Hmmm. We need public option to compete with the private option in order to bring costs down. But Knocking down state fences in order to let all insurance companies compete on a national level wouldn’t help to bring costs down. OK. Lucky for Mr. Axelrod that the American people are are all morons and can’t figure out that national competition might eliminate any need for a public option.
Old Trooper
15 years ago
Every State has their own Insurance Commissions that regulate Insurance coverage in accordance with the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution. In other words those powers are retained by the People and the Individual States. The States also inspect Hospitals, Clinics, have State Boards for the practice of Medicine, Nursing and Law.
Just how much of State Sovereignty do you want to surrender to an incompetent, unresponsive and irresponsible Federal Government?
ruffege
15 years ago
Old Trooper, I understand where you’re coming from and I am a strong proponent of the 10th amendment as well, but…….
There is no reason why private carriers cannot compete on a national level while still being subject to the regulations of individual states. Ask the auto industry about California’s regulations on cars. There is also know reason why the federal government needs to sink it’s talons into this industry if they are ever allowed to go national.
As it stands right now, I can obtain home owners, renters auto, life, mortgage, even legal insurance outside of my state with little federal interference. So why not medical coverage as well?
If the public option is created and enacted into law it will have free reign throughout the fifty states while private carriers will be tied down to state regulations that prevent it from being sold across state lines. This is the president’s idea of free market competition. If a private carrier had this advantage it would be comparable to and grounds for an anti-trust suit
My question now is, “How badly do you wish to see the public option morph into a universal system? Talk about a violation of state’s rights.
Notice how Axelrod calls this issue a “distraction?” That’s the same languague they use to dismiss nearly every GOP idea. They want to force us all to buy overpriced insurance. I wonder who they are paying off with that idea?
You got that jive talking down now ….
Hmmm. We need public option to compete with the private option in order to bring costs down. But Knocking down state fences in order to let all insurance companies compete on a national level wouldn’t help to bring costs down. OK. Lucky for Mr. Axelrod that the American people are are all morons and can’t figure out that national competition might eliminate any need for a public option.
Every State has their own Insurance Commissions that regulate Insurance coverage in accordance with the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution. In other words those powers are retained by the People and the Individual States. The States also inspect Hospitals, Clinics, have State Boards for the practice of Medicine, Nursing and Law.
Just how much of State Sovereignty do you want to surrender to an incompetent, unresponsive and irresponsible Federal Government?
Old Trooper, I understand where you’re coming from and I am a strong proponent of the 10th amendment as well, but…….
There is no reason why private carriers cannot compete on a national level while still being subject to the regulations of individual states. Ask the auto industry about California’s regulations on cars. There is also know reason why the federal government needs to sink it’s talons into this industry if they are ever allowed to go national.
As it stands right now, I can obtain home owners, renters auto, life, mortgage, even legal insurance outside of my state with little federal interference. So why not medical coverage as well?
If the public option is created and enacted into law it will have free reign throughout the fifty states while private carriers will be tied down to state regulations that prevent it from being sold across state lines. This is the president’s idea of free market competition. If a private carrier had this advantage it would be comparable to and grounds for an anti-trust suit
My question now is, “How badly do you wish to see the public option morph into a universal system? Talk about a violation of state’s rights.
Notice how Axelrod calls this issue a “distraction?” That’s the same languague they use to dismiss nearly every GOP idea. They want to force us all to buy overpriced insurance. I wonder who they are paying off with that idea?
But how does it feel to plug into a system that’s say, a million times as smart as a person.