- 2,908
Right as we speak I am listening to Hillary tell Bill O'reilly that she is going to implement guaranteed issue for all for the whole country. AND, this is a way of holding costs down.
Voodoo economics.
Winter
Voodoo economics.
Winter
Guaranteed issue for all -nationwide
- Thread starter Winter_123
- Start date
- 238
I wonder how many people in the country actually think the president makes the laws?
- 403
I wonder how many people in the country actually think. 
- 2,088
If you guys think McCain won't push for some sort of nationwide health plan of some sort you are sadly mistaken. We have three possible candidates and all three will push for it. Clinton will make a bigger deal out of it, but all three will do it- to us.
- 403
McCain's push will be for availability, not a mandated single-payer system (Obama) or required rate-controlled coverage (Clinton).
It's not hard to guess which one would preserve private health insurance.
It's not hard to guess which one would preserve private health insurance.
- 2,088
You are correct, not hard to guess at all: Ron Paul.
Guaranteed Issue isn't all bad... If everyone in every state had insurance available to them, regardless, that would be a good thing.
How many people find themselves in the class of the unisured because they cannot buy coverage, due to medical conditions...? This is not the leading cause of why folks are uninsured, but it surely doesn't help matters.
If we had a system that mirrors our auto insurance laws in many states, that you had to be insured... and the coverage was available to all, regardless of health, it would cost a little more to all of us, but just maybe not. The fact that millions of healthy people would be required to purchase insurance, instead of by choice, forcing the taxpayers to insure them if they have a catastrophic and unisured event, would even drive rates lower, or at least offset the additional costs associated with GI of an uninsurable person in today's system.
What I am referring to is to force personal responsibility, even for the irresonsible. No different than a seatbelt law, or a helmet law for motorcycle riders. Of course we could debate those, but I would rather not. Bottom line is, if everyone was insured, not by nat'l helathcare but by a private system, the additional prem dollars would drive costs down and in the end remove the risk of taxpayers from having to p/u the bill for those that are uninsured today.
The way that I would incentivise folks to have ins is much the same as an individual obtains a tax deduction for an IRA. They contribute and they get a chit that says they can tax deduct the contribution. Ins cos would do the same by issuing at yr end (electronically) a quasi 1099 that shows the number of months throughout the year that you were insured. If you were insured 12/12 then you would have 0 added to your tax bill at year end. If your quasi 1099 or lack thereof showed 1/12 months insured, then you would pay $ 5K additional on your tax bill. The net result is that if you had to effectively pay for health insurance any, everyone would have it... If not, you pay the extra tax (5K each, or whatever deemed reasonable). This would go a long way to reduce the costs associated to the gov't and taxpayers for the uninsured, by choice.
Such an apathy by many who choose to spend that 400 bucks per mo on a new car, rather than have health ins...
Just my opinion...
- 15,319
The difference is that if someone does not have auto insurance (in California) then they cannot register their car.
If someone refuses to buy health insurance, do we put them in jail or keep them from registering to vote? What if they show up in the hospital without insurance? Should they be told to "please go outside to bleed?"
There are a few things that cannot be legislated.
1) Morals
2) Responsibility
3) Good Looks
Fortunately, I have all 3.
Rick
Similar threads
