|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 19, 2009 9:25:38 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 19, 2009 12:08:55 GMT -8
On top of that, the Insurers sell to employer plans at better group rates than you can buy yourself. Somehow I think that some small steps should be taken initially like tort reform, insurance company regulation and allowing shopping across state lines would be logical first steps.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 19, 2009 13:05:35 GMT -8
On top of that, the Insurers sell to employer plans at better group rates than you can buy yourself. Somehow I think that some small steps should be taken initially like tort reform, insurance company regulation and allowing shopping across state lines would be logical first steps. Makes sense, doesn't it? Is that why it's not happening? AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Aug 24, 2009 8:05:26 GMT -8
Talk about regressive. Having to pay taxes on an extra $25,000 of 'income' would hurt me but someone only making $25,000 a year now having to pay the taxes on $50,000 would put them on the street.  |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 24, 2009 10:30:58 GMT -8
Talk about regressive. Having to pay taxes on an extra $25,000 of 'income' would hurt me but someone only making $25,000 a year now having to pay the taxes on $50,000 would put them on the street. Don't forget; the right doesn't have a problem with rationing by income or if the insurance industry does it. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 24, 2009 15:19:17 GMT -8
Talk about regressive. Having to pay taxes on an extra $25,000 of 'income' would hurt me but someone only making $25,000 a year now having to pay the taxes on $50,000 would put them on the street. Good point! Notice how labor unions seem to be on the side of the status quo? Strange, but understandable that the unions would be for something that strengthens their bargaining position. The many different ways to look at this issue is all the more reason to be very careful in implementing change that has too many facets. |
|
