Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: CharlesWayneCT

It’s irrelevant because I don’t want the cake or the droppings.

The entire bill needs to be scrapped.


60 posted on 04/19/2010 6:48:57 PM PDT by rbmillerjr (Let hot tar wash their throats and may it flow freely.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies ]


To: rbmillerjr

I agree with you, but it’s not irrelevant that nobody on the republican side will commit to scrapping the change to pre-existing conditions, and most of the current elected republicans actively supported it and would put it in any alternative bill.

The public also overwhelmingly supports the ability to buy insurance without regard to pre-existing conditions. It doesn’t make any sense, it turns the notion of “insurance” upside down, but that is the political reality.

Nobody is saying they will go back to allowing insurance companies to exclude pre-existing conditions.

It’s also relevant because, if it is the case that we are going to force insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, the companies will go broke if people are allowed to wait until they get sick to buy insurance. Again, we know the problem is the pre-existing condition issue, but that isn’t going to change.

So do we force them to cover pre-existing conditions and let them go broke? Or do we try to fix that problem by making it hard for people to pick and choose when to buy insurance? That’s what the mandate is all about (which perversely makes the “pre-existing condition” problem moot, since everybody will be required to buy insurance at birth, and therefore will never have “pre-existing conditions” before purchasing insurance).

The better solution might be to to have public pools for pre-existing conditions, and accept that since we won’t let people die on the streets, we’re just going to have to spend tax dollars sometimes, and instead of doing it under the table, we do it above-board and so everybody can see what the cheapskates are costing the rest of us, and make them feel bad.

Which is just a “shame them into buying insurance”, rather than the “threaten them into buying insurance”.

The right way is to tell them if they don’t have insurance, we will let them die. That’s the “scare them into buyinginsurance”, but the problem is a lot of people don’t get scared until it’s too late, and it doesn’t help to scare dead people.

I know that you just wanted to use the issue to bash a politician, but there is a real issue and it needs to be considered. You and I don’t like how it’s being considered, but it’s not irrelevant.


62 posted on 04/19/2010 9:08:10 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson