First off are you sitting down? As much as I rant and rave against our “FREE MARKET” system I DO believe in it………….. in PRINCIPAL. All the things you’ve pointed out have real merit. However, when it come right down to it one must ask…..will the ”FREE MARKET” provide for all or just those that can pay their way? Will the quality and extent of coverage depend on what one can afford? Can’t afford the high cost of critical care….damn shame….that’s the “FREE MARKET” …………..winners and losers! As for the regulators not doing their job to uncover the fraud in the system….I know of ONE PARTY who has lead the charge to take government off the backs of business and people…..do you remember who made that proclamation. Think “B” rated movie star!!! I remember a time when our government did an excellent job regulating for the common good of the nation.

1) The first problem I have with your stance is that we have a program in place now, Medicade which provides health care to those of low income or inability to pay. Therefore, we have public programs for the old, those of low income and children (schip). This combined with the free market, with additional controls and regulations should be able to manage the problems. As for your last comment, you must be much older then I because I don’t believe the government ever does a good job of overseeing itself.

In theory…..allowing insurance companies to compete across State lines sounds good until you through State’s rights and each State’s individual laws and regulations when it comes to what is required by Insurance companies and the kinds of policies they can sell. If this idea was to become the law of the land the problems that exist today would still exist and I would argue could very possibly become worse.

1) This is where federal regulation is needed to mandate the rules by which companies must play by. In the current bill the government will mandate what must be covered by first dollar coverage. However this is where issues come into play regarding such issues as abortion. I personally don’t think we should pay for them on many levels. Let’s be honest there is any number of ways to prevent pregnancy and if you become pregnant (outside of rape or incest) it’s your own damn fault. These types of issues will have to be resolved but creating an over-arching regulatory structure and resolve this. But this is a tight-rope maneuver because premiums could be blown through the roof if to much is included in first dollar coverage.

Again this all sounds good, but what if the individual in question can’t afford to pay the extra cost they’re asking to pay for the “risk sensitive activity” as you call it? By “risk sensitive activity” I’m assuming you’re including “life threatening care” in that same category?
1) To the first part of the question, this is the good part of the free market. Let us say I smoke. Should the insurance company have a right to charge me more for this, of course they should. Let us say that I can’t afford the premium, then I am forced to choose between unhealthy habits or insurance. Therefore I must choose personal responsibility and be held to account for my choices. I think we all need to be held to account for our choices. If we were it would limit poor behaviors.

As far as I’m aware, every other industrialized nation but ours has some form of government run health care and NO ONE is turned away for anything they need. But we can’t have that here…..that would be too humane I guess plus it would cost money. Can’t have that we might not be able to build a billion dollar jet or two…and that’s far more important then providing health care to someone …..right?

1) I am confused we have “some form of government run health care”, medicare, medicade and schip. If you need care you can walk into any emergency room in the country.

At the end of the day, do you believe in a society that looks after ALL of its citizens or only the WINNERS…of that wonderful so called “FREE MARKET”???

1) As a side note – who do you consider winners, those that are currently receiving insurance. 260,000,000 of the 300,000,000 Americans.

2) No, I believe in safety nets but limited safety nets. We should not, we must not, create a systems which encourages people to drop current costs to jump on government programs or causes people to limit or mis-place their responsibilities. While I believe all citizens need a level of protection but I do not believe we should hand all the keys to the government. Absolute power corrupts absolutely – this is true with any government program.

--

Do you believe in Nancy's plan? Do you believe it does the job which needs being done in away that is cost effective to the american people? If not how do you think the plan should look?

• it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests