Quote:
Originally posted by ltl/fb
Did you even read her post? What Oregon was doing affected only people who did not have coverage through their (or their spouse's or parent's) employer -- i.e., people who currently qualify for Medicaid, and people who aren't quite poor enough to qualify for Medicaid but nevertheless do not have group insurance. While this is quite a large number of people, it is not the "vast majority" of the country.
I suppose that such a system could provide an incentive for employers to eliminate coverage for employees. However, that ought to result either in higher regular wages for the employees (or better other types of benefits) or lower prices for whatever the employer produces.
Sorry if this repeats what someone says; it bugged me too much to obey the "read THEN post" rule.
|
Fringe, I was trying to show SAM a problem with a government run system if it were extended to the whole country. I was not attacking the Oregon system, which, I'm sure is a very fine system indeed.
As to whether I do/do not read the entirety of posts, I'm afraid the question has been raised that it is somewhat irrelavent. I apparently often do not understand that which is written.
Threaded Mode