How expensive will Obamacare be if enacted?

[Dr.Who]

Poor people would never be able to buy a policy on their own. As for the middle class, that depends on their age and health history. How many people do you know who have or have tried to purchase individual policies?

I know some. One is 60 years old. Being in good health, he was able to get a policy, for $2,000 monthly for him and his wife, with a $10,000 deductible.

.

If a person does not have employer provided insurance now then he would be no worse off. But if he does have employer provided insurance that is part of his compensation package and his employer owes it to him. He should still get all of his compensation regardless of whether it is in the form of cash or cash and insurance. Would we need a law saying that if the gov eliminated the need for employer paid insurance each person could not lose their full compensation? Then with the increased paycheck he could buy the insurance which would no be cheaper than it was before.

I also think that while insurance should cost whatever it cost based on risk for new enrollees those who have been a part of the system for a long time should not be penalized for events that creep up while they are insured. in other words a pre-existing condition is not pre-existing if one always had insurance.

 

[Dr.Who]

I think you'd have a hard time supporting the idea that we get better care than do Canadians or Europeans despite our significantly higher costs, or that there is enough spent on cosmetic surgery to make a real difference.

It is hard to prove that pretty good care is better than pretty good care. Our costs are higher and to a large degree you get what you pay for and mostly that means convenience - sometimes a convenience like wait times that makes the difference between life and death. (but our costs are also higher because our congress has messed things up)

umm... is there any evidence for that?

Well do you really believe that Cuba has better health care then the US. They use statistics and misrepresentation to hide the fact that they have horrible health care. As an example, if a fetus is not deemed to be healthy enough they just abort it rather than spend lots of money trying to save it. Those abortions do not show up in the infant mortality measures but when we exert extreme efforts to save a fetus and sometimes fail that does show up in our infant mortality measures. In fact this exact scenario plays out to a lesser degree in many European countries too. It also happens at end of life care. Just two evidences.

What I see is us getting Walmart care at Nordstrom's prices.

I think in general one gets what one pays for. And yes we are paying for a lot of conveniences. But it should be our choice how convenient we want our health care to be and not the gov's choice. If overall we want private rooms (as one example) and we want to pay for them then that is our choice.

I see us as getting target care at target prices but other countries get walmart care at walmart prices. And walmart and target are both great stores.

 

[PLC1]

It is hard to prove that pretty good care is better than pretty good care. Our costs are higher and to a large degree you get what you pay for and mostly that means convenience - sometimes a convenience like wait times that makes the difference between life and death. (but our costs are also higher because our congress has messed things up)




Well do you really believe that Cuba has better health care then the US. They use statistics and misrepresentation to hide the fact that they have horrible health care. As an example, if a fetus is not deemed to be healthy enough they just abort it rather than spend lots of money trying to save it. Those abortions do not show up in the infant mortality measures but when we exert extreme efforts to save a fetus and sometimes fail that does show up in our infant mortality measures. In fact this exact scenario plays out to a lesser degree in many European countries too. It also happens at end of life care. Just two evidences.


I think in general one gets what one pays for. And yes we are paying for a lot of conveniences. But it should be our choice how convenient we want our health care to be and not the gov's choice. If overall we want private rooms (as one example) and we want to pay for them then that is our choice.

I see us as getting target care at target prices but other countries get walmart care at walmart prices. And walmart and target are both great stores.

Yes, they are. I shop at both of them.

Our health care costs over $6,000 per person in the USA. No one else pays even close to that amount.

We may like our convenience, and maybe we do have more that other countries. I can't say, as I have never had to seek care in another nation.

The bottom line is, however, that we can't continue to pay for the health care system we have. The costs are going up faster than the rate of inflation, and have been for decades. That is not sustainable in the long term.

What we really need is a system like they have in Singapore. There, they have universal health care for 3% of the GDP, as opposed to 17% here.

 

[Openmind]

Yes, they are. I shop at both of them.

Our health care costs over $6,000 per person in the USA. No one else pays even close to that amount.

We may like our convenience, and maybe we do have more that other countries. I can't say, as I have never had to seek care in another nation.

The bottom line is, however, that we can't continue to pay for the health care system we have. The costs are going up faster than the rate of inflation, and have been for decades. That is not sustainable in the long term.

What we really need is a system like they have in Singapore. There, they have universal health care for 3% of the GDP, as opposed to 17% here.

Well, I've had the pleasure to receive health care in 3 different countries, and 4 different US States. And. . .the big difference is ACCESS for all, and PRICE.

