Posted on 03/23/2010 2:09:54 PM PDT by Recovering_Democrat
"There is non-controversial stuff here like the preexisting conditions exclusion and those sorts of things," the Texas Republican said. "Now we are not interested in repealing that. And that is frankly a distraction."
(Excerpt) Read more at corner.nationalreview.com ...
Haven’t the pubbies been screwed enough?
“By weight of attention around here, much less attention is given to how this bill infringes on their individual freedom and much, much more on a fantasy about how the poor little ol’ freedom-loving big insurance companies are actually the target of this bill”
If by “here” you mean FR as a whole, I haven’t noticed any lack of attention to the individual mandate. Perhaps there have been less heated discussions (I don’t know, but let’s say), if only because pretty much everyone agrees that it’s anathematic. If by “here” you mean this thread, if Cornyn had said the individual mandate was non-controversial, I bet you’d see just as much blowback.
I’m not saying that I agree with the bill or with the preexisting condition clauses as written. I understand that I should have to pay more—significantly more—for insurance. That’s only fair and moral.
But, I should still have access to it by some means.
I don’t see how ANYONE can approve of that provision. Perhaps create a pool for extreme cases? I hate that idea, but THAT is better than FORCING a private company to take on a case that would otherwise be rejected.
Or, don’t restrict the RATES an insurance company can charge if they HAVE TO TAKE ON extremely bad risks.
Good God. Where does it stop?
“Hey, I’ve had 3 speeding tickets in the last 2 years, I’ve had 5 accidents in which I’ve been found to be at fault in the last 3, I’ve had 5 DUIs. I drive a 2009 Red Corvette and I’m 19 years old. I demand coverage.”
Gimme a break.
You think these communist bastards even CARE about those who paid dearly for the rights we used to have? HELL NO! They're anti-war, no matter who craps on us or flys airplanes into 3000 innocent Amercianslaps, and they spout "can't we all just get along?". We've been sold out, we're being dis-armed militarily, and we are taking the fruits of the labor of hard-working, law-abiding, God-fearing FAMILY people, to hand over to Illlegal invaders and 4th generation welfare people.
You think the "big tent" yahoo's that are supposed to be "the OTHER PARTY" are going to offend those millions of voters just to bring back the Framers' Intent?
The number dependent on the gubmint is out-numbering those who want freedom of choice, freedom from government interference with every aspect of their lives.
In my lifetime, I'll never see the America I knew as a kid or youth, nor the one I fought for to protect.
Unless people start OFFENDING those who are being bought and paid for with their earnings, it ain't gonna be changing at all. "Offending" is when we speak to the way things REALLY ARE, and if you don't like it, go back where you came from because America is better than that...and those who died for the ORIGINAL way of life deserve to have it preserved and re-instated.
It seems that someone would insure you at some price. Everyone has a price, even Bart Stupak.
Also, this sort of thing is what community, church, and mutual welfare societys (Elks, Mosses, etc.) are for.
Most people don’t know that, as liberals rationalize that income tax is charity.
I think he better get interested. I am calling the you know what.
Just heard that Mark Levin called Cornyn and he told him he didn’t say that; and he is in favoring of getting rid of everything.
Oh, I am definitely not saying those who get insurance after they get sick should be covered.
They shouldn’t.
It’s my understanding they couldn’t with the provisions of this law either.
I am talking about people who have had insurance and only lost it briefly due to job loss or something, or people on individual plans that have exclusions written onto them because of something they got WHILE UNDER insurance in the past. I don’t think its right to punish them.
The only thing I think would be okay is higher rates, but not ridiculously higher. That’s what the car insurance companies do after you wreck.
You bring up a good point about employer-provided health insurance though.
That actually could be a big part of our problem, relying on that system.
The answer certainly isn’t socialized medicine though.
Really. As specific as the article was, Huff just basically had to make it all up. There isn’t any any way that was a “misunderstanding” by Huff.
I see, so your philosophy boils down to:
Thanks but No Thanks, that exact philosophy is what got us to where we are today.
Funny but I don’t recall saying anything about federal agents holding you at gunpoint. Stop with the hyperbole and respond on substance.
I fully understand how insurance companies calculate risk. I work in the industry. Obviously if an insurer were to price out a policy for a very sick person the rate would have to be astronomical, so, that extra rate is spread over a larger pool of people and everyone pays a little bit more.
Since there are many more healthy people than sick people it will not bankrupt the insurance company it will just cause rates to go up a little. In my opinion that’s the price we pay for living in a civilized society.
The analogy with auto insurance does not work. Driving a car is a privilige and if you abuse it then it should be taken away. If you develope cancer through no fault of your own well then, your insurance company should not be able to deny you coverage just because of your misfortune.
They were born wobbly...
About as dependable as Stupak.
You might work ‘in the industry’, but you do not understand how insurance is calculated.
Yes, broadening the pool will cause a greater income for the insurance companies, but the issue is calculating it. If they have no idea what their risks are, how can they calculate what the premium should be?
You are speaking based on emotion and not on a true understanding of the acturial tables and risk formulas.
Ok, I give up. You can use the term “actuarial table” in a sentence so you must know more about it than I do.
The point is, it’s impossible to rate the risk for one individual, whether they are sick or not. There is no way to predict what medical costs that one person will have. Health insurance companies have to rate people based on their experiece with large groups of similar people. If you spread the risk over a large group then claim experience from any one person will not really matter.
If you are forced to insure more sick people in the group then the rates for everyone will rise a little bit. If you’re dealing with a large enough group it’s predictable and manageble.
Does anybody know how much money the Health Insurance Companies gave to the Dems and also to Obama?
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.