Mr. Kreidler decision is a stupid. Born out of pure politics and lacking common sense. Has he not heard of “adverse selection”. Does he not know that the insurance companies who offer coverage in this environment will get raped. He is a typical liberal who believes any money outside of government is automatically theirs for the taking by edict. They make me sick. They created the problem and now they don’t like the outcome.
Actually, I can understand Regent’s position. Maybe they learned something from the 2500 kids only policies they have in-force. This is an example of why access to the greatest healthcare system in the world is in such a mess. This all started in the early 1950s when private companies offered health insurance as an incentive to attract workers in a booming, high growth economy. Back then, it was cheap. This took the goverenment out of the picture and put the burden on corporate America to insured workers. Why is it that private corporations bare the brunt of providing healhcare coverage to the masses? I wonder what my employer could do with the roughly $10K a year they spend on me for my benifits. Mutliply that by the millions of others who get private medical insurance paid for by their employer. What a burden health insurance is for small businesses. Access to healthcare is the government’s responsibility. Everyone would pay into it and the system would be fully funded and there would be no fear of “adverse selection” or pre-existing conditions. If the government got involved in this in the 30s and 40s when it was seriously being considered, think how mature they system would be? Nothing is perfect. But it would be better than the current situation. Now we pay for unisureds who go to the ER for a strep throat or worse, and my Dr. charged my insurance company $40 last month for a blood sugar test on supplies that cost less than $1. No wonder costs are out of control.
How does a non-custodian parent required by law to provide medical insurance comply if no child only policies are available?
How can garnished wages for medical care of minor child directly pay for their medical care if no child policies are available?
Would it be more effective to encourage employment, marriage and families? It appears that current government routine may be part of the problem and why there is a need for more child only medical insurance policies!!
It would be nice in CA if we could use our natural resources to be stewards of our own families and land. Larger county, state and federal government programs means less money available to help our local economy and families.
“Access to healthcare is the government’s responsibility.” Really?! That sounds 100% socialist!
Where in the Constitution do you get that? When did we relinquish personal responsibility for our own health to government?
But why stop at healthcare? Housing is the govenment’s responsibility. Feeding me is the govenment’s responsibility. Clothing me is the govenment’s responsiblity. Where does it end?
If we had implemented this in the 40’s we’d be where Canada and the UK are today – rationed, sub-standard care. Actually we’d probably be worse off along with the rest of the world as U.S. medical advances would have been stifled.
Ned, the only thing broken is your head!
Have you ever heard of the RIGHT to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Well you can’t have much of a life if your dead. We are the only industrialized country in the world that allows for profit primary health care insurers. We rank near the bottom of every measure used to gage public health. Furthermore, stop sprewing the right wing crap about the Canadian health care system. Why don’t you ask a Canadian how they like their system. See if they would prefer our system instead. Try putting the we before the me.
Having the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is not equivalent to the government handing you these things. (BTW, that’s the Declaration, not the Constitution.) The job of the government is to protect these rights to allow equal opportunity, not to guarantee equal outcomes.
The for profit system you decry is the reason the world has seen so many medical and pharmaceutical advances. What other industrialized country with a not-for-profit system has given the world more or better developments?
I have heard from several Canadians about the deficiencies of their system. And those with the means come here for their care to avoid the months long waits for service that is readily available here. How many Americans go north for their health needs?
Try putting the we before the me yourself and pay for your own health care and not ask everyone else (through taxes) to support you. I’m sure you wouldn’t disagree with JFK, “Ask not what your country can do for you, …” Let’s stop trading our rugged individualism for feeble dependency. Remember, the government that can do everything for you can take everything from you.