Both in "universal health care" countries and in the US, you have choices to receive "motel 6 care" or "Hilton" care. For exemple, in Belgium, the "regular" (private or public) insurance would cover a "common" (2 or 3 beds) room at 100%, and, if your condition requires (i.e., severity, or risk for infection, etc. ..) they would also cover the "private" (one bed) room at 100%. However, if you prefer to go to a private room, you would have to pay the difference (probably about $50 a day) between the private and the "common" room.

But, at least, NO ONE is turned away because "they don't have health insurance," even for minor diagnosis.

It is true, however, that the hospitals in Europe are usually not as "marble and stainless" as those in the US. In fact, there are still MANY hospitals that date from WWII or before! But they have been updated and renovated, and provide excellent care and. . . just a little meaningful anecdote, though. . .
The rate of death from hospital infection is significantly lower in those "old, dingy" hospitals than it is in the US hospitals.

If you would like a link for that last statement, I'll be happy to provide one!

 

[Openmind]

I don't agree that insurance companies would not want to sell policies to all people. That is like saying that stores only want to sell to rich people. They might prefer rich people but there is plenty of money to be made selling to poor people.

But I do stand corrected in that I never intended for group policies to cease to exist. A free market would allow for groups to form.

Aside from lack of market forces I think medical care is more expensive in the US in large part because more people have private rooms and we have more machines and better paid doctors and we do more ground breaking research, and we do more cosmetic procedures, and we do more of all sorts of elective procedures, etc. And we have better outcomes on the important measures like cancer survival rates.

In short it like shopping at Target versus Walmart. The quality of merchandise and the ambiance is better at Target so it cost more. One could live shopping only at Walmart but given the choice enough will choose Target so that the average cost of what they spend goes up.

Additionally, it is more expensive not just because we get more but because we are sicker. Costs for things that are unrelated to health care policy drives the costs up - things like a high rate of violent crimes and obesity and poor lifestyle and maternal choices.

Add in the fact that various governments lie about how well their countries are doing and massage the data and the services offered to lower actual or apparent costs and there is a bit more wiggle.

The problem as I see it is if one wants Walmart quality (and prices) but lives in Target-land how will that person get lower costs? Only if a person can choose to go to a substandard care center can they do that and the regulatory climate in our country does not allow for intentional substandard care centers. Of course Canada offers plenty of lower quality care (see posts above).

Do insurance companies and law suits add to it? yes.
Fraud and corruption? Yes.
Un-needed procedures? Yes.

Have you forgotten, or have you never known this?

One of the GREAT advantage signed in under Obama care is the fact that private insurances will no longer be able to refuse (or kick off) people from being covered because of pre-existing conditions.

And you think that they would (without being mandated to do so) agree to cover poor people at low costs????

Give me a break!

 

[Openmind]

AS long as people do not choose their own insurance companies with free market principles it IS a factor. In fact I think that how insurance companies are choosen is the second biggest factor effecting costs. If people choose their own insurance companies and paid their own premiums costs would be far less. The gov is responsible for this lack of market forces since it is the gov that created the situation inwhich employers choose your insurance company for you.

What is the biggest factor? consider a doctors care in 1700. One doctor would have visited and offered bloodletting or a few apothacaries on top of whatever herbs you had already tried. In contrast today a team of professionals run mulitmillion dollar equipment and offer highly effective drugs - of course more and better care will cost more than less and less effective care.

Nope, the biggest factor for the high cost of health care is the FALSE "free market" that we have in health care!

The big health insurance corporation are PRICE FIXING. . .they all cost about the same. . . because, although they are "suppose" to compete with each other, they are very happy to "compete" at a much higher level (that allow for big bonus for their CEO's) level. . .instead of engaging in a REAL free market competition (a good, old fashion, price war would help!) where they actually bring the prices down to compete (instead of up!)

And this is why a public option would have been the REAL way to reduce health care cost by providing a REAL competition. . .just as they do in many European countries, where private insurances (generally called "mutuelles") don't only compete with other (for profit) private insurances, but with a few "public options" offered by the government and, obviously, non-profit!

That is the REAL free market competition!

 

[Dr.Who]

Yes, they are. I shop at both of them.

Our health care costs over $6,000 per person in the USA. No one else pays even close to that amount.

What makes anyone think that the congress that broke the system in any way is capable of fixing it? It is very likely that as long as we have a congress that acts like it does we can never have a system that works well.

