Saturday, December 17, 2011

Why does health care legislation have to be simple?

So many are complaining about how complex the health care legislation is. But isn't a complex legislation required?





Think of it, we have a lot of issues to address in health care for our nation. Legislation has to:


-get everyone health care insurance


-stop everyone insurance company from unfairly discriminating against their customers


-setup a public health insurance plan and specify details to control it


-setup an insurance exchange


-setup reasonable administration to keep watch and recommend changes to the health care plans.


-Make short and long term goals for hospitals


-Find funding for all of this.





Exactly how could anyone accomplish this without a complex set of legislation?





Hasn't anyone heard that sometimes you have to work for what you want, instead of complaining that it could be better.|||It doesn't such legislation never is.|||"-get everyone health care insurance"





As complicated as they're making it, they've already admitted it will Not cover everyone.|||It wont work.|||I know I may be wrong here but it seems to me this is why were elect the representation that we do. Because,supposedly, they are better qualified to attack these complex issues better then we can. Supposedly. And that's their job. And that's what they get paid to do. But when push comes to shove, and it gets complex it doesn't seem that they want to do their job any more. They just want to vote themselves raises and go on vacations. Just take advantage of the perks and really not earn their keep.|||1. the proposals aren't about medical care, or even health -- they're about insurance and who pays for someone else's care.





2. excluding pre-existing conditions is necessary if you don't compel everyone to buy coverage -- otherwise, people will wait to buy insurance until they need someone else to foot the bill.





3. the bills so far all give the 'public plan' huge advantages that will drive all private plans out of existence over the next 5 to 10 years. This is, imo, a taking [of the business] and is prohibited by the Constitution without compensation -- looks like about $5 trillion in compensation to me. btw, who'll lose? your retirement plans, silly.





4. the insurance 'exchange' in the bills sets minimum mandatory coverages by a government board without specifying how the board is to make decisions. so far, every such board in every state that has tried it, always ends up adding more and more required coverages which bloat the costs beyond all recognition.





5. the proposed funding sources all all "soak the rich" or businesses type taxes. way to go, Dudley Doright -- you've just killed employment and encouraged jobs to go overseas as much as possible.





6. modified community rating -- which is in the bills -- blatantly overcharges the young and the healthy to give lower costs to the older and sicker. This is why 15 million people who can already afford insurance won't buy it -- it costs far too much. What is proposed will make this WORSE and MORE EXPENSIVE -- not better and cheaper.|||Those are 7 different objectives and should be addressed with 7 simple bills.





Personally, I can't see that any of it is the government's business at all. though

No comments:

Post a Comment