Ned. Bottom line: The US does rank way lower than most other industrialized nations in terms of individual health. Plenty of Americans have gone north for more affordable medicine. The advances in medicine by US drug companies is a fair point but consider that at least 30% of the costs charged by the US drug makers to US consumers goes to marketing and not R&D. I live in NJ and many of my neighbors work for the drug companies so I know what I am talking about. This adds a lot of fat to the price paid by private insurers and consumers. What good are these drugs if a good chunk of the population cannot afford them and are forced to go to Canada where the US drug makers are not allowed to gouge the public? But, getting back to the first point in my post, why should corporate American bare the brunt of providing health insurance to the masses? Think of the additional investment that could have taken place over the last 50 year if we had a differnt system? It’s not socialist to want corporate America to have more money to invest in themselves and the economy.
Initially, corporate America made a decision to offer health insurance as an incentive to attract good employees. It was a free choice and should remain so. A company should be able to choose to stop providing health insurace benefits but there have been govenment efforts to force employers to provide such benefits.
I agree it’s not socialist to want corporate America to have more money. But it is socialist to have the government take over health care.
Health insurance could be much more affordable without all the government mandates. In some states, I couldn’t buy a health policy witout mental health, birth control, and other benefits I don’t want.
Whatever is broken in the system, government is not the fix. It’s more likely a contributing factor.
Instead of more govenment, how about less? Allow individual medical savings accounts that can be used to buy insurance and/or pay for services directly. Employers could stop providing health benefits and increase wages.
PS those going north to buy medicine cheaper are buying drugs that were developed here. 30% for marketing leaves 70% for everything else including R&D.
ok, first of all, an insurance is actually a contract and anyone under the age of 18 is not legal to bind into a contract…
secondly… i have problems even with gov’t insurance as in medicaid. my daughter had a son 4 months ago and soon after his birth applied for medicaid for his health insurance since she does not have a job…they said (gov’t) application should be done w/in 45 days and backdates all payments for 90 days, but it’s been 4 months since and grandma/grandpa have had to help pay for medical payments so the child can get his checkup and shots… question is will we ever get reimbursed or will i have to eventually sue?!
Mr. Kreidler decision is a stupid. Born out of pure politics and lacking common sense. Has he not heard of “adverse selection”. Does he not know that the insurance companies who offer coverage in this environment will get raped. He is a typical liberal who believes any money outside of government is automatically theirs for the taking by edict. They make me sick. They created the problem and now they don’t like the outcome.
Way to go Mike! Stop these money grubbing republicans in their tracks.
Actually, I can understand Regent’s position. Maybe they learned something from the 2500 kids only policies they have in-force. This is an example of why access to the greatest healthcare system in the world is in such a mess. This all started in the early 1950s when private companies offered health insurance as an incentive to attract workers in a booming, high growth economy. Back then, it was cheap. This took the goverenment out of the picture and put the burden on corporate America to insured workers. Why is it that private corporations bare the brunt of providing healhcare coverage to the masses? I wonder what my employer could do with the roughly $10K a year they spend on me for my benifits. Mutliply that by the millions of others who get private medical insurance paid for by their employer. What a burden health insurance is for small businesses. Access to healthcare is the government’s responsibility. Everyone would pay into it and the system would be fully funded and there would be no fear of “adverse selection” or pre-existing conditions. If the government got involved in this in the 30s and 40s when it was seriously being considered, think how mature they system would be? Nothing is perfect. But it would be better than the current situation. Now we pay for unisureds who go to the ER for a strep throat or worse, and my Dr. charged my insurance company $40 last month for a blood sugar test on supplies that cost less than $1. No wonder costs are out of control.
How does a non-custodian parent required by law to provide medical insurance comply if no child only policies are available?
How can garnished wages for medical care of minor child directly pay for their medical care if no child policies are available?
Would it be more effective to encourage employment, marriage and families? It appears that current government routine may be part of the problem and why there is a need for more child only medical insurance policies!!
It would be nice in CA if we could use our natural resources to be stewards of our own families and land. Larger county, state and federal government programs means less money available to help our local economy and families.
WA’s Kreidler should marry CA’s Gavin Newsome. Perfect bookends, eh?
“Access to healthcare is the government’s responsibility.” Really?! That sounds 100% socialist!
Where in the Constitution do you get that? When did we relinquish personal responsibility for our own health to government?
But why stop at healthcare? Housing is the govenment’s responsibility. Feeding me is the govenment’s responsibility. Clothing me is the govenment’s responsiblity. Where does it end?
If we had implemented this in the 40’s we’d be where Canada and the UK are today – rationed, sub-standard care. Actually we’d probably be worse off along with the rest of the world as U.S. medical advances would have been stifled.
Ned, the only thing broken is your head!
Have you ever heard of the RIGHT to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Well you can’t have much of a life if your dead. We are the only industrialized country in the world that allows for profit primary health care insurers. We rank near the bottom of every measure used to gage public health. Furthermore, stop sprewing the right wing crap about the Canadian health care system. Why don’t you ask a Canadian how they like their system. See if they would prefer our system instead. Try putting the we before the me.
Having the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is not equivalent to the government handing you these things. (BTW, that’s the Declaration, not the Constitution.) The job of the government is to protect these rights to allow equal opportunity, not to guarantee equal outcomes.
The for profit system you decry is the reason the world has seen so many medical and pharmaceutical advances. What other industrialized country with a not-for-profit system has given the world more or better developments?
I have heard from several Canadians about the deficiencies of their system. And those with the means come here for their care to avoid the months long waits for service that is readily available here. How many Americans go north for their health needs?
Try putting the we before the me yourself and pay for your own health care and not ask everyone else (through taxes) to support you. I’m sure you wouldn’t disagree with JFK, “Ask not what your country can do for you, …” Let’s stop trading our rugged individualism for feeble dependency. Remember, the government that can do everything for you can take everything from you.
Ned. Bottom line: The US does rank way lower than most other industrialized nations in terms of individual health. Plenty of Americans have gone north for more affordable medicine. The advances in medicine by US drug companies is a fair point but consider that at least 30% of the costs charged by the US drug makers to US consumers goes to marketing and not R&D. I live in NJ and many of my neighbors work for the drug companies so I know what I am talking about. This adds a lot of fat to the price paid by private insurers and consumers. What good are these drugs if a good chunk of the population cannot afford them and are forced to go to Canada where the US drug makers are not allowed to gouge the public? But, getting back to the first point in my post, why should corporate American bare the brunt of providing health insurance to the masses? Think of the additional investment that could have taken place over the last 50 year if we had a differnt system? It’s not socialist to want corporate America to have more money to invest in themselves and the economy.
Initially, corporate America made a decision to offer health insurance as an incentive to attract good employees. It was a free choice and should remain so. A company should be able to choose to stop providing health insurace benefits but there have been govenment efforts to force employers to provide such benefits.
I agree it’s not socialist to want corporate America to have more money. But it is socialist to have the government take over health care.
Health insurance could be much more affordable without all the government mandates. In some states, I couldn’t buy a health policy witout mental health, birth control, and other benefits I don’t want.
Whatever is broken in the system, government is not the fix. It’s more likely a contributing factor.
Instead of more govenment, how about less? Allow individual medical savings accounts that can be used to buy insurance and/or pay for services directly. Employers could stop providing health benefits and increase wages.
PS those going north to buy medicine cheaper are buying drugs that were developed here. 30% for marketing leaves 70% for everything else including R&D.
ok, first of all, an insurance is actually a contract and anyone under the age of 18 is not legal to bind into a contract…
secondly… i have problems even with gov’t insurance as in medicaid. my daughter had a son 4 months ago and soon after his birth applied for medicaid for his health insurance since she does not have a job…they said (gov’t) application should be done w/in 45 days and backdates all payments for 90 days, but it’s been 4 months since and grandma/grandpa have had to help pay for medical payments so the child can get his checkup and shots… question is will we ever get reimbursed or will i have to eventually sue?!