We may like our convenience, and maybe we do have more that other countries. I can't say, as I have never had to seek care in another nation.

We do, and according the rule of diminishing returns for every bit of superiority we eek out of the system it costs exponentially more. To be one percent better in terms of convenience and results and access it might only cost us one percent more. But to be two percent better might cost us 3% more, etc. People don't seem to be willing to give up the private rooms and the clean hospitals and the abundance of equipment just waiting to be used. In a land of abundance and luxury most people have enough money not just to own multiple tv sets in every home but to pay more for health care.

The data shows a clear correlation between how much extra money a counry has lying around and how much it is willing to spend on all things including health care:

http://74.6.238.252/search/srpcache...0&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=R9pkPOqd3VbRQKaKILpKAw--

In other words poor countries spend less on health care than rich countries. Since the US has the absolute highest level of disposable income it will spend the most on health care.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_per_capita_personal_income

Even our poor live better than the middle class in many developed countries in the world.

The bottom line is, however, that we can't continue to pay for the health care system we have. The costs are going up faster than the rate of inflation, and have been for decades. That is not sustainable in the long term.

The costs cannot continue to go up and as soon as they hit the level of equilibrium they will stop climbing. If we want them to go down then we need to allow the market forces that are the downward drivers of cost to have their effect. It is as simple as understanding that the exact same principles apply to every single purchase made in this country. You can only charge so much for a pound of flour before people start buying cornmeal.

What we really need is a system like they have in Singapore. There, they have universal health care for 3% of the GDP, as opposed to 17% here.

That is way to complex to try to reproduce what works elsewhere. What makes one think that what works for a nation of fish eaters with their constitution could work for a nation of french fry eaters with our constitution.

All we have ever needed was for market forces to work. We have a country where at every turn congress seems determined to drive up the cost of college by making 529 plans and to drive up the cost of food by creating ethanol subsidies and to drive up the cost of health care by taxing individual choice but leaving employer based programs untaxed.

How about congress stop messing with the markets in their never ending game of whack-a-mole?

 

[PLC1]

What makes anyone think that the congress that broke the system in any way is capable of fixing it? It is very likely that as long as we have a congress that acts like it does we can never have a system that works well.

It's beginning to look less and less as if it will. In fact, it is looking less and less like Congress can do anything much other than trade partisan punches.

We do, and according the rule of diminishing returns for every bit of superiority we eek out of the system it costs exponentially more. To be one percent better in terms of convenience and results and access it might only cost us one percent more. But to be two percent better might cost us 3% more, etc. People don't seem to be willing to give up the private rooms and the clean hospitals and the abundance of equipment just waiting to be used. In a land of abundance and luxury most people have enough money not just to own multiple tv sets in every home but to pay more for health care.

We are quickly becoming less and less a nation of abundance.

The data shows a clear correlation between how much extra money a counry has lying around and how much it is willing to spend on all things including health care:

http://74.6.238.252/search/srpcache...0&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=R9pkPOqd3VbRQKaKILpKAw--

In other words poor countries spend less on health care than rich countries. Since the US has the absolute highest level of disposable income it will spend the most on health care.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_per_capita_personal_income

Of course, poor countries spend less on health care than rich ones. the thing is, we may be among the wealthiest nations, but we're a long way from being the wealthiest.

yet, we spend far and away more than anyone else. It's not just a matter of having the latest machines, or private hospital rooms. Most of us don't, in fact, go to private hospital rooms. It's a matter of an inefficient system.

Even our poor live better than the middle class in many developed countries in the world.

Make that "developing" or "third world", and you're right. We're a long way from having a higher standard of living than most industrialized nations.

The costs cannot continue to go up and as soon as they hit the level of equilibrium they will stop climbing. If we want them to go down then we need to allow the market forces that are the downward drivers of cost to have their effect. It is as simple as understanding that the exact same principles apply to every single purchase made in this country. You can only charge so much for a pound of flour before people start buying cornmeal.

So, how do we apply market forces when a serious illlness or accident can bankrupt any middle class family?

That is way to complex to try to reproduce what works elsewhere. What makes one think that what works for a nation of fish eaters with their constitution could work for a nation of french fry eaters with our constitution.

I don't think it's a function of their diet. What they've done is to apply those market forces you keep talking about to health care. That's what we have to do.

All we have ever needed was for market forces to work. We have a country where at every turn congress seems determined to drive up the cost of college by making 529 plans and to drive up the cost of food by creating ethanol subsidies and to drive up the cost of health care by taxing individual choice but leaving employer based programs untaxed.

