small business but the world doesnt' revolve around them.

We, as a society, need Tort reform, driven by the Chamber of Commerce, like we need a collective hole in the head.

Somehow, I think your succinct and accurate explanation will fall on deaf ears....but hope springs eternal.

What cracks me up is that this woman is railing against a gov't option to health care and enforcing a law that all citizens pay into being covered at some point or other in their lives....yet she has NO problem in letting health insurance companies from OTHER states do a bidding wars in her state of California. Does she honestly think that a reform of how they do business will take place because they merely lower their rates?(someone needs to explain to the teabaggers that a subsidiary is not wholly independent from the parent company) And how does that effect each individual state, who may suddenly find their local monopoly replaced by a national one?

Like I said, that chick got her moment in the sun, a big hug from her husband and a rabble rousing cheer from teabagging Freedomwork zombies. Now if someone sat her dopey ass down and put to her what you and I say here, I'll wager dollars to donuts she'll get camera shy right quick.

 

[Taichiliberal]

More like moronic.

The point is that you are calling the rules antiquated, and yet there is no evidence that the rules are antiquated.

Many insurance companies cannot operate in certain states because there are requirements for a certain amount in assets, or certain rules applying to whether they can drop people from coverage ect.

Simply because you claim the regulations are antiquated does not make them antiquated.

Logic has never been a strong point with willfully ignorant neocons, birther's and teabaggers. It's the same attitude expressed by one of the Shrub's minions regarding the Constitution.

The claim that all these insurance companies chomping at the bit to do national business is a joke....being that the standard wages vary not only from state to state, but from city to city or county within states. Only the giants in the insurance field would have a proper usage for removing such laws...and thus gain further monoply status (someone needs to explain to the teabaggers that a subsidiary is not wholly independent from the parent company). But I doubt if the woman on the video or Southie have thought that through.

 

[DamnYankee]

Are you fucking kidding? About 90 percent of all the loans in this country are made now by about four different banking institutions.

Very few of those are originated with those institutions.

 

[MOe]

I find them to be superfluous myself. That is, if you understand the concept that we tell the government what it can do, not it tell us what we can't do.

no, actually, we give the government the power to tell us what we can't do. and if we're not happy with what the government tells us we can't do, we can rely on certain ground rules and the fact that there are periodical elections to tell the government that we're not okay with the rules it made.

 

[DamnYankee]

no, actually, we give the government the power to tell us what we can't do. and if we're not happy with what the government tells us we can't do, we can rely on certain ground rules and the fact that there are periodical elections to tell the government that we're not okay with the rules it made.

Yes you are correct I worded that poorly. I sould have said: "if you understand the concept that we tell the government what it can do, not it tell us what we can do."