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 ...
I live in Norman, OK, and would come down to see that debate! Even the thought of it makes me laugh.
But you see, there IS a way to predict it. That’s what an “actuarial table” is. It’s a mother of all spreadsheets that makes rates based on formulas and such. There are little Oompah Loompah statistic readers whose only job is to compute and calculate how much premium needs to be collected over the course of the upcoming year. That’s what an actuarial table in itself is. I see you understand the basics of insurance, that a larger pool creates a lessor risk. However you HAVE to have some degree of certainty to determine rates. And if you KNOW you aren’t going to accept anyone with diabetes, cancer, AIDS, or other illnesses such as that, you have a far greater chance of getting within reason of estimating the amount of premium revenue annually in order to remain solvent and be able to pay out future claims.
But even IF they had a way to calculate all the PEC issues, do you realize how much YOUR premium would have to be to pay it all?
For that matter, I want to know how this effects the state insurance commissioner departments. Rates have to go through their approval process and now the feds are going to jack all that up. To not have named a Federal Insurance Commissioner just shows these jackwipes have NO IDEA what they are doing.
I always put Cornyn in the context that he endorsed Crist in the FL primary when he should have stayed out. Now that Crist is behind by 30 points he still won’t withdraw his endorsement. He had no business as head of NRSC endorsing in the FL primary.
Edmonson seems to be hiding after originally saying he would file a lawsuit. When you call the AG the girl hands you over to the answering machine which they can erase at will. I figured the guy who took OK in with Gore instead of Bush would back down.
With all due respect, take your “we’ve lost” attitude and shove it.
We have no choice but to fight for the right. We’re not tilting at windmills—but as Paul Ryan said, the hill to climb just got STEEPER.
If you don’t want to join in, then kindly step to the back of the ranks. We’ll do the heavy lifting. Just don’t pop off and tell us we’re not going to succeed.
Thanks.
And the Republicans want to know why conservatives are backing away from them?
You seem to know the ins. industry well. How was the law written in relation to not taking people with various illnesses...aids,cancer, diabetes etc.?
Did they have the right to simply deny people? Were there certain illnesses or could they just deny any?
“With all due respect, take your ‘we’ve lost’ attitude and shove it.”
Sure, lets all gather in an echo chamber and cheer one another up by ignoring reality. You can’t just surround yourself with a bunch of optimists and proverbial “yes men”.
Major social programs tend never to be repealed. It is highly unlikely this gets repealed and when the anger subsides people will realize this - including perhaps yourself.
You can add this to the long list of other progressive “achievements” that conservatives planned to repeal including social security, medicare, medicaid, WIC, foodstamps etc, etc, etc.
People don’t give up their freebies lightly. They just don’t. We were able to repeal, due to popular anger, the Catastrophic Health piece of Medicare. We were also able to reform Welfare. That is about it. And those are small potatoes compared to this monstrosity.
Will the socialist agenda eventually collapse in America? Yes, I do believe it may. It is just that these programs will not be “repealed” in the normal course of events. This crap will go away when the productive element of society finally revolts and has the backing of enough of what is left of the middle class. That may or may not ever happen - at least in our lifetimes.
I am perfectly hopeful that things will right themselves eventually, I am just not all that optimistic in the short term. I contribute and support conservative causes, speak to anyone who will listen about how bad socialism is, etc, etc, but my reading of history just does not leave me feeling very confident that reversing this stuff will happen anytime soon. If you don’t want to hear that, I’d suggest you not read my posts because that is the way I see it.
They lie, lie and lie.
Each insurance company makes determination of what group they want to target. Some will say “We’ll take all the business of those with “well controlled diabetes” and collect a larger premium for a higher risk, but maybe double out that risk by denying another commonly covered illness.
There are several biggies that most companies will not cover (keep in mind I am speaking on an individual plan-most if not all states have group laws regarding preexisting conditions, like in Georgia if you move from one group policy to another within 90 days, you have coverage without PEC) and that is cancer, diabetes (especially insulin controlled), AIDS, etc...
Now these conditions and stipulations MUST BE SUBMITTED for approval to the state insurance commissioner as part of their statistical calculations. Some policies will cover some types of cancer if a certain amount of time has gone by. Sometimes they will say “Your cholesterol is too high, we’ll cover you after six months if your level has gone to acceptable levels.”
I hope I explained what you were asking for. As I said, these all have to be approved by the State Commissioner Dept. That’s what drives me so crazy when hearing these stupid Dems demonize them for being ‘unregulated.’ They are probably the most regulated industry out there!
Why are you here? Wouldn’t you be more comfortable at the Democrat Underground?
It never ceases to amaze me how easily some on this board can be stampeded by the likes of HuffPo!
Personally I would believe anything I read on that site, or anything sourced from there, because they have proven themselves time and again to be nothing more than PROPAGANDIST of the left!
No actually I like it here.
So, are u saying that the very credible National Review Reporters are lying?
Why would this respected group lie?
This entire monstrosity needs to be gone. The Republicans have ideas about how to fix the things that need fixing. A complete overhaul is not necessary nor desirable. Whatever "good" things that are in it can be incorporated in another, much, much smaller and targeted bill; but, the Frankenstein monster that Dr. Pelosi has created needs to be completely and utterly destroyed.
Thanks for the info.
They need to do what they demanded Obama do.
Scrap the whole damn thing and start over.
They can always take votes on aspects they like or people demand after they kill it dead. Keeping parts just confuses Idol nation.
KISS keep it simple stupids.
This is the guy who pushed Arlen Specter all the way?
They aren't lying they are just quoting what was reported on the left wing agitprop blog HuffPo!
Why they would do that is beyond me but hopefully they will learn from their mistake and not do it again!
Excuse me, it was Huffington Post.
“I see, so your philosophy boils down to: S.S.D.P.”
No, that’s not my philosophy. Nor was it my point. I realize some people shut their brains off when they hear anything verging on SSDP, but please try to appreciate the finer disctinctions. Pause to consider who it is that would be hurt by Obama breaking his promises.
Whose camp is Obama in, anyway? To whom would Obama’s foreign policy appear no different from Bush’s (actually, it isn’t all that different objectively, but one group in particular can be counted upon to exaggerate)? That’s right, his own camp. Namely leftists. Obama will appear as no different than Bush TO THEM (just like the next Republicans in office will appear not different enough from Obama to us). They’re the ones you can count on to say, “He’s the one we’ve been waiting for, and all we got was this lousy expanded Afghan war, more wiretaps, gitmo still standing, nothing different in Iraq...”
You were saying that one ought not to promise what he can’t deliver. I was saying Obama has gone back on what he promised (or what he implied he was promising), but that it hasn’t hurt him. Why? First, and most importantly, because it got him elected. Secondly, because his implied campaign pledges were stupid. Thirdly, and this is more to the point, people forget. So long as you can govern well (and Obama can’t, but that’s a different story), you need not fulfill every promise.
This is an old, old lesson. If repudiating healthcare is a good enough campaign slogan, Republicans should use it, even if it cannot be done anytime soon. Once they’re in power, they’ll be judged on their own merits, and no one will be marching in the streets chanting “What about eliminating the preexisting conditions clause?” They’ll forget.
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.