Without knowing Pool Hustler's medical condition, what he's paying may not be out of line at all. Yeah, that's a hell of a lot of money to have to pay per month. But a pal of mine's wife pays about that much. She's morbidly obese, has diabetes and several other health problems. They pay a huge amount for insurance for her because she's lucky to be able to get insurance at all. At most of the companies they approached, she was considered "uninsurable".
If you believe that Obamacare would ultimately read to "rationing" of health care (which I do), your pal's wife would be sent to the back of the line -- receiving delayed and/or limited care in favor of healthier, more economically feasible people. Yes, she is indeed VERY lucky to have insurance at all -- but at least she has it. Under Obamacare, she might have nothing at all.
I agree that it should be easier to buy insurance from companies based in other states. In that way, competition
should help to adjust certain policy premiums, as the competition would lessen the near monopoly or duopoly situations that some companies have in some states. But after what I've gone through, I wouldn't buy insurance from a company unless they were licensed to do business in my state. I don't care where they're based. But if they try to cheat me, I don't want to have to get a lawyer in Mississippi to get the situation straightened out.
If you're being cheated by your insurance company, it sucks no matter WHERE you live, doesn't it?
And sorry, but teacher salaries have nothing to do with this. I'm not saying it's not an issue. But education reform, public sector union reform and the like are separate issues. There is a HUGE number of programs and services that could be cut (military spending, foreign aid, etc.) and other things could be done with the money.
In answering Pool Hustler's question, I was offering up an example of how we could pay to insure the uninsured WITHOUT ******* all 300 million Americans into buying something they may not need or want. Much of the federal aid that goes to states every year ultimately goes to unions. As I said previously, that money would be better spent elsewhere (like helping people pay for health care). To me, that makes the example very relevant. I agree we would should cut foreign aid. Absolutely. It's a waste of money and it goes unappreciated by many recipients. But I wholeheartedly disagree with cutting our already weakened military. We have clear and present threats in Iran and N. Korea, in addition to our ongoing conflict vs. Islamic extremism. Hell, even China is building weapon systems intended to put them on a level playing field with the American military (like the so-called carrier-killer missile, for example). IMO, we need to INVEST in the military. In addition to making us more safe and secure and give other nations pause before fucking with us, it would, in short, create countless jobs and help invigorate the economy. It would certainly be more beneficial than funding that green energy scam. Now THAT is something that should be cut.
That just sounds like the creation of another government entitlement to me.
What I don't like about this bill is that it is more of an insurance reform law, rather than a true health care reform law. The debate got so muddled up that not enough focus was placed on things that could have been done to make our system more efficient and cost effective. And (IMO) the VERY same thing would happen if tort reform was tackled. Do I really believe that two rooms, filled with a majority of people who are lawyers, are going to pass a bill that would really hurt lawyers? :rofl2: Now, they might pass a law that would limit how much
you could collect if a doctor amputates the wrong leg or prescribes the wrong medication and you die. But that's hardly tort reform, in my mind. Unlike many of the American people, politicians are smart enough NOT to vote against their own interests.
You may be right about the lawyers. But doctors/hospitals pay millions to insulate themselves against lawsuits, which, according to my understanding, is one of the biggest drivers behind rising health care costs. Hospitals typically settle malpractice suits (including many of those that have little merit) because it ultimately costs more to litigate every case than it does to simply throw money at disgruntled patients/families to make them go away. If a case does indeed go to court and the plantiff wins, there's no limit on punitive damages, right? Putting a cap on damages, IMO, would give practices and hospitals a way to "budget" for malpractice cases by, perhaps, averaging the number of lawsuits faced per year and deciding on a sum to set aside to handle them. It takes a lot of the uncertainty out of the equation, or so it seems to me. Would this not help curb the rise of cost, or maybe even reduce them? I understand the concept well enough to take a position on the issue, but I freely admit I don't have all the nitty-gritty details at hand. In other words, I know how to drive the car, but I don't pretend to know how to build its engine. 
Don't get me wrong though. I'm all for reforming the legal system to make nuisance suits and frivolous lawsuits go away. They really do hurt our systems (business, legal, etc.).
