29 Feb 2012 4:23 pm
It's you. Providing competition would allow lots of choice, so if some idiot insurance company wouldn't insure needed treatments, people could easily change companies.I'd also change the tax deductibility from company to individual, so it'd be very easy to change without having to lobby one's boss.I mean, what kind of idiots would go into the health insurance business, if their religious beliefs were so unpopular that most consumers would reject them?So this is your response to my asking about Roy Blunt's Amendment?Let the free market handle it?People can't always 'easily' change insurance companies.Not all jobs offer that kind of choice.The bill also allows employers to not provide coverage for treatments or medications that they find morally objectionable. You don't think that's a very vague term and has the potential to be abused by some employers to save money? Seriously?You apparently missed the part about making health insurance deductibility personally deductible, making it as easy to change health insurance as auto insurance.Yeah, lobbying one's boss in a big company is very difficult. Maybe everyone's plan would have to be changed, too.Absolutely, if some health insurance company was unreasonable it what it offered, 10 would take its place, even if that meant they'd be started from scratch.You really ought to take the time to read Free Market publications like the WSJ. Might disturb you for a little while, but they're dangerously persuasive.The operative word being 'dangerously'.I now, ideas are deviously dangerous!Seriously, you ought to. A long time ago, when conservative ideas were rarely found in the MSM or the public sphere, I came across a copy of National Review.It was so shocking to hear non-liberal opinions, I felt like a bucket of cold water had been poured over my head, no kidding.But the opinions and philosophy were so persuasive over time, I picked most of them up. Edited by RichClem, 29 February 2012 - 05:25 PM.