Posted on 11/30/2010 1:31:44 PM PST by RobinMasters
House Republicans are looking to repeal the healthcare reform law and replace it with one of their own early next year without interrupting two popular parts the administration has already begun to implement.
They include a mandate that bars discrimination of pre-existing conditions and a stipulation that allows young people to remain on their parents' insurance plans until age 26.
Incoming Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said Monday that they would do this by passing a GOP healthcare bill at the same time as repeal efforts are underway.
Speaking to more than 100 students at American University, Cantor said, "What you will see us do is to push for repeal of the healthcare bill, and at the same time, contemporaneously, submit our replacement bill, that has in it the provisions [barring discrimination due to pre-existing conditions and offering young people affordable care options]."
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
There are many stories of people being dropped from insurance plans once they get a major illness.
In some cases the employers cut them loose to lessen costs.
That was one of the few issues I thought should have been addressed.
You don’t understand the strategy because you don’t share common goals. Cantor’s goal is to grow government. Period.
First step to a 3rd party?
You are confusing two separate issues.
One issue is whether an insurer can refuse to sell a policy to someone with a pre-existing condition.
The other issue is under what circumstances an insurer is legally entitled to refuse to continue to insure an existing customer.
Leftists often lump these sorts of disparate issues together in order to confuse people into supporting intrusive, unconstitutional government.
Please do not assist them in doing this.
And we guarantee that it will not be in a kissy face diplomatic way. IOW buy your Cayman Island condo now and avoid the rush.
Your words can tremble the mountains!
Yes they are two separate issues. But they are both very similar issues and are 2 of the issues that need to be fixed.
And tort reform.
If we had fixed these issues; we might not have the mess that we have now with the current law.
barring discrimination due to pre-existing conditions
That’s not insurance....that’s welfare!!!!
Kind of like getting house insurance after the fire.
Insurance companies are not in a bubble, they will price their product accordingly and people will howl.
You betcha.
The Left had better hope elections work to kick them out of power.
If they don't, the alternative is very, very ugly.
In 1965 Indonesia, the rivers ran red with commie blood for 3 days - and we've got the Ohio-Mississippi-Missouri system to work with.
Wondering if Cantor is hearing impaired, and needs us to speak a little slower, more distinctly, and perhaps an octave or two louder.
WE......CAN......DO.....THAT.
No free market solution can or should cover “pre-existing conditions”. How can you “insure” health anyway?
We have the best health care in the world. If you are penniless you can go into great emergency rooms around the country AND NOT BE DENIED CARE.
Depending on your financial circumstance you will then either be considered indigent and have it waived, or get on some payment plan to cover it.
A pre-existing condition cannot be “insured” because it has already happened and trying to do something like that will bankrupt the system and drive it to a government solution...which will be far worse in terms of quality of care and ultimately (due to rationing) in terms of extent of care.
In life people get sick and die. We are not going to stop that. A free market solution means the most people will get the best care. Just like it has meant that the most people will rise in their economic standing and create the envy of th world when it comes to standard of living and individual wealth.
That is really what this debate is about. The socialists and marxists wanting to foist control on the economy and destroy the free market.
The entire idea of insurance is that you can assess the risk of an event in a pool of people who are paying premiums.
As soon as you say that somebody gets to wait until AFTER they have an event to join the pool, you are no longer talking about something rational.
Irrationality is the sole province of government.
Losing seems to be the province of the GOP.
And if Congress is going to make it mandatory for people to buy insurance or fine them if they don’t, why don’t we make housing mandatory and fine people who don’t spend their money on rent or a mortgage?
Wouldn’t that solve homelessness over night?
current law forbids insurance companies from denying coverage after one year of the condition treatment...see Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA)
“For months I’ve been comparing the pre-existing conditions element in the bill to the government requiring that fire insurers sell fire insurance on a house even if it was already on fire.”
Today wasn’t the first time he used it...LOL
http://www.blogcatalog.com/blogs/the-bottom-line-truth
The federal government is horrid at “insurance”. Let’s take so-called “flood insurance” that is handled via the National Flood Insurance Program under FEMA. IT IS NOT INSURANCE!
So-called “Flood Insurance sold by the feds is nothing more than a contract with the federal government that says that the federal government will pay in the event that a structure floods. The premiums are not based on risk. The premiums are way too low in many cases in comparison to the risk. Because of this you have stupidity like the houses built around New Orleans that were in a “low risk” flood zone with cheap premiums when the properties were really way below sea level. And protected by pumps 24/7 to stay dry even on rainy days.
Because the feds have promoted cheap “flood insurance” in areas that were sure to flood we end up with development in those areas. Once these properties flood as they were sure to at some point the NFIP/FEMA program runs out of money. It has done so numerous times. When this happens Congress funds the shortfall (you can research all of this) from where? From the United States Treasury of course!
No regular sane commercial insurer would write flood insurance. It is a loser. But the feds do through this BOGUS program and since as I mention above the shorfall comes out of the Treasury the program is SOCIALISM! Because a guy sitting on top of a desert moountaintop who pays federal income tax SUBSIDIZES the “claims” paid by the FEMA program.
What a ripoff! Every US taxpayer payd for the “flood insurance” while NEVER getting a penny out of the program. Dumb, eh?
TOTALLY - I’ve also read enough about that program, agree with everything - except that I do think private companies would fill the void - but they would charge market rates, which would price out most people, and therefore floods wouldn’t cause as much property damage. It’s like magic.
There are probably 10s of billions of dollars of national debt because of this program and it’s not like we don’t have places that don’t flood - to build houses.
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.