Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Updates on my life and a therapeutic outlet for my rants
About Me
- Sandra Cookie
- I'm an energetic, slightly geeky, somewhat shy, granola-crunching limnologist. When I'm not scrutinizing plankton or teaching college students I can be found running around central NC.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2010
(40)
-
▼
March
(14)
- Baseball season is coming!
- Response to TH
- Earth Hour and Evil Twin
- Simmer down, now!
- Even more on health care reform!
- Health Care Reform - oops
- Health Care Reform
- World Water Day 2010
- Marathon PR
- Access
- Prom Canceled Because Girl Just Being Herself
- Stray cats
- Basking in the sun
- Divorced Before Puberty
-
▼
March
(14)
4 comments:
Access doesn't grow on trees, nor can it be 'deemed' to exist by the democrats in congress. My fear is that if the gov't takes more control over "healthcare", access might increase for some, but will decrease for many more others in the long term.
-CG
I would rather the government have control over who gets access to health insurance and care than the insurance companies. And I don't understand where your fear is coming from - why would access decrease over the long-term? That's not what has happened in other countries where the government has some role in the matter. Access in those situations has been consistent and higher than in the U.S.
you'd rather the gov't have control over access to healthcare??!! how about access to abortions? The Roe v. Wade decision rested in large part on constitutional privacy rights. i guess that's all thrown out the window?
regarding increased or decreased access, it is all about allocation of limited resources. Most central planning schemes fail to allocate resources as efficiently as a free market.
-CG
What I'm saying is before this bill insurance companies could deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. What would you do if you had a chronically ill child, you lost your job and health insurance, then found a new job with new insurance, but that new insurance company (or any company that you could afford) refused to cover your child? This is why more government control is better - they won't allow such situations to happen (or at the very least they'll be minimized).
I am disappointed in the Hyde Amendment stuff still standing, and it's unfortunate that this was the only way this bill could pass. Actually, with the exception of this Hyde Amendment stuff you shouldn't look at this as if the government has more control over YOU and your choices - they now have more control over the insurance companies who have been screwing over so many Americans.
Post a Comment