- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Messages
- 52,009
- Reaction score
- 33,944
- Location
- The Golden State
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
then why the 200+ exemptions?
Sorry, but your question has unsufficient data. Exemptions of whom from what?
then why the 200+ exemptions?
Dittohead not!;1059206990]If individuals who get sick or injured and who don't have health insurance faced the consequences alone, then you would have a point. The fact is that the uninsured drive up costs of insurance and government backed programs for all of us. If not having insurance costs us all, then we have a right to insist that they have insurance. If we're willing to turn them away from the emergency room and refuse treatment, then we don't have a right to insist on insurance.
The other big elephant in the room is this:
A lot of those bankruptcies were suffered by people who did have insurance. Insurance (prior to the reform, at least) have a way of excluding "pre existing conditions", of dropping clients who become too costly, and of finding ways of delaying payments until it is too late.
I will ask you the same question as I asked Boo, how does someone failing to make payments to doctors and hospitals in California affect someone in another state?
Not sure of your point, but frankly, the same problem exists in all states. It isn't just one state having a problem, but all of them.
Then solve them at the state level, not the national. States have a vested interest in solving the problem and are closer to the issue. Why isn't your state implementing its version of Obamacare. Seems Indiana is doing it right.
That is certainly an option. But, as it is happening in nearly all, if not all states, it is also a national problem.
Isn't that for the states to decide? You seem to believe it is a problem so why not solve it in your state instead of forcing others to accept your opinions. Indiana seems to have solved the problem without the Federal Involvement. You continue to believe what you are told by this Administration, why?
Is it? Give me an example of a state that has solved it.
Seems like Indiana has a good handle on it.
Explain. What makes you think they have it fixed?
Google it and find out.
I have. I don't see in anything I've found why you would claim it. So, explain. That is called discussion. Something perfectly acceptable to most.
Hard to discuss this issue with someone who ignores personal responsibility and the fact that it is the state and local communities that have to solve the problem, not a Federal one size fits all. Obviously you haven't done much research on Indiana at all.
Let me help.
According to this source:
U.S. State Health Systems Compared - BusinessWeek
Hawaii is ranked number one in health care among US states. Indy is rank 32nd. You can exmine the site and look at how rthey measure it. You may disagree, but a rebuttal might include how you measure it.
Good article from the Wall Street Journal, suggest you take notes
Mitch Daniels: Hoosiers and Health Savings Accounts - WSJ.com
So how did Hawaii become so good at healthcare without Obamacare?
Boo Radley;1059207152]Thanks. Notes:
In Indiana's HSA, the state deposits $2,750 per year into an account controlled by the employee, out of which he pays all his health bills. Indiana covers the premium for the plan. The intent is that participants will become more cost-conscious and careful about overpayment or overutilization.
(sounds like a univerisal insurer.)
However, these are limited. They don't address amny of the serious health care problems with the unisured, hospitals, or an aging population. These types of programs have been discussed before and only have a limited potential to help, which is why the state only ranks thrity second despite this program.
Nope sounds like putting incentive into the system to save costs.
I love it how you pick and choose the information and polls you want to post. Hawaii has a state run program and it is number one, which of course you stated but refused to focus on. HSA's in Indiana are one program to handle healthcare costs and it seems that the people of Indiana like the total program there. I don't know what went into the ranking of states nor do you but that doesn't stop you from posting the information while ignoring that these are two states that took on the healthcare issue and put a state solution in place. They didn't need Obamacare.
Indiana, not the individual, according to your article, covers the premium for the plan. State provided. Not indiviually provided. Remember, you argued that a public option, where individals pay the premiums was socialism. Don't see a problem here in your position.
Yes, Hawaii has a state plan, but you have criticised it in the past. Are you now willing to promote it as the one all states should follow because it is effective?
sounds like a univerisal insurer
Indiana is a state and that is what they decided to do. Hawaii is a state and that is what they decided to do. It should be up to the states. most here know what happens when you implement a one size fits all Federal program. Healthcare is a state issue, not the Federal issue you wan it to be.
a private insurance account sounds like a universal system?
LOL!
gee, i wonder where the money comes from that the state puts in those accounts...
Yes, that is a legitmate area of disagreement. But it is a switch from what we were discussing. You said Indy had the issue fixed. Then we got side tracked. I don't see indy as having it fixed.
Is something paid for by the state private?