It's called lobbying. How do we get the lobbyists out of government?

How about congress stop messing with the markets in their never ending game of whack-a-mole?

By getting the money out of politics. Next question: How do we get the money out of politics?

 

[Dr.Who]

It's beginning to look less and less as if it will. In fact, it is looking less and less like Congress can do anything much other than trade partisan punches.

Yep

We are quickly becoming less and less a nation of abundance.

If true that will quickly bring down health care costs.

Of course, poor countries spend less on health care than rich ones. the thing is, we may be among the wealthiest nations, but we're a long way from being the wealthiest.

Weather we are THE wealthiest or just one of the wealthiests that accounts for a lot of the costs. But when I posted that I am pretty sure that the stats proved that we had the most disposable income of any single country in the world.

yet, we spend far and away more than anyone else. It's not just a matter of having the latest machines, or private hospital rooms. Most of us don't, in fact, go to private hospital rooms. It's a matter of an inefficient system.

I would agree that inefficiency must be a factor too. There are tons of factors. One thing that I strongly believe is that whatever we change if congress does not change too then we can never improve.

Make that "developing" or "third world", and you're right. We're a long way from having a higher standard of living than most industrialized nations.

No the comparison is to Europe and it is not a comparison of standard of living but of the standard of living of our poor to the standard of living to their middle class. It stands as true - our poor live better than their middle class.

So, how do we apply market forces when a serious illlness or accident can bankrupt any middle class family?

Middle class families can afford insurance so the market would dictate that their insurance company would pay for the expense and they would not be bankrupt. I would have thought that was obvious.

I don't think it's a function of their diet. What they've done is to apply those market forces you keep talking about to health care. That's what we have to do.

Im not an expert on what they do. Could be a part of it.

It's called lobbying. How do we get the lobbyists out of government?

The right to speak your mind to your representatives or to have an agent speak for you is, well, a right. You can't get the lobbyists out of gov. But we can expect our politicians to make rules based on what is good for the country and not based on how much money will be given to them from a particular lobby. Then as soon as the lobbyists realize that they get no special treatment there will be a whole lot less of them.

By getting the money out of politics. Next question: How do we get the money out of politics?

[/QUOTE]

Anyone should b allowed to donate to anyone. But the congressman should not be allowed to show favoritism.

 

[PLC1]

Yep




If true that will quickly bring down health care costs.


Weather we are THE wealthiest or just one of the wealthiests that accounts for a lot of the costs. But when I posted that I am pretty sure that the stats proved that we had the most disposable income of any single country in the world.

When I retired six years ago, the school district had an $800 per month cap on health benefits. Employees could get a good policy without paying out of pocket, unless they wanted a "cadillac" policy of some sort.

Now, six years later, the cap is $1,500, and most of the employees pay out of pocket as well.

I seriously doubt our national wealth has increased that much in the past six years.

I would agree that inefficiency must be a factor too. There are tons of factors. One thing that I strongly believe is that whatever we change if congress does not change too then we can never improve.

Inefficiency is a big factor. That the insured don't care how much their care costs is another big factor.

No the comparison is to Europe and it is not a comparison of standard of living but of the standard of living of our poor to the standard of living to their middle class. It stands as true - our poor live better than their middle class.

By what objective measure is our standard of living higher than that of Western Europe?

children in poverty? crime? opportunity for education and a good job? infant mortality?

We do drive bigger cars on average.

Middle class families can afford insurance so the market would dictate that their insurance company would pay for the expense and they would not be bankrupt. I would have thought that was obvious.

Middle class families can afford insurance as long as either the husband or the wife works for an employer that has some sort of group insurance. If they're young, they can buy an individual policy. If not, they may not be able to.

The right to speak your mind to your representatives or to have an agent speak for you is, well, a right. You can't get the lobbyists out of gov. But we can expect our politicians to make rules based on what is good for the country and not based on how much money will be given to them from a particular lobby. Then as soon as the lobbyists realize that they get no special treatment there will be a whole lot less of them.

the problem is, money does buy special treatment.

Anyone should b allowed to donate to anyone. But the congressman should not be allowed to show favoritism.

How are we going to enforce that? It looks like congresscritters are up for purchase in a lot of cases.

 

[Dr.Who]

When I retired six years ago, the school district had an $800 per month cap on health benefits. Employees could get a good policy without paying out of pocket, unless they wanted a "cadillac" policy of some sort.

