Healthcare Town Hall: DeGette, Insurance Monopolies

[DAHAZE10]

Also Nna where is the proof that a majority are not satisfied with their insurance? The latest polls show 52% against and 34% for this plan. The opposition is gaining ground and approaching a 2-1 margin. Shouldn't the majority rule? That's what democracy is all about!

[ninadenver13]

I am assuming the premiums and deductible would be lower because profiteering CEOs wouldn't have their hands in my pocket. And I'm OK with paying taxes to help others. I think it's selfish not to do so. And the costs of private insurance. Honestly I highly doubt that the raise in taxes and the premiums would come near to what I pay now. And the questions isn't whether people are happy with their health CARE, it's whether they are happy with their health INSURANCE.

[DAHAZE10]

Many people are satisfied with their health insurance however. If someone currently elects to do without health insurance by their own choice, is it right to fine them $2500 per year for this choice? I dont think so. I do believe in insurance reform I really do. Just not this bill. The clause I just mentioned would be the equivalant of the government requiring you personally to buy a gold plated toilet seat if you didn't want one, and fining you if you did not buy it. This is the violation.

[ninadenver13]

Where is the proof that many people are satisfied with their health insurance? I have heard plenty of people claim that in this debate, but have yet to see any proof of that whatsoever. The question is always posed as contentment with health "care" not "insurance." Also, the people who elect not to get health insurance are very likely to still demand treatment when something goes wrong, which costs all of us far more money, so why is that acceptable?

[DAHAZE10]

There are currently petitions against the health care bill. They total over half a million signatures. In regards to those who decline ins. Many of them would be getting insurance before anything happened. Thus they would be penalized for being frugal. Admittedly some would still require health care but that is a very small percentage. If you are hurt in the car, a business or someone else's home their insurance covers it. Those places prob. cover over 75% of the injuries = major cost.

[ninadenver13]

As for higher taxes: they can't go as high as my insurance premiums and deductible and at least they go for public services and not straight into the pockets of a wealthy CEO.

[DAHAZE10]

The question isn't whether you would be paying an increase in taxes greater than your premiums and deductible now. First of all we dont knowwhat the premiums and deductible would be for the public option. You are just assuming they would be lower. The real question is whether it is right for the government to for a tax increase on those who are happy with their health care. Charity is a nobel effort, but it is also when the funds are given volentarily. Would you like it if happened to you?

[ninadenver13]

As Rep. DeGette said and other attendees pointed out, allowing private insurance to cross state lines will just encourage the them to move their headquarters to states that have no regulatory laws. Seeing how the industry currently works as a bloc now, I'm sure they'd be more than happy to enforce the same low standards so that they save money and people can't pick from the competition. How can they go out of business when there is no alternative? That's why they're monopolies!

[DAHAZE10]

Monopolies can be broken by releasing the restrictions on buying accross state lines. Her explanation does't hold water. If as she explains certain companies wont cover certain things they would be in violatin of federal law or peope would buy from other companies and they would go out of business. Either way she is lying when she says that this wont work to increase competition between companies. She says she wants government control. With that comes high taxes and less control for us!