So, nothing on the unconstitutional practices Pelosi is trying...?

look the proof was on y'all side. Hell I'm trying to play devil's advocate, but people like you two will just let me win huh?


No you are just playing devil. Where were your devil advocacies during the eight years of GW. I didn't see any of your posts with criticisms during that reign. Did you criticize Medicare part 'D'? You don't even know what it is. Lately I just let you post your dribble. I have come to the conclusion that you think the attention you get from those that give you the benefit of the doubt of some intelligence makes you you feel smart for the regurgitate slop that Limbaugh spews.
 
No you are just playing devil. Where were your devil advocacies during the eight years of GW. I didn't see any of your posts with criticisms during that reign. Did you criticize Medicare part 'D'? You don't even know what it is. Lately I just let you post your dribble. I have come to the conclusion that you think the attention you get from those that give you the benefit of the doubt of some intelligence makes you you feel smart for the regurgitate slop that Limbaugh spews.

First of all, I was playing the devils advocate because majority of BGOLers were against Bush. Playing devil's advocate means playing the unpopular stance. The unpopular stance is to be against the liberal ideology most on here practice. Remember, you and vegas labeled me the "right wingnut". I guess you aren't happy with me actually acting like one huh? I wish you would make up your mind dude!!!

Its funny how it's dribble when you disagree with it. I guess your way is the best way right? If that's the case, I could easily label you a left wing elitist right? See, I do not like using labels because every now and then, people defy that title. I believe that you have a lot of conservative issues you hold dear. For example, I don't think you like high taxes. I mean who does? I don't think you want your money going to people who won't do for themselves. I mean who does? It's been times that you blame MY generation for this countries problems. I won't call that a conservative view, but an oldman's view. Now, I even would put some money that you would have a problem if your son decided to be GAY all of a sudden. I don't think any straight man would want to hear that about their son.

Back to the subject, I find it funny that every time I say something conservative, Rush Limbaugh's name come in the conversation. Yet, you the first person to post from the Huffington Post every chance you get. I try not post any right wing articles, yet I'm still using talking points?
 
The average American I have come across does not really know the difference between conservative and liberal:smh:.
First of all, I was playing the devils advocate because majority of BGOLers were against Bush. Playing devil's advocate means playing the unpopular stance. The unpopular stance is to be against the liberal ideology most on here practice. Remember, you and vegas labeled me the "right wingnut". I guess you aren't happy with me actually acting like one huh? I wish you would make up your mind dude!!!

Its funny how it's dribble when you disagree with it. I guess your way is the best way right? If that's the case, I could easily label you a left wing elitist right? See, I do not like using labels because every now and then, people defy that title. I believe that you have a lot of conservative issues you hold dear. For example, I don't think you like high taxes. I mean who does? I don't think you want your money going to people who won't do for themselves. I mean who does? It's been times that you blame MY generation for this countries problems. I won't call that a conservative view, but an oldman's view. Now, I even would put some money that you would have a problem if your son decided to be GAY all of a sudden. I don't think any straight man would want to hear that about their son.

Back to the subject, I find it funny that every time I say something conservative, Rush Limbaugh's name come in the conversation. Yet, you the first person to post from the Huffington Post every chance you get. I try not post any right wing articles, yet I'm still using talking points?
 
Kucinich: Health reform legislation ‘a bailout for insurance companies’




According to Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), the Democrats' health reform legislation is basically a sham.

Appearing on MSNBC's The Ed Show on Friday night, the House's most unabashed progressive condemned Democratic leadership for removing his amendment that would allow states to create their own single-payer systems. Then he called the entire legislative package "a bailout for insurance companies."

Under a single-payer system, like those in Canada and the United Kingdom, the government pools taxpayer funds to pay for citizens' health care and fees are not collected by health care providers. The Kucinich amendment would allow individual states an opt-in to such a system.

The amendment is missing from health reform legislation unveiled Thursday by Democratic leadership.

"Representative Kucinich was livid when he found out that his provision to allow states to create a single payer system was stripped," News Junkie Post noted. "Kucinich’s amendment passed the House Labor and Education Committee in July. 'No one gave me any rational reason,' Kucinich said. 'I can only assume the insurance company interests brought pressure to take it out. Otherwise I would have heard from someone.'"

Story continues below...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The [committee] vote was 25 to 19, with support coming from an odd mix of liberal Democrats who support single-payer on its merits and conservative Republicans who want to preserve the rights of states to regulate themselves," The Washington Independent noted at the time.

"The removal of the Kucinich amendment constitutes yet another capitulation to the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries who are already reaping billions of dollars from the bill," reads a statement from the congressman's office on Thursday.

Under the revised public option, "Pelosi and her team have proposed a plan that would not make payments for care based on Medicare rates ..." CBS News's John Nichols noted. "Rather, under the Pelosi plan, the rates be tied to those of the big insurance companies. That's a big, big victory for the insurance industry, as it will undermine the ability of the public option to compete -- and to create pressure for reduced costs."

Speaking to liberal MSNBC anchor Ed Schultz on Friday, Kucinich continued his assault on the legislation.

"I think we need the support of the American people to say, look, you need that state single-payer amendment in the bill to make it credible," the congressman said. "I mean, what are people giving up already? They're being mandated to buy private insurance. If you read the bill, the people are going to end up paying -- the insurance companies can raise rates 25 percent right off the bat, if you read the bill."

Schultz encouraged Kucinich to repeat himself on that point.

"It's on page 22 of the bill," he replied. "Right here, it says that rates shall be set at a level that does not exceed 125 percent of the prevailing standard rate for comparable coverage in the individual market. Now ... It's very easy to understand what that means."

"It's not reform," Schultz insisted.

"It means a 25 percent increase, they'll have the ability to execute and since insurance companies have already raised rates for the last four years by double-digits, we can expect -- based on the bill -- another rate increase by the insurance companies."

Schultz called the bill a "sellout" to insurers because the bill only allows 11 million people into a limited government-run health insurance option, and includes a mandate for Americans to buy private policies.

"Maybe instead of a sellout it's a bailout," Kucinich responded. "Maybe what we're looking at here is another way that Wall Street's speculative engine can be fueled, this time with the help of the premiums of tens of millions of Americans."

On his Web site, Kucinich took his point further, calling the legislation "a bailout for insurance companies" that must be altered.

"The Kucinich [single payer] amendment has been added to H.R. 3200 in the Education and Labor Committee, the amendment would permit states to enact a single-payer health care system," the congressman's Web site claimed.



Kucinich did not sell out. He didn't want the good to be the enemy of the perfect. If he aided in the defeat of this (half ass in a lot of ways) bill, there wouldn't be another attempt for another decade and then health care wouldn't be 1/6th of our economy but at least a fifth. There have been two options presented: do something or do nothing. Dennis Kucinich decided for the former.
 
The average American I have come across does not really know the difference between conservative and liberal:smh:.

I think because liberals tend to talk similar to how conservatives talk.

Conservatives believe in strong military, smaller government, lower taxes, less government waste, strong free markets, and strong borders. That's what I stand by. I believe everything else falls inline once you have these things in place.

Strong military + Strong free markets= better education overall.

Less government waste + lower taxes= Better economy.

Liberals tend to think that ONE situation needs to be solved with the use of government. This is how you differ between the two.

How do strong military, and a strong free market make better education?

Many don't know that the military is really the testing grounds for most of the products we use commonly today. How do you think GPS came into existence? Not to mention, people have to develop new technology like this. Then, when new technology is produced, and sold in the free market, you create jobs. The jobs help produce profit for the citizen. The citizen pays taxes in his/her county/parish for education. Due to demand for smarter students, education has to become better.

The true problem with education is that some parts of our society believe that they are owed something. This creates a class/racial divide, in which, corrupts the whole system.
 
The true problem with education is that some parts of our society believe that they are owed something. This creates a class/racial divide, in which, corrupts the whole system.

And it is not limited to education. Everything is becoming a "right" and that is a slippery slope.
 
`

Exhibit "A":

How do [sic] strong military, and a strong free market make better education?

<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">Many don't know that the military is really the testing grounds for most of the products we use commonly today. How do you think GPS came into existence? Not to mention, people have to develop new technology like this.</span> Then, when new technology is produced, and sold in the free market, you create jobs. The jobs help produce profit for the citizen. The citizen pays taxes in his/her county/parish for education. Due to demand for smarter students, education has to become better.

The true problem with education is that some parts of our society believe that they are owed something. This creates a class/racial divide, in which, corrupts the whole system.

Proof, the education system in this country has failed.

QueEx
 
`

Exhibit "A":



Proof, the education system in this country has failed.

