Posted on 03/27/2010 10:21:43 AM PDT by BermanPost
As you representative returns home, they will try to justify their health care vote to protect against the coming backlash. You should ask them a simple question, "what does 'Insurance' mean?" This stems from the part of the bill forcing insurance companies to provide coverage for preexisting conditions. ... Here is my logic/trap: 1) Insurance is small payments (or premiums) in return for a promise that in the event of a specific event the company will give you a large sum. The small sums are a fee for the company to take on your risk. 2) Welfare is aid money, or that large sum, without the small payments because you need it and someone believes you should get it. 3) Which one of those (insurance or welfare) is forcing a company to cover preexisting conditions more like?
(Excerpt) Read more at bermanpost.com ...
Great question.
Been saying that all along. Health insurance is crazy!
“This stems from the part of the bill forcing insurance companies to provide coverage for preexisting conditions. ...”
The “preexisting conditions” delusion about what the bill really is continues...
Such idiots should spend some time trying to find insurance execs who are complaining about the bill.
In return for a promise that in the event of a specific
change
event the company will give you a large sum.
government tax
Excellent question, but this undercores an ongoing serious problem for the last 50 years :
The rape of language, and the ongoing "lawful" institutionalization of communication fraud. The rape of plain language.
By our country's lawmakers, of all people.
They seem to have immunized themselves some time in the past from the fraud laws that apply to the rest of us.
This notion of "insurance" struck me as bizarre many years ago, when the perverts introduced AIDS into the societal mix and started seriously campaigning for coverage of pre-existing conditions resulting from their pervert lifestyle.
Instantly, red flags should have been raised and serious discussions taken place. That was the beginning of the end for the very concept of insurance.
I have adopted, for the sake of my sanity any definition that involves societal, ethical, moral, medical and political issues, to revert to the official guides to language of the 1950-1960 period. Dictionaries, encyclopedias, history etc.
My favorite reference, when in doubt, is the first edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, 1771. Although it obviously does not discuss the bulk of the industrial revolution, it does document pretty basic, simple and fundamental concepts --- like insurance.
Even a casual review of the history of insurance will quickly reveal that the very idea of "pre-existing conditions" was such a moronic notion, as it related to the insurance concept, that it never occured to any educated (indeed, any conscious ) human being to mix the two.
Allowing our legislators to do so, simply as a means of obfuscation and concealment, should be an impeachable offense.
I am serious.
I would love to hear from a Constitutional scholar about both the need for the concept and the possibility of passing a law without the requirement of a Constitutional Amendment.
Obviously, there are an infinite number of specific things, so stupid, that they were never addressed in our original documents.
Things seem to have changed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.