on one thing. I think insurance companies are "part of the problem". I agree the insurance companies do not want a public option, but I think that is where the agreement ends. She is trying to spin this as the insurance companies being scared of competition from the government program. She is right there, but not for the reasons she thinks. They are scared because of the regulation the proposed legislation is going to place upon them will eventually put them out of business as it did to most companies in Canda. What I want to know is if the insurance companies are so evil, and people hate them so much then why is the government going to force them to change the manner in which they operate? Really? If lets say Aetna is so awful, and peope hate them so much then why not come up with a plan that is better, and cheaper than theirs, and let the market determine who is right? That is not what is being proposed. If it was I would support it. Further to the point if the government wants to get into the business of offering health care services as an OPTION then why not do it in a manner similar to the insurance companies? You want to offer a product then you need to pay for it with proceeds from those who choose to participate. This makes the program "revenue neutral", you can cover whomever you want, and you deal with the risk. I as a taxpayer do not agree to fund another government entitlement program via my tax dollars. If they want to make a go at it with proceeds gained via competition against the other insurers in the marketplace by all means have at it, and there is no need to try and legislate the others from how they are currently operating. If the government program is better the market and customers will decide. So this makes me wonder why is the government afraid to compete with these evil companies based on the merit of its own plan in a competitive market? at the end of the day that is the issue. It is not about whether the insurance companies are evil really. If that is true offer a better product, and the insurance companies will be forced to react with one better than the competition. The end game is that the market should freely decide. Let that happen and there likely will be a lot of support for a public option that is not going to be there in the current version. Try and take over in the manner they are is not something I will ever support. Pelosi is right, but also very wrong
I have a problem with the person third in line to be POTUS calling out companies as immoral and unethical. Her rhetoric sounds like one of a freshman state legislature,not the Speaker of the House of the United States of America. Please let's get rid of her, the Democrats have so many more choices that fit into the liberal aspect of the agenda but at least they have class. She is a joke and is making Democrats look silly.
How about tort reform as another part of the plan? Cap all lawsuits and that will give about a trillion dollar stimulus with no budget deficit. But wait lawyers are the ones writing the bills... Hook'em
Malpractice suits drive up the cost of malpractice insurance due to large awards or settlements and the physicians and nurses have to be able to cover the prmium costs. A general legal premise is you can not contract away your negligence. With that in mind elimination of frivolous class actions and other suits that are filed with nothing more than a large settlement for baseless claims needto be limited. The best way is to enforce the sanctions particularly the monetary sanctions against tort/PI attorneys and their clients that engage in these type practices, and couple that with practice suspensions up to and including disbarrment would reduce, but not stop the suits. Add on severe penalties on both attorney and client for perpetrating a fraud fro meritless silings would be beneficial. I do believe in caps on awards for certain damages, but not in cases of willful or gross negligence. At any rate, good luck with any reform proposed!