QueEx

Did we all learn from this education system?

If this is true, lets find out how our education system has failed?

Personally I believe that it's the structure outside of the school that has created this "failed" education system. Do you really want to get to the meat of the situation, or continue to blame someone else for the problem?

I'll argue that its not the education system that has failed our community, its the lack of pride in education itself. Now, if I really get into education, people will accuse me of being a self-hating coon. Which is quite the contrary. In my eyes, the coon is the one who complains, and yet do nothing to fix the situation. We have too many bitches in the black community, and not enough revolutionary minds. A revolutionary mind will seem foolish to the uninspired, lazy, slave mentality type person. That type of person would take hold to the socialist mentality. It seems appealing to that type. Once we go socialist, this type of person would finally have his master he can look up too. I guess that's what some on here is fighting for right?
 
I am afraid America is on this path already:smh:and through out history we know this does not work. The average American thinks they ae owed something, and they want something for nothing when in reality they are giving up something. Americans on welfare have to understand this is a new form of slavery on the goverments global plantation. America is not America anymore more Americans are dependent on goverment than any time in American history and when you look througout America histroy this is not what made America the country it is today.
Once we go socialist, this type of person would finally have his master he can look up too. I guess that's what some on here is fighting for right?
 
First of all, I was playing the devils advocate because majority of BGOLers were against Bush. Playing devil's advocate means playing the unpopular stance. The unpopular stance is to be against the liberal ideology most on here practice. Remember, you and vegas labeled me the "right wingnut". I guess you aren't happy with me actually acting like one huh? I wish you would make up your mind dude!!!

Its funny how it's dribble when you disagree with it. I guess your way is the best way right? If that's the case, I could easily label you a left wing elitist right? See, I do not like using labels because every now and then, people defy that title. I believe that you have a lot of conservative issues you hold dear. For example, I don't think you like high taxes. I mean who does? I don't think you want your money going to people who won't do for themselves. I mean who does? It's been times that you blame MY generation for this countries problems. I won't call that a conservative view, but an oldman's view. Now, I even would put some money that you would have a problem if your son decided to be GAY all of a sudden. I don't think any straight man would want to hear that about their son.

Back to the subject, I find it funny that every time I say something conservative, Rush Limbaugh's name come in the conversation. Yet, you the first person to post from the Huffington Post every chance you get. I try not post any right wing articles, yet I'm still using talking points?

Its funny how it's dribble when you disagree with it. I guess your way is the best way right?

It's dribble because I and at least one other person ask you to sight facts when you make your statements and you never do and change the subject. Parroting Limbaugh doesn't make it fact and your Amerikkkan idol is constantly being debunked.

What is up with you constant references to sexuality. Talking about someone's son being gay, ogling some female at a store and asking her her age and finding out she is 15. Are you a pedophile? Do you even have sex on a regular basis? I mean with someone else, not yourself.
 
It's dribble because I and at least one other person ask you to sight facts when you make your statements and you never do and change the subject. Parroting Limbaugh doesn't make it fact and your Amerikkkan idol is constantly being debunked.

What is up with you constant references to sexuality. Talking about someone's son being gay, ogling some female at a store and asking her her age and finding out she is 15. Are you a pedophile? Do you even have sex on a regular basis? I mean with someone else, not yourself.

1. I can state facts, but you will just discredit the source.

2. lol I can't believe you went there. First of all, I only asked her age out of curiosity. A pedophile would of pursued that. I didn't, thus I'm no pedophile. What's your problem with sexuality? Aren't you on a PORN BOARD? If you must know, I had some pussy the night before last. YEAH CONSERVATIVES FUCK TOO!!

3. You are still saying that I'm parroting Rush Limbaugh. Most of the things I say is my opinion. In fact, I've stated that my opinion is stated by things that have WORKED. What has worked? Conservatism has worked for this country way more than any type of socialism. It works because it gives you/me an opportunity true freedom. Economic freedom. Cutting taxes, and spending works. This is why Texas is the least recession effected state in the union. Do you want to debate that FACT? While you are posting huffington post articles, I'm looking at whats going on in MY state.

My proof is history. Your proof is left wing articles.
 
The government makes you buy auto insurance, however, they also allows auto insurance to be sold over state lines. Something this bill does not allow...

Damn guy, I hope you're not lying to push an agenda. I'm sure you just happen to not fully understand one of the favorite talking points of Republicans.

