Neal,
You're missing the point. I never said I agreed or disagreed with insurance mandates from the state. In general, that's a good thing. But, regional requirements for regional people. I can directly affect that requirements if done at the state level. I can't at the federal level. Extreme example. Let's say that the federal government does have the power to issue mandates that we all buy a certain product or service regardless of personal need. They could, in their infinite wisdom, mandate that I purchase a cow. Every man, woman and child must own a cow. This will, in their mind, help provide milk for the family to drink, meat if they end up needing food (but, they'll have to buy another cow), etc... for whatever reason, they mandate that there be a cow for every man, woman and child in this country. For some, that would be fine.. They like cows.. they like milk... they even like the comfort of knowing that if needed they could get meat. But, for others, they hate milk (or lactose intollerant) or are vegetarians and have no use for the meat protection. Let alone they haven't the space to keep the cow. And, regionally, that makes more sense to some over others.. But, IF the fed were given unlimited authority to mandate the purchase of a certain good or service, then we'd have a lot of mandates from them that most of us don't need or want. With no real control to stop them. At least on a state level, any "mandate" would be voted on directly by the people before it was required. From the federal government, not so much. THAT's why they weren't given that constitutional power.
Perfect world? I'm not asking that we live in a perfect world. My point is that these services by and large are "worth it". They provide valuable services to most of us at one time or another. However, we shouldn't reward inadequate service, waste, fraud and utter mismanagement by throwing more money at the problems they have. We're teaching them that no matter how bad they are at running that service, we'll give them even more money to "make it right". They have NO incentive at all to do things right and more efficient... If it's not right or inefficient or whatever we'll just give them more money to balance their books. Where I guess we differ is that in my "perfect world" they would turn a profit and reduce their budget the next year (because they found a better way to do things, etc..) not break even. In my "perfect world" breaking even would be on the low end of "perfect". I realize that we don't live in a perfect world, however I don't think it's earth shattering that we expect these "services" strive to break even.
Better than nothing? So, higher premiums, higher taxes, and the creation of even more of a shortage of providers is better than nothing? Wow. We have differing opinions on "better than nothing". I agree the current system is broken in some areas. But, THIS bill doesn't fix those problems.
About you getting social security when you're older. Don't bet on it. It likely will be out of money then. Don't rely on social security being there when you need it because it may not be.
We agree on one thing... I have little confidence that the current flock of people in Washington (from the White House to Congress and down) are doing what is best for Americans, they're doing what gives them the best chance at getting elected again. Regardless of party. I believe that a more responsible government would be better, however in my opinion a smaller AND more responsible government would be even better than that.
Let's go here.. You tell me what you like about the bill.. How does this bill solve the problems that we face with the current system? Don't tell me what the problems are with the current system, just how this bill solves those problems. We agree the current system is flawed in some key ways, however I'd like to hear from you how THIS bill solves those problems.
Regards,
Brian
