Unless you're the one dying.

Oh? A study done by Harvard last fall showed that 45,000 Americans die every year due to lack of health insurance. Doesn't seem very silly to me. :eyebrow:

How many people die each year from smoking or alcohol or drugs? I'm not bitching, just curious what the numbers are in relation.

I don't see what that has to do with the discussion at hand. Alcoholics with insurance will go to treatment facilities and have a better chance of recovery than the ones in the park passing the paper bag. The morality so called of a disease should have nothing to do with its treatment.

I said I was just curious - What does the number of people killed by terrorists have to do with heathcare?

Which one is the more significant threat to American health and welfare based on hype vs. reality?

We're outraged by one and not the other.

I'm curious how you can explain it as a pre-emptive strike.

Given that these dramatic increases are on individual policies, not group policies.....and under the proposed Exchanges, those individuals would not only have more choice of providers, but the company in question would almost certainly not qualify for the Exchange at that premium/admin cost ratio?

These premium increases have everything to do with an unregulated, uncompetitive market and nothing to do with "loopholes" in the proposed reform.

Healthcare

Well, I'm glad you finally concede that point, anyway. :p:

Nothing in the Demoncratic Healthcare Reform Bills would protect anyone from these kinds of increases. That is the point I have been bringing up for months. This increase is how the insurance companies will recoup any cost increases they incur with the proposed plans. The fact that they are unregulated is not addressed in the proposed plans; the fact that they are in an uncompetitive market is not addressed in the proposed plans, although I do recall the Republickins introducing a proposal for there to be greater competition in a free market across state lines. Nothing in the proposed plans on the table would prevent an insurance company from doing this in the future.

And I have said repeatedly that you should actually read the text of the legislation (that I cited on numerous occasions) and not just opposition talking points and you would find that your assertions are in fact, incorrect.

And what the Republican proposal would have allowed is for the insurance companies to shop around for the least regulated state, including American Samoa, and apply those lowest standards across the board for consumers in any state in which the company has nexus.

But at this point, it really doesnt matter.

Have a healthy and truthful day!

No my friend I have read it and there is nothing there to prevent it as I have stated numerous times over the last 6 months.

Redux - just a thought here -
Why cannot we merge a system of regulation by the Feds with the state option. Won't the fed regulations on what they can charge... cover the insureds?
I'm really just sick of this at this point.

How 'bout starting with a simple "hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and health insurance companies will be not-for-profit"