Well, regardless of your intent, The McCarran–Ferguson Act applies to all insurance companies.

To help you understand, Massachusetts residents were not able to purchase Car insurance from Geico, progressive, Allstate, ect because until recently the state regulated how much car insurance companies could charge their customers, so they opted to not sell in the state. Once the state banished that mandate, all the Major car insurance companies began to sell insurance in Massachusetts. Thus claiming car insurance is "bought across state lines" false.

To explain further, all insurance companies are regulated by the state, just because some Car insurance companies operate in most states does not mean that they aren't subject to regulation by that particular states mandates the same way Health Insurance companies are, or that you're "buying across state lines", It just means that that car insurance isn't as tightly regulated as Health Insurance so they are willing to set up shop in more states.

Surely you don't believe that there aren't multiple health insurance companies operating in multiple states? You've had to have heard of Aetna, Cigna, Humana, ect.

Also for future reference for when you want to start mouthing off Repub talking points. When people say the want to buy/sell insurance across state lines they don't mean that there is some law barring Insurance companies form operating in multiple states. They either:

1. Want to end state regulation of Insurance, and let the Federal Government handle it.

Or

2. Allow insurance companies to be only follow the law of the state it's incorporated in. Similar to how South Dakota is for Credit Card companies.
 
Last edited:
Damn guy, I hope you're not lying to push an agenda. I'm sure you just happen to not fully understand one of the favorite talking points of Republicans.

Well, regardless of your intent, The McCarran–Ferguson Act applies to all insurance companies.

To help you understand, Massachusetts residents were not able to purchase Car insurance from Geico, progressive, Allstate, ect because until recently the state regulated how much car insurance companies could charge their customers, so they opted to not sell in the state. Once the state banished that mandate, all the Major car insurance companies began to sell insurance in Massachusetts. Thus claiming car insurance is "bought across state lines" false.

To explain further, all insurance companies are regulated by the state, just because some Car insurance companies operate in most states does not mean that they aren't subject to regulation by that particular states mandates the same way Health Insurance companies are, or that you're "buying across state lines", It just means that that car insurance isn't as tightly regulated as Health Insurance so they are willing to set up shop in more states.

Surely you don't believe that there aren't multiple health insurance companies operating in multiple states? You've had to have heard of Aetna, Cigna, Humana, ect.

Also for future reference for when you want to start mouthing off Repub talking points. When people say the want to buy/sell insurance across state lines they don't mean that there is some law barring Insurance companies form operating in multiple states. They either:

1. Want to end state regulation of Insurance, and let the Federal Government handle it.

Or

2. Allow insurance companies to be only follow the law of the state it's incorporated in. Similar to how South Dakota is for Credit Card companies.

1. You are right, car insurance is regulated by the state level *which it should be*. Health care is regulated through the federal level *thus, it's main problem*. If the states regulated health care insurance, do you actually think health care would cost as much as it does now?

2. Can we at least agree that less federal government involvement is better when it comes to things like insurance? I can understand war, and civil rights being a federal level situation. However, I feel that insurance can be dealt with better on the state/local level. This way we can have a better say in OUR OWN state on how we want our health care to be like. I'm just saying...
 
1. You are right, car insurance is regulated by the state level *which it should be*. Health care is regulated through the federal level *thus, it's main problem*. If the states regulated health care insurance, do you actually think health care would cost as much as it does now?

Wow you cant be serious.

You just admitted that car insurance is state regulated, by doing that you must also admit that the same goes for Health insurance, because ALL insurance companies regardless of the type are subject to the McCarran-Ferguson Act.

This means Insurance companies are already exempt from the most federal regulation, including Anti-trust laws. Once again, ALL insurance is regulated at the state level. This includes health, car, fire, ect. The McCarran–Ferguson Act, is the federal law that severely limits federal regulation, and gives states so much power when it comes to insurance regulation.

I don't understand why you're lying. Do you want to not admit that you're wrong? :confused:

Even so, you're reinforcing the belief that the average Republican has no clue what the talking points they love so much mean, and are for anything the politicians on their side, do or tell them.
 
Last edited:
This way we can have a better say in OUR OWN state on how we want our health care to be like. I'm just saying... This way we can have a better say in OUR OWN state on how we want our health care to be like. I'm just saying...

