Replies

I do not agree with your 1st contention. Insurance companies, if freed from restrictions like not being able to fully compete across state lines, and from the enormous tort problems, would come up with solutions that people could afford and would buy.

Second, many people choose of their own free will not to be insured and that is their free choice, choosing rather to pay for services as required. That freedom should not be disallowed and they should not be forced by government to "get in a plan".

Fact is, in life, bad things happen. No government plan, no insurance is going to prevent all of that. What I do not want is goivernment agencies in control of it because that always leads to less efficency, bureaucracy, and more ccorruption.

Out system is not perfect...but it is the system people flock to. We can improve it and I welcome good, free market solutions that help. IMHO, government control of it will not improve it.

+1

Second, many people choose of their own free will not to be insured and that is their free choice, choosing rather to pay for services as required. That freedom should not be disallowed and they should not be forced by government to "get in a plan".

I think we can eliminate this group of people (i.e.,those who freely choose NOT to get insurance). The topic is about people with PRE-EXISTING conditions. People with these conditions WILL want to be insured.

The question is -- will insurance companies WANT to insure them KNOWING that doing so will COST them a lot of money ?

If the answer is NO ( and you said if competition across state lines are allowed, the answer will NOT BE, which we don't know ), I think the individual will have no choice but to depend on some public option. If this is not available, he/she is out of luck.

If a politician were to honestly present it the way I just did, I don't think he'll be elected on that basis. The thing is --- Most of the electorate want SOME KIND of help for such people. They don't want to leave them hanging.