Health Care Reform
As President Obama prepares to address a joint session of Congress tonight regarding health care reform, Marco Rubio today issued the following web video statement.
As President Obama prepares to address a joint session of Congress tonight regarding health care reform, Marco Rubio today issued the following web video statement.
Awesome!
good luck Marco
ehace…………. & “the “Goobers” in DC’ve only had a combined 140 years of fixing the ( FAA , S/S, medicare/Aid, postal srvice, the war on poverty, the war on drugs, And as our fine TROOPS get bashed about relentlessly/their uselessness (till in need of help-HAITI , etc……………….) clownsOprogressiveness love to also bash capitolists(even tho they cr8 D jobs) D-onk oh i can continue b-lieve-it hit da road if you lke what Chavez is doin’ to the fine ppl of Ven. h’dlove to have Douche!
Marco Rubio: El pendejo Republicano!
Private markets have had enough time to put a cap on exorbitants insurance plan prices for those who lose their job or need an individual insuranace plan. They have had enough time to stop their greedy discrimination which they call pre-existing condition. So is time for the goberment to step in and reach out for those who need an affordable plan.
Our State needs Marco’s moral principles and service vocation.
As we all realize, 2010 is a very important year. We must vote into office true conservatives in order to make a difference in our government and get back to what our founding father’s envisioned for our country.
I will be supporting Marco with my time, energy, and most importantly for him at this point, my money.
We need some young conservatives in the Senate to replace those senile old liberals, I’m all in! He certainly doesn’t fit the mold of the old country cracker Republican! He’d be great to see on TV rebuff the SNL backed Obama crowd as what’s hip! Screw moderate Republicans like Christ, we need solid change and youthful leadership. All the moderates lost the last election go CONSERVATIVE!!! I’m definitely voting Rubio in Aug 2010 and Nov 2010!!!
Hey….You guys can try to out-argue each other all you want…this Rubio guy is FANTASTIC! Sign up on his website and send him a donation; let’s get him elected to the U.S. Senate in 2010 so he can kick the crap out of the Marxist currently in the White House in 2012!
What bigger monopoly is there than the federal government? There are over 1600 private healthcare insurance providers in this country yet most people only have access to 5 or 6 if they are lucky. The reason this is the case is because of federal regulation prohibiting competition instead of encouraging it. How does a centralized, government-run public option promote competition? Supply and Demand…ECO101. This administration isn’t about increasing competition as it is more about CONTROL of us!
What bigger monopoly is there than the federal government? There are over 1600 private healthcare insurance providers in this country yet most people only have access to 5 or 6 if they are lucky. The reason this is the case is because of federal regulation prohibiting competition instead of encouraging it. How does a centralized, government-run public option promote competition? Supply and Demand…ECO101.
What bigger monopoly is there besides the federal government? There are over 1600 private healthcare insurance providers yet most people only have access to 5 or 6 if they are lucky due to federal regulations. By adding a centralized government ran public option is going to reduce costs by increasing competition? I fail to see the logic; however, I do not fail to see the massive increase in government control over her citizens.
There is, in a moderate sense (rather than centrist triangulation to the crazy right), a few reasons why government intervention is typically deemed necessary when monopolies arise. One of them was first layed out by Theodore Roosovelt, a Republican who first busted trusts, and thus giving up antitrust laws. One of those reasons is market failure, which monopolies certainly are.
The second reason why we see monopolies in the insurance market, and the reason why a change in antitrust law is probably a necessary step to real reform, but insuffient, is that health insurance as a market is naturally monopolistic.
This is part of the reason you can assume that anyone discussing ending state regulation of privateinsurance is full of crap. The goal here should be to increase federal regulation so federal antitrust law applies to health insurance companies in coordination with state laws. There are many reasons for why such a policy change is desireable. One is to coordinate a systemic national policy rather rely on local govern. to overcome corruption that may occur in the dominance of local insurance co.
Now, as to why, private health insurance in American tends to be monopolistic, as I said, there are two reasons- the law and economic.
The first reason is that health insurance is exempted from the federal antitrust laws. I am not the biggest fan of Wikipedia, but I think this will give you a quick run down of the law shaping antitrust exemption for health insurance companies under McCarran-Ferguson Act:
The insurance market is monopolistic for two reaons, the laws favor monopolies and the economics of the industry due to high cost of sufficiently pooling risk to produce a viable insurance. The first reason that insurance companies tend toward monopolies is they are exempt from federal antitrust laws. The core idea behind antitrust law in an economic sense is to address market failure in which due to a lack competition a player or a small number of market players can obtain monopoly pricing.
The Republicans, as well as Libertarian organizations such as the Cato Institute and Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty have suggested many free market reforms to expand and promote competition in the insurance industry. One needed reform is to create a national market for insurance, by allowing health insurance to be purchased across state lines. This would be a huge step in bringing down the cost of insurance, but Obama will not even consider it. Go to Cato Institute and CFL websites for info.
Do not dismay Marco! God is with you. We the Floridian are standing with you.
You will win!
In most states there are only 5 companies to choose from. In Alabama 90% are under one co. Now does that sound like a free market. I am not rubio supporter anymore. The replublican politicians have govt. Healthcare. Because of this I am now indepenant
Offer a service. If customer likes the terms being offered the customer chooses to purchase service. Otherwise customer goes somewhere else.
Happens everyday. Night and day.
Not sure what precisely you mean by “based off of if people live or die.”
Company, who could choose not to offer any service, or offer in a different state, or offer some other type of insurance, says: we will enter this state, play by their rules & offer people various insurance plans.
If people or their employers (enter ‘distortion of the market’) like these plans they can choose to purchase. If not, they can choose others.
Making a profit based off if people live or die is not “daily life” That is radical
Comment part B for show555 re: drug makers deal with Washington.
In return the White House agreed to oppose any congressional efforts to bargain for lower drug prices or import drugs from Canada — and also agreed not to pursue Medicare rebates or shift some drugs from Medicare Part B to Part D.
Drug companies are in bed with Obama. He bought them off in that undisclosed, non-transparent deal he had denied for so long — that, when surfaced, caused such a stir among many on the left.
Deal: drug companies give $150million in pro-ObamaCare advertising (more than McCain spent for his pres. campaign) & they promise 2 somehow “cut $80 billion in projected costs to taxpayers & senior citizens over 10yrs.”