Actin, I need you to understand that this. Every state has been individually regulating Health Insurance since the 1940's. Every state has been saying how it wants it's health care to be.This is currently what we have, this is the Status Quo, do you understand that? What you're telling me right now contradicts your earlier stance of selling Insurance across state lines.

Do you understand that you're contradicting yourself? :confused:

Selling Insurance across State lines means that you want to put an end to Each individual state dictating how they want their Health care to be.

How can you expect me to engage with you intelligently about federal regulation vs State regulation of insurance, when you're currently arguing under a false premise? States DO regulate Health Insurance, and have been since the 1940's. It's not working, hence why Conservatives want Insurance across state lines, and Liberals want Federal regulation, and some want either both or to keep things like they are.

1. If the states regulated health care insurance, do you actually think health care would cost as much as it does now?

Adding the correct facts to your post above, while keeping your complaint about the outrages prices of premiums, you'll see that you actually have a problem with STATE REGULATION of insurance. Now it's up to you to see why you think State regulation is so bad, and what can be done to fix it. :lol:

2. Can we at least agree that less federal government involvement is better when it comes to things like insurance? I can understand war, and civil rights being a federal level situation. However, I feel that insurance can be dealt with better on the state/local level. This way we can have a better say in OUR OWN state on how we want our health care to be like. I'm just saying...

Now we can argue State Vs Federal regulation, but first I need to know that you understand that each State has been regulating all Insurance since the McCarran-Ferguson Act, and that any and all problems that you have had with Insurance before today are due to State Regulation.

Once you can come to terms with that, we can debate which is better.
 
Last edited:
1. I can state facts, but you will just discredit the source.


My proof is history. Your proof is left wing articles.


That is the essences of this board and this is what i am trying to get through your skull. I can post opinion, you can post opinion, but what is an opinion based on. Which comes back to the many arguments such as why do you believe or not believe climate change is based on or are facts true or just false. You cannot discredit a fact. It is what it is...

...so post your facts and lets cross check them!
 
Wow you cant be serious.

You just admitted that car insurance is state regulated, by doing that you must also admit that the same goes for Health insurance, because ALL insurance companies regardless of the type are subject to the McCarran-Ferguson Act.

This means Insurance companies are already exempt from the most federal regulation, including Anti-trust laws. Once again, ALL insurance is regulated at the state level. This includes health, car, fire, ect. The McCarran–Ferguson Act, is the federal law that severely limits federal regulation, and gives states so much power when it comes to insurance regulation.

I don't understand why you're lying. Do you want to not admit that you're wrong? :confused:

Even so, you're reinforcing the belief that the average Republican has no clue what the talking points they love so much mean, and are for anything the politicians on their side, do or tell them.

I'm going to say this, and be through with it. Looking at the math, none of this shit adds up. The only way this is will balance the budget is if he rise the taxes, and the republicans find a way to repeal this bill. If/when they do that, Obama can easily use that money for the stimulus that didn't work the way he wanted it to.

To the point you were trying to make, last time I checked, every health care insurance provider has to at least have an office in the state. I remember this because I used to have unitedhealthcare/pacificare, but I had to change because they closed their office in Houston. I believe the Federal level controls interstate commerce, not the states. Which is the main problem. More choice means less cost. This is what REPUBLICANS were talking about. Doesn't it make sense? I hope that clears up my position.

BTW, you are right about the act you mention, however, it did not solve the main problem which is buying health care out of state. The federal government has that part blocked off.
 
1. I can state facts, but you will just discredit the source.

2. lol I can't believe you went there. First of all, I only asked her age out of curiosity. A pedophile would of pursued that. I didn't, thus I'm no pedophile. What's your problem with sexuality? Aren't you on a PORN BOARD? If you must know, I had some pussy the night before last. YEAH CONSERVATIVES FUCK TOO!!

3. You are still saying that I'm parroting Rush Limbaugh. Most of the things I say is my opinion. In fact, I've stated that my opinion is stated by things that have WORKED. What has worked? Conservatism has worked for this country way more than any type of socialism. It works because it gives you/me an opportunity true freedom. Economic freedom. Cutting taxes, and spending works. This is why Texas is the least recession effected state in the union. Do you want to debate that FACT? While you are posting huffington post articles, I'm looking at whats going on in MY state.

My proof is history. Your proof is left wing articles.