Now, six years later, the cap is $1,500, and most of the employees pay out of pocket as well.

I seriously doubt our national wealth has increased that much in the past six years.

We have both agreed for quite a while now that no one thing is the only factor effecting cost. So why would you make a point that requires, for it to be valid, that national wealth is the ONLY factor?

Inefficiency is a big factor. That the insured don't care how much their care costs is another big factor.

Yep. And you could not be more right in the example you presented. As long as people do not care how much is paid the costs will go up.

By what objective measure is our standard of living higher than that of Western Europe?

We do drive bigger cars on average.

Again, I did not make the claim that our standard of living is higher than that of Europe. I am pretty sure I said that in those exact words.

What I did say is that our poor live better than most of Europe's middle class.

"

The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.) "

​

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...or-examining-the-plague-of-poverty-in-america

children in poverty? crime? opportunity for education and a good job? infant mortality?

When you say children in poverty I assume you mean the number of children in poverty here versus there. Which would of course be irrelevant to the statement that our poor live better lives than their middle class - it does not matter how many there are.

Opportunity for education - I believe both here and there the opportunity to be in school is equal. Though maybe our government schools suck more.

Opportunity for a good job. We could fix that with a few strokes of the pen. Blame congress for the barriers to work that have been set in place both as "protections" for the people and by more powerful people to hold down the competition.

Infant mortality. Largely a matter of prenatal care choices and not the result of policy. But while we hear a lot about infant mortality we hear much less about cancer mortality where policy choices do make a difference and the US leads the world.

Middle class families can afford insurance as long as either the husband or the wife works for an employer that has some sort of group insurance.

Yep. Which supports my statement that the middle class have insurance.

If they're young, they can buy an individual policy. If not, they may not be able to.

Whether they are young or old what we are really talking about here are the self employed. If we were not talking about the self employed then we would be talking about those who are employed by companies that provide insurance.

And yes those who are self employed do face challenges. Again that goes directly back to what I said earlier about congress making laws that force people into only having employer provided insurance.

If a person buys a policy when they are young and holds it until they are old the insurance company should not be able to penalize them for growing older - that would be an insjustice. And who is responsible for making laws to stop injustices? Answer: The various state lawmakers.

But if a person chooses not never have insurance and then when he is old and frail discovers that he cannot afford a policy - then maybe that person should have enough assets to pay for his own care or he will have to rely upon the moral character of his fellow citizens. Which is of course why it has been said that our constitution is fit only for a moral people and no other.
But if we find ourselves in the situation in which no one wants to help the destitute and sick then we have much bigger problems than the destitute and sick. If we find ourselves in the situation in which no one wants to help then they will either chose not to help under a free system just as much as they will choose not to help under a direct democracy. If people will not step up to the plate voluntarily then they would also vote to refrain from helping as well.

Please go to my thread here and be a part of a the discussion:
https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13665

the problem is, money does buy special treatment.

If we can somehow manage to outlaw bribery when the lone policeman on the beat stops a car then why can't we stop it when a congressmen puts his actions in writing for all to read? There are only about 500 congressmen. Surely we can supervise them all.

How are we going to enforce that? It looks like congresscritters are up for purchase in a lot of cases.

Are you really arguing that congress is beyond our ability to enforce simple laws like "don't take bribes"

If that is really true then we are doomed.

 

[PLC1]

We have both agreed for quite a while now that no one thing is the only factor effecting cost. So why would you make a point that requires, for it to be valid, that national wealth is the ONLY factor?

Yep. And you could not be more right in the example you presented. As long as people do not care how much is paid the costs will go up.






Again, I did not make the claim that our standard of living is higher than that of Europe. I am pretty sure I said that in those exact words.

What I did say is that our poor live better than most of Europe's middle class.

"

The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.) "

​

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...or-examining-the-plague-of-poverty-in-america


When you say children in poverty I assume you mean the number of children in poverty here versus there. Which would of course be irrelevant to the statement that our poor live better lives than their middle class - it does not matter how many there are.

Opportunity for education - I believe both here and there the opportunity to be in school is equal. Though maybe our government schools suck more.

Opportunity for a good job. We could fix that with a few strokes of the pen. Blame congress for the barriers to work that have been set in place both as "protections" for the people and by more powerful people to hold down the competition.

Infant mortality. Largely a matter of prenatal care choices and not the result of policy. But while we hear a lot about infant mortality we hear much less about cancer mortality where policy choices do make a difference and the US leads the world.



Yep. Which supports my statement that the middle class have insurance.



Whether they are young or old what we are really talking about here are the self employed. If we were not talking about the self employed then we would be talking about those who are employed by companies that provide insurance.

And yes those who are self employed do face challenges. Again that goes directly back to what I said earlier about congress making laws that force people into only having employer provided insurance.

If a person buys a policy when they are young and holds it until they are old the insurance company should not be able to penalize them for growing older - that would be an insjustice. And who is responsible for making laws to stop injustices? Answer: The various state lawmakers.

But if a person chooses not never have insurance and then when he is old and frail discovers that he cannot afford a policy - then maybe that person should have enough assets to pay for his own care or he will have to rely upon the moral character of his fellow citizens. Which is of course why it has been said that our constitution is fit only for a moral people and no other.
But if we find ourselves in the situation in which no one wants to help the destitute and sick then we have much bigger problems than the destitute and sick. If we find ourselves in the situation in which no one wants to help then they will either chose not to help under a free system just as much as they will choose not to help under a direct democracy. If people will not step up to the plate voluntarily then they would also vote to refrain from helping as well.

Please go to my thread here and be a part of a the discussion:
https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13665




If we can somehow manage to outlaw bribery when the lone policeman on the beat stops a car then why can't we stop it when a congressmen puts his actions in writing for all to read? There are only about 500 congressmen. Surely we can supervise them all.



Are you really arguing that congress is beyond our ability to enforce simple laws like "don't take bribes"

If that is really true then we are doomed.

whether you call it "bribes" or not, the fact is that politicians are forced to spend mountains of cash to get elected. Once elected, we can say tht they represent the voters rather than the donors, but enforcing that is another matter. They know which side of the bread their butter is on, and they know what it takes to stay in office.

What should be is a system that favors political office as a short term period of public service, as opposed to a career. Politicians shouldn't have to solicit millions of dollars to run for office. That's what should be, not what is.

As for health insurance, no one buys a policy for life. Health insurance policies run for a short time, then are renewed, or are not renewed. If they are renewed, it is the same as if the buyer were a new customer.

Even group insurance is renegotiated every year at least.

 

[Dr.Who]

whether you call it "bribes" or not, the fact is that politicians are forced to spend mountains of cash to get elected. Once elected, we can say tht they represent the voters rather than the donors, but enforcing that is another matter. They know which side of the bread their butter is on, and they know what it takes to stay in office.

What should be is a system that favors political office as a short term period of public service, as opposed to a career. Politicians shouldn't have to solicit millions of dollars to run for office. That's what should be, not what is.

As for health insurance, no one buys a policy for life. Health insurance policies run for a short time, then are renewed, or are not renewed. If they are renewed, it is the same as if the buyer were a new customer.

Even group insurance is renegotiated every year at least.

I don't think that term limits are the answer though it would be better than what we have now in some ways.

They DO know what side the bread is buttered on but WE let them get away with it. We need to expect and demand a change. It IS possible to create legislation that would put an end to this. Such legislation would be constitutional too.

RE: health insurance, the renewal policies can be legislated when they are shown to be harmful to people. Why hasnt it been done?

 

[PLC1]

I don't think that term limits are the answer though it would be better than what we have now in some ways.

They DO know what side the bread is buttered on but WE let them get away with it. We need to expect and demand a change. It IS possible to create legislation that would put an end to this. Such legislation would be constitutional too.

RE: health insurance, the renewal policies can be legislated when they are shown to be harmful to people. Why hasnt it been done?

Probably because of the insurance lobby.

We think we can demand change. The truth is that far more voters are manipulated by ads payed for by political "donations" than are able to demand legislation that would enact any meaningful changes.

 

[Dr.Who]

Probably because of the insurance lobby.

We think we can demand change. The truth is that far more voters are manipulated by ads payed for by political "donations" than are able to demand legislation that would enact any meaningful changes.

In a world where congress is manipulated by various lobbies who get favors which lobby manipulates them more?

Is it the insurance companies and all businesses total or is the middle class tax payer? Could we know if we look at to whom congress is giving those favors?

If so, then we know that of all money given away only 8% of it goes to business and the rest goes to middle class tax payers.

But what if congress is not the ones being manipulated? What if it is congress manipulating both business and middle class taxpayers? They give the favors to business in exchange for money and they give favors to middle class in exchange for money. Business and citizens are pitted against each other but only the congressmen get to take from the pot in both sets of transactions. They keep a portion of the money to use for their own purposes but they use other people's money to pay for what they get every time.