Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (478831)	3/27/2012 6:04:52 AM
From: Bill	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793866

As a practical matter, the biggest problem with Romneycare isn't the individual mandate. The biggest problem is that it does nothing to control costs or premiums. It escalates both rapidly due to government dictated coverage levels. Notwithstanding that, it just doesn't work. ER visits and costs have actually risen since its passage.

To: KLP who wrote (478831)	3/27/2012 10:13:33 AM
From: sm1th	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793866

I don’t see that Government insurance is the ONLY choice the people have….they can chose their medical insurance, even those who are on limited income and require some subsidy to help them buy their insurance. There is no govt insurance in MA except medicaid and medicare, same as every other state. Blue Cross Blue Shield has about 60% of the market with most of the rest split between two other carriers. The only govt involvement is the "exchange" which facilitates individuals in buying from one of the private companies. For some poor people, the state subsidizes purchase of private insurance. The biggest flaw in MA insurance law existed long before Romney, and that is the ever growing list of mandated coverages which prevent affordable insurance.

To: KLP who wrote (478831)	3/27/2012 2:37:18 PM
From: Neeka	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793866

It is my opinion the feds got involved way before Mass passed their law, but it was them that forced their hand. Almost as if the whole issue was designed and decided way before BO and the dems took over. And at this point, and despite what the SC finds, I don't believe we have any choice. Because the medical subsidies have grown so large and the federal govt controls the money, they pull the strings and states are being forced to make choices they would otherwise ignore. The hand writing was on the wall when Obama and the dems took over and they obviously decided they'd had enough of the stalling and saw the coffers were being drained by ever expanding demand by the states for hc money, they put their foot down and implemented some rules. I understand why private insurers are enthusiastic...........they really have the most to gain. As a conservative, it is my opinion legislators should have worked with private insurers to find free enterprise solutions, starting with advertising of the cost of care, and this willingness to jump on the mandate wagon was where they went wrong. In the end, I don't think it matters. I don't see there is the will on the part of legislators to go in a different direction.