03232010judge032310.slideshow_main.prod_affiliate.91.jpg
 
I'm going to say this, and be through with it. Looking at the math, none of this shit adds up. The only way this is will balance the budget is if he rise the taxes, and the republicans find a way to repeal this bill. If/when they do that, Obama can easily use that money for the stimulus that didn't work the way he wanted it to.

To the point you were trying to make, last time I checked, every health care insurance provider has to at least have an office in the state. I remember this because I used to have unitedhealthcare/pacificare, but I had to change because they closed their office in Houston. I believe the Federal level controls interstate commerce, not the states. Which is the main problem. More choice means less cost. This is what REPUBLICANS were talking about. Doesn't it make sense? I hope that clears up my position.

BTW, you are right about the act you mention, however, it did not solve the main problem which is buying health care out of state. The federal government has that part blocked off.

I'm going to say this, and be through with it.
:lol:
 
WTF? You're going to turn tail because you're wrong? Actin, you've got to stop lying to yourself, and deal with facts. We cannot continue to have people who would rather lie to themselves, in an effort to not go against their favorite party or ideology.

I mean if you're going to blatantly lie to yourself about this, what else are you going to lie about so that you wont go against your party? When does it stop?

To the point you were trying to make, last time I checked, every health care insurance provider has to at least have an office in the state. I remember this because I used to have unitedhealthcare/pacificare, but I had to change because they closed their office in Houston. I believe the Federal level controls interstate commerce, not the states. Which is the main problem. More choice means less cost. This is what REPUBLICANS were talking about. Doesn't it make sense? I hope that clears up my position.

These are the facts. Yes interstate commerce is regulated at the federal level, but you cannot have interstate commerce of insurance, and have the States dictate how they want their Healthcare to be. Why? Obviously because different states have different mandates.

The reason your Health insurance company needed an office in state is because states pass different mandates/laws, so that they can dictate how they want their insurance to be. You cannot buy insurance in From New York, if you live in Texas for this very reason.

This is why you see Blue Cross Blue shield-Alabama, Blue Cross Blue shield-Georgia, Blue Cross Blue Shield-Texas, ect. This is a state regulation problem.

If you want insurance across state lines, then you're going to have to make it so that all policies follow the same mandates/laws. You achieve this by:

1. Having Uniform federal law/mandates dictating what those policies have and don't have.

Or.

2. You allow the Insurance company follow only the law of the state it is incorporated in.

You cannot have both! I don't understand why you have problems comprehending this simple concept.

Remember you said:

However, I feel that insurance can be dealt with better on the state/local level. This way we can have a better say in OUR OWN state on how we want our health care to be like. I'm just saying...

So what the hell do you want? Do you want Federal regulation? Or do you states to dictate how they want their insurance to be like it currently is, and has been for the past 60 years????
 
WTF? You're going to turn tail because you're wrong? Actin, you've got to stop lying to yourself, and deal with facts. We cannot continue to have people who would rather lie to themselves, in an effort to not go against their favorite party or ideology.

I mean if you're going to blatantly lie to yourself about this, what else are you going to lie about so that you wont go against your party? When does it stop?



These are the facts. Yes interstate commerce is regulated at the federal level, but you cannot have interstate commerce of insurance, and have the States dictate how they want their Healthcare to be. Why? Obviously because different states have different mandates.

The reason your Health insurance company needed an office in state is because states pass different mandates/laws, so that they can dictate how they want their insurance to be. You cannot buy insurance in From New York, if you live in Texas for this very reason.

This is why you see Blue Cross Blue shield-Alabama, Blue Cross Blue shield-Georgia, Blue Cross Blue Shield-Texas, ect. This is a state regulation problem.

If you want insurance across state lines, then you're going to have to make it so that all policies follow the same mandates/laws. You achieve this by:

1. Having Uniform federal law/mandates dictating what those policies have and don't have.

Or.

2. You allow the Insurance company follow only the law of the state it is incorporated in.

You cannot have both! I don't understand why you have problems comprehending this simple concept.

Remember you said:



So what the hell do you want? Do you want Federal regulation? Or do you states to dictate how they want their insurance to be like it currently is, and has been for the past 60 years????



That's the part Republicans leave out when they bring that up. They act like if Democrats had included that provision, they would have supported reform and we know that's not true.
And if they were so concerned about competition, why did they and conservative Dems fight against rescinding the anti trust exemption health insurers have. That would do more for competition, and make for better prices and service, than nearly anything else.
 
Back
Top