On Mar 30, 11:02 am, Democracy Highlander
<nospam_example_...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> good...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> > Health Insurance companies could be prohibited from discriminating
> > against customers or charging different premiums based on prior and
> > existing health conditions. Thus health care would be available for
> > everyone at the same premium for their age. The government could
> > offer income based assistance in obtaining health care based on a
> > sliding scale. If you make $0, the government pays the entire premium
> > and you choose from among the available plans up to a certain amount.
> > If you make more the government pays less. If you make above a
> > certain amount the government doesn't pay anything.
>
> While this is better than the existing disastrous situation, there are 2
> points that need to be addressed to make it workable:
>
> 1. Even age must not be a factor. Since aging people are sicker than the
> youth, you will just move the current situation from people with
> precondition to the old folks. Insurance companies will just put for old
> people premiums so big that a majority of people over 55 will will be
> forced to "choose" ( libertarian style choice :-) not to have insurance
> because the premiums for them will be bigger than what they make.
This is the current situation today. However many old people have
more money, so maybe it is right for their premiums to be higher.
Those who lack money could have the same sliding scale government
assistance I am suggesting. Also, there is Medicare. On the other
hand, perhaps large premiums currently fall too hard on the elderly
who while not so impoverished may need their money to have other
things and a better lifestyle. Maybe there should be a study.
Getting rid of health discrimination will raise everyone's premiums
some. Getting rid of age discrimination will raise everyone's
premiums a lot more. There should be a study on the issues I am
discussing printed in major newspapers.
> 2. The private industry will always find ways to talk with each other
and
> set up premiums high enough to make fat profits. We see this today, we
have
> hundreds of insurers ( theoretically competing on the market ) but we
got
> the smallest care for the buck into the entire world. We provide the
world
> worst pro****tion services/dollar. Worst than third world countries where
> people die by starvation.
> In order to bring real competition onto the market, we need to have a
strong
> nonprofit (either run by gov. or at least supervised by it) insurer.
This
> insurer will compete on the health market with the private companies
> shoulder by shoulder, offering the same types of coverage as the private
> insurers.
This is a great idea. There is something like this for business
liability insurance called Statefund.
http://www.scif.com/about/About.html
> --
> The world of the future will be fully democratic or will not be at all.
Freedom is more im****tant than Democracy. Democracy had slavery,
oppressed women, and continues oppressing to this day. Democracy does
not ensure Liberty and Justice for all, nor does Democracy uphold the
lofty ideas espoused in the Declaration of Independence which gave
birth to the United States of America. The Bill of Rights protects
freedom of speech, freedom to bear arms, the rights of the accused,
and all other rights, but it is not strong enough or extensive
enough... While a Kingdom or Dictator****p can oppress 0%-100% of the
people, Democracy can oppress 49% or even more than 49% of the people,
as the minority of elected dictators can oppress more than 49%.
Even in a kingdom or dictator****p, with freedom of speech, you could
appeal to the king or dictator, and have as much power as a minority
in a democracy who's vote is worth nothing next to the majority.
A dictator****p is merely more risky. Dictator****ps are not
_inherently_ worse, just more often worse.
Freedom is the foundation of Justice. All Justice is based on
Freedom. We should have freedom _from_ violation and danger to person
and property, and freedom _of_ and _to_ all other things.
The question is: How do we reconcile the need of the government to
write new laws due to changing cir***stances, with the unalienable
rights and freedoms in all human beings?
Should we be allowed to write new laws or change laws merely due to
changing opinion? How then is that Justice? What is Right now is
right for all time... and reason should guide us.
Our public legislators shouldn't be allowed to act as elected
dictators and outlaw anything they please!
And true kings makes kings of other kings.
> Democracy Highlander
>
> P.S.:
> When I say "democratic", I use the word democratic coming from democracy
not
> from Democratic party. I am not connected in any way with Democratic
party
> and if they fail to do as promised and cut cor****ate corruption I have
no
> problem to turn on them and blog against them too.
|
