Posted on 11/03/2009 2:22:32 PM PST by Justaham
WASHINGTON (AP) - After months spent criticizing Democrats' health overhaul plans, House Republicans have produced a draft proposal of their own. It's much shorter and focuses on bringing down costs rather than extending coverage to nearly all Americans. A 230-page draft was obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press. A spokeswoman for Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said changes were still being made before the bill would be finalized in time to offer as an alternative when Democrats begin floor debate on their bill, possibly at the end of this week.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Still tooo long
You need to do 4 things should not take that much verbiage
1) Allow insurance to be sold across state lines
2) Get rid of all government mandates reguarding health care
3) Tort reform NOW
4) Prohibit illegals from having access to any health care in this country what so ever
I don’t think #1 or #3 are constitutional, not that that matters to anyone.
The Republican bill includes a permanent ban on any federal funding for abortions except in cases of rape, incest or threat to the life of the mother, stronger language than the Democratic bill,
Good stuff!
#3 is questionable. #1 is do-able. If you can sell coca-cola across state lines, why not insurance?
#3 is worse than questionable. As for #1, again, it’s not the feds business. The reason coca cola can be sold in all 50 states is because they meet the regulations of all 50 states. There is no FED law prohibiting people to buy out of state insurance. They act as if it’s their prerogative to “let people buy insurance across state lines.” But what that truly means is “let the feds nullify the state regulations of all 50 states.” By what authority?
It's all the damned requirements -- I have to buy mental health counseling coverage and drug treatment coverage, etc., etc. Coverage I will never use, and don't want to pay for. Plus, it sticks me with a limited pool of insured people, so my base cost of insurance is naturally higher than it would be if I could access a larger pool.
What do you mean they are constitutional? where did you ever get the idea that allowing the selling of insurance across state lines was unconstitutional? Auto insurance and home owners insurance and life insurance already do that.
Ending government mandates is unconstitutional...
Please tell me that your posting was really sarcasm and I am just too slow this morning to catch it
The federal government has no authority to regulate insurance. It’s a state issue. Period, end of sentence. If residents of a state want to change the regulations in their state, they can take it up with their state legislature and change it. It’s not the feds business. Where does the constitution delegate to the national government the power to regulate insurance policies?
Congress would have to resolve conflicts between state and Federal health insurance laws and regulations. Today, he noted, insurers spend a lot of money complying with the widely different laws and regulations that they have to operate under in each state. This administrative cost could be reduced dramatically simply by creating a national market for health insurance.
So, instead of a state deciding its own regulations, everything gets turned over to Fedzilla. Unconstitutional, Unconservative, BIG gubmint nonsense.
Huck you are so ignorant. the Congress has already outlawed the selling of health insurance acrossed state lines. That’s the point.
The point of my suggested legislation is to END that and return the ability to sell back t the companies and the states they do business in.
I think we probably agree but you do not understand what the current mess is
You are soooooo wrong. There is no federalized auto insurance. You do not understand that health insurance policies cannot be purchased the way auto policies can. I can go on line and get a quote from any insurer in any state. I can specify what coverage I want. When I find a premium I like I buy it
That is not currently the way health insurance is done. In California because of antitrust exemptions given by The Congress of the US there are 6 companies from which we may buy. They have to offer a particular package that currently meets government standards ( The Fed not the the state).
All I am suggesting is that we friggin get read of this current mess. Learn where you are at before you start running around and fall off a cliff
Completely false. You don't know what you're talking about.
Currently, any insurance provider can sell in any state, provided it comply with that states regs--including mandated benefits. What the "allow to sell across state lines" crowd is trying to do is make health insurance like credit cards. Do you know why credit card companies all reside in SD and DE? Because that's where the most slack laws are.
Right now, any state can require whatever it chooss of insurance companies. The FEDS now want to step in and change. that. Here's the text from the bill, you ignorant mcnugget:
"Exempts issuers from any secondary state's laws that would prohibit or regulate the operation of the issuer in such state"
In other words, the feds nullifying the state regulation of health insurance. It becomes federalized at that point.
I was not talking about any of the nills currently in print or being talked about. I was talking about my solutions for health care.
You have NEVER seen any post of mine that favors anything currently being proposed. Come try and buy insurance in California, you have a choice of four insurers. That is anti competition and anti freedom.
You don’t know what you’re talking about. There is no federal law prohibiting interstate health insurance. There are four insurers in CA because that’s how many choose to do business there. If you don’t like it, move. Or get your legislature to change state regulations to encourage more companies to do business there. But don’t FEDERALIZE regulation of health insurance unless you want to make things much worse, with nowhere to run.
Wallace's question is misleading or ignorant as well. He asks "If you really want competition why not remove the restriction which now says that if I live in Washington, D.C. I've got to buy a D.C. health plan," which gives uninformed people such as yourself the false impression that there is a federal law in the way. There isn't. "Removing the restriction" means forcing states to let companies do business in their state who do not comply with their regulations. In effect, killing state regulation of health insurance, thereby federalizing it.
I am not referring to ANY BILL. I am talking about possible solutions
Go back and hide in your cave
And for the record you are taking the same position that AARP is and the SEIU that ought to tell you everything you need to know
LOL. Again, do you read the articles you link to? This one makes my point-—states retain the regulatory power. You favor federalization.
Yes I do and the point is that it is doable. Moreover it lists the federal law that stands in the way. Do you understand English????
AGAIN for the last time I am NOT supporting ANY bill currently available. I was talking about an approach. Clean the wax out of your ears, clean your eye glasses, and use some brains.
You don't know what you are talking about. If you like FDR-era versions of the commerce clause then you will love federalization of insurance regulation. lol
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.