Civilized said:
pineknollshoresking said:
Civilized said:
pineknollshoresking said:
statefan91 said:
pineknollshoresking said:
statefan91 said:
I guess it's confusing that someone would expect a benefit to continue after losing their employer provided healthcare. I agree though, I think it sucks that she doesn't have that leave anymore and it should have been extended. Maybe we could find a way to decouple health coverage and parental leave so it's not dependent upon a vindictive boss or company deciding to cut its costs.
We do have it... Its called: call the local insurance agent and pay for Health Insurance privately! Or pay out of pocket when you go to the doctor...
Sounds like a good option for this person then, assuming it's affordable and comprehensive.
Who sets the affordable and comprehensive structure?
Is there an example anywhere in the world of healthcare that's affordable and comprehensive being provided privately?
Changing the conversation...
Who sets the affordable and comprehensive structure?
I'm not changing anything. The answer to my question is key to determining who sets it.
My preference is for a privatized approach however I can't think of any examples anywhere in the world of comprehensive and affordable healthcare for a country's population that's provided privately that we can model our system after.
So the writing is on the wall that way it will be a public service, at least partially.
I'm not sure why you or anyone else would find that government is viable solution in any commerce. They have succeeded in it... actually, nowhere.
The "True Free Market" should set it. In healthcare insurance, we do "NOT" have a "True Free Market" solution. The government has regulated it to nth degree.
Go ahead and say: the government wouldn't have to regulate it if the Insurance company's would do it right. I would reply: we haven't had true multi-state Health Insurance commerce ever. Let's start there.
Now, I need to comment on the commerce clause of the constitution...
"to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian"The word "regulate" at the time of the constitution meant: to make regular. That doesn't mean to control something; rather, it was a compact among the States that they would not regulate, tax, etc among themselves and the Federal government could stop any action of such...