Tulane Skins Fan Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 The Maryland General Assembly has scheduled a March 9 public hearing on a bill that would take a far more aggressive approach toward health reform in the state than passed at the federal level last year. The bill, SB388, would create a single-payer system to administer all health insurance coverage in Maryland. The public hearing is planned before the Senate Finance Committee, beginning at 1 p.m. No action by the Maryland House of Representatives has been scheduled. http://ifawebnews.com/2011/03/03/maryland-bill-to-create-single-payer-system-excludes-insurance-agents/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ifawebnews-national+%28IFAwebnews+%7C+National%29&utm_content=Twitter States' Rights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toe Jam Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Does anyone know how this compares to the plan Mitt Romney implemented in MA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted March 3, 2011 Author Share Posted March 3, 2011 Does anyone know how this compares to the plan Mitt Romney implemented in MA? Its completely different. Its single payer. For those who don't know, it means the government runs all health "insurance." Its socialism!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 It means the government runs all health insurance? Or it means the government insures some people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 If it truly is a single payer system, there should be no "insurance". You will just have to prove residence to receive treatment without out-of-state insurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckus Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Interesting. . . very interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Notice that in true MD fashion it is trying to cater to illegals (NATIONAL ORIGIN). Sadly it violates the Commerce Clause (GEOGRAPHY). "B) A PARTICIPATING HEALTH CARE PROVIDER MAY NOT: 11 (1) USE PREEXISTING MEDICAL CONDITIONS TO DETERMINE THE 12 ELIGIBILITY OF A MEMBER TO RECEIVE BENEFITS FOR HEALTH CARE SERVICES 13 COVERED BY THE HEALTH SYSTEM; OR 14 (2) REFUSE TO PROVIDE HEALTH CARE SERVICES TO A MEMBER 15 ON THE BASIS OF RACE, COLOR, INCOME LEVEL, NATIONAL ORIGIN, RELIGION, 16 GENDER, HEALTH CONDITION,AGE, LANGUAGE, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, FAMILY 17 STATUS, OR GEOGRAPHY". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fresh8686 Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 For anyone interested in a comparison of other health care systems around the world in relation to ours, frontline had a great documentary called sick around the world. You can watch it on pbs' website for free. http://video.pbs.org/video/1050712790/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Notice that in true MD fashion it is trying to cater to illegals (NATIONAL ORIGIN). Wow, you're right. "National Origin" clearly means "criminal behavior". Sadly it violates the Commerce Clause (GEOGRAPHY). Uh, could you explain WTF you mean with that sentence? (So I can show why it's wrong, too.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted March 3, 2011 Author Share Posted March 3, 2011 Notice that in true MD fashion it is trying to cater to illegals (NATIONAL ORIGIN). Sadly it violates the Commerce Clause (GEOGRAPHY)."B) A PARTICIPATING HEALTH CARE PROVIDER MAY NOT: 11 (1) USE PREEXISTING MEDICAL CONDITIONS TO DETERMINE THE 12 ELIGIBILITY OF A MEMBER TO RECEIVE BENEFITS FOR HEALTH CARE SERVICES 13 COVERED BY THE HEALTH SYSTEM; OR 14 (2) REFUSE TO PROVIDE HEALTH CARE SERVICES TO A MEMBER 15 ON THE BASIS OF RACE, COLOR, INCOME LEVEL, NATIONAL ORIGIN, RELIGION, 16 GENDER, HEALTH CONDITION,AGE, LANGUAGE, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, FAMILY 17 STATUS, OR GEOGRAPHY". Its the state government. It does not derive power from the U.S. Constitution, which is where the commerce clause is located. It has nothign to do with that. Essentially, all the lawsuits saying that the health care bill is unconstitutional because it violates the 10th Amendment and is an overreach of the Commerce Clause would validate this because the argument in those cases is that the states should be allowed to pursue their own health insurance laws. Addendum: Also, its kind of amazing how after all this health insurance craziness of the last couple years, so few people know what a single payer system is. Not sniping at anyone who didnt know, I'm just remarking that there was such a disagreement about "socializing healthcare" previously and the single payer system somehow was glossed over the whole time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 My dad is probably happy. He's a conservative, and he's been arguing for a single-payer system for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted March 3, 2011 Author Share Posted March 3, 2011 My dad is probably happy. He's a conservative, and he's been arguing for a single-payer system for a while. Sounds like a communist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Sounds like a communist. It's been my position for a while that if the government's going to be involved at all, it might as well go whole hog. Playing around in the middle of things just costs more and serves fewer. So, paint me red and call me Karl, I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 It's been my position for a while that if the government's going to be involved at all, it might as well go whole hog. Playing around in the middle of things just costs more and serves fewer.So, paint me red and call me Karl, I suppose. That's where I stand. I think if you are going to believe in Universal Healthcare then you have to do it. I think that was the biggest failing with the National Health Reform. They tried to please everyone and build a socialist idea using the existing capitalist model. UHC doesn't need insurance at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 That's where I stand. I think if you are going to believe in Universal Healthcare then you have to do it. I think that was the biggest failing with the National Health Reform. They tried to please everyone and build a socialist idea using the existing capitalist model. UHC doesn't need insurance at all. Me, too. Only way I see things improving is if the government basically announces "Medicare for everybody", and private insurance companies compete to sell "Medicare supplement" insurance. Potential problem I see with that idea: If it happens, then the voters, the insurance companies, and the health care providers are all going to be ganging up on Congress to extend Medicare to cover everything in the world. And the odds of Congress saying "no, it's too expensive", when all of those forces want something covered is . . . ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 Wow, you're right. "National Origin" clearly means "criminal behavior". Actually, to be fair, in the state of Maryland, that might well be exactly what is intended. They've had similar pushes to give illegals in-state tuition, for example. Potential problem I see with that idea: If it happens, then the voters, the insurance companies, and the health care providers are all going to be ganging up on Congress to extend Medicare to cover everything in the world. And the odds of Congress saying "no, it's too expensive", when all of those forces want something covered is . . . ? AARP is already the most powerful lobby on the planet (because seniors actually vote), and it hasn't happened yet (at least not to that extent), so I'm not sure it would be as big an issue as one might think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.