Quote:
Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna
Your "state's rights" idea is a good one, I think. Maybe the federal government should provide some guidelines to assure that what each state designs meets some minimum national standards. That is, there should be some minimum standards for individual states' healthcare insurance programs. I believe that should include a requirement that every citizen have health insurance.
Maybe the feds should provide a basic program of insurance--not as complicated as ObamaCare--that would be required for use in each state that has not enacted their own health insurance program, or adoptable by those states who choose not to spend the time and money to develop their own program. Kind of similar to "no child left behind" in the education sector. The feds don't tell the states of municipalities specifically how to accomplish things, but they do measure the results and establish penalties or results-based requirements for states whose programs fall short of national standards.
|
VK, you sounded much more reasoned on this post than you did in the one that started this thread - another ad hominem attack on Republicans. This is an issue that is not split upon party lines. Seven Democrat governors are lying back until after the election before they roil the water.
Medicaid expansion a tough sell to governors of both parties - The Washington Post
In another post that attacked Rick Scott for his stance against the expansion of Medicaid, I detailed the data that showed Florida simply cannot afford to implement this. The money simply is not there. Given your background as a banker would you recommend someone or some entity commit to a project that they cannot afford?
As much as I do not want to sound like a nag, please go to mittromney.com and look at what he has to say on the issue. In the spirit of compliance with forum rules, I provide only the link and do not post his bullet points or the full reasoning why the Unaffordable Healthcare Act, aka Obamacare, does not work. Do I agree with him on everything? Of course not. I strongly favor severe tightening on malpractice lawsuits. Any law firm that brings a malpractice action, must be held to pay opposing legal costs and expenses unless they can show that the client has reimbursed them in full for their own legal fees and expenses and is capable of paying the defending party’s legal fees and expenses. In addition, to encourage full disclosure, the law firm must reveal to the jury before verdict is rendered the amount they will collect in legal fees and expenses together with their share of the verdict. I’m tired about hearing this or that lawyer is ‘for us’. They are not. They are for themselves. The cost of the bar in these United States is now approaching the cost of the Defense budget. Who to we need protection from – the infamous military/industrial complex or our lawyer system?