[OAW]

With the election of Scott Brown to the US Senate in MA and the 60 vote majority the Democrats had in the Senate will soon be history. Consequently, the health care reform legislation that has passed the House and Senate will not pass in its present form. President Obama has (wisely) ruled out trying to pass the legislation before Mr. Brown is seated in the Senate and has declared that he should be part of the process. Mr. Brown has campaigned against the healthcare legislation that has been passed in Congress (even though he voted for similar legislation in MA ... but I digress) but has declared that he is not against reform altogether. So the question now becomes ... where does Health Insurance Reform go from here? There's no point in debating about "Single Payer" or "Medicare for All" or "the Public Option" (regardless of the merits) that many on the left favor because it simply can't pass the Senate as long as a 60 vote majority is needed for cloture. So let's see where everyone stands on some of the key aspects of health insurance reform that remain.

The following is a list of these key proposals. Indicate where you stand on each one with a Support, Don't Support, or Ambivalent reply. Feel free (and encouraged) to explain why. Also, if I miss some key aspects go ahead and add them to the thread. Here goes ....

Prohibit Health Insurance Companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions?

Prohibit Health Insurance Companies from canceling coverage once the insured gets sick?

Prohibit Health Insurance Companies from setting "lifetime" or "yearly" benefit limits?

Limit the amount which Health Insurance Companies can charge higher premiums based on age, health status, or gender?

Limit the amount Health Insurance Companies can raise premiums each year?

Monitor and penalize Health Insurance Companies for high rates of frivolous claim denials?

Federally regulated minimum coverage standards for health insurance plans?

Federal regulation that Health Insurance Companies spend a certain minimum percentage of their premiums on patient care?

Limit the amount of awards in punitive damages for successful malpractice lawsuits?

Require adults to have health insurance for themselves and their dependents otherwise face a fine?

Federal government subsidies for those below a certain income level to make health insurance affordable?

Excise tax on high-dollar "Cadillac" health insurance plans to drive down overall healthcare spending and help pay for Health Insurance subsidies?

Surtax on the wealthy to help pay for Health Insurance subsidies?

Establish Health Insurance Exchanges AT THE STATE LEVEL to create marketplaces for individuals and small businesses to purchase insurance?

Establish a single Health Insurance Exchange AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL to create a centralized marketplace for individuals and small businesses to purchase insurance?

Repeal the anti-trust exemption for Health Insurance Companies in order to foster competition?

Repeal the law which bans re-importation of lower priced drugs from foreign countries?

Repeal the law which allowed Pharmaceutical companies to advertise on TV?


OAW

[nonhuman]

I would like to note, that all my answers to the below questions are dependent upon the insurance industry operating in a relatively free market system (which they absolutely do not now, causing, as much as you might want to deny it, many of our current problems). There should be competition, and freedom to compete, amongst the insurance companies. I also think that, as with car insurance, any mandate to carry insurance should be covered by some ability to prove that you have the monetary resources to cover medical expenses without health insurance. If you can afford to pay for your own medical care, why should you be forced to pay someone else to pay for your medical care?

Prohibit Health Insurance Companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions?
support

Prohibit Health Insurance Companies from canceling coverage once the insured gets sick?
support

Prohibit Health Insurance Companies from setting "lifetime" or "yearly" benefit limits?
don't support

Limit the amount which Health Insurance Companies can charge higher premiums based on age, health status, or gender?
don't support

Limit the amount Health Insurance Companies can raise premiums each year?
don't support

Monitor and penalize Health Insurance Companies for high rates of frivolous claim denials?
support

Federally regulated minimum coverage standards for health insurance plans?
don't support

Federal regulation that Health Insurance Companies spend a certain minimum percentage of their premiums on patient care?
don't support

Limit the amount of awards in punitive damages for successful malpractice lawsuits?
don't support

Require adults to have health insurance for themselves and their dependents otherwise face a fine?
don't support for the adults, but support for their dependents

Federal government subsidies for those below a certain income level to make health insurance affordable?
don't support

Excise tax on high-dollar "Cadillac" health insurance plans to drive down overall healthcare spending and help pay for Health Insurance subsidies?
don't support

Surtax on the wealthy to help pay for Health Insurance subsidies?
dont' support

Establish Health Insurance Exchanges AT THE STATE LEVEL to create marketplaces for individuals and small businesses to purchase insurance?
don't support, removing the barriers to competition that current exist would accomplish the same goal in a more effective manner

Establish a single Health Insurance Exchange AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL to create a centralized marketplace for individuals and small businesses to purchase insurance?
don't support, removing the barriers to competition that current exist would accomplish the same goal in a more effective manner

Repeal the anti-trust exemption for Health Insurance Companies in order to foster competition?
support

Repeal the law which bans re-importation of lower priced drugs from foreign countries?
possibly support, depends on the mechanism by which those lower prices are achieved; I have no problem with letting Canadian taxpayers subsidize the drugs that we buy, if they want to

Repeal the law which allowed Pharmaceutical companies to advertise on TV?
don't support (though I admit it would be nice...)

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Prohibit Health Insurance Companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions?

Quick question regarding this point: if health insurance companies cannot discriminate for pre-existing conditions, why should I buy health insurance? I mean, if an insurance company can never turn me down, why pay for insurance when I'm healthy? I can just wait until I get sick and then start paying for insurance then.

Am I crazy?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

Quick question regarding this point: if health insurance companies cannot discriminate for pre-existing conditions, why should I buy health insurance? I mean, if an insurance company can never turn me down, why pay for insurance when I'm healthy? I can just wait until I get sick and then start paying for insurance then.

Am I crazy?

No, you're not.

What they propose can't be called insurance.
It's like getting fire "insurance" once your house is already on fire.

Any company forced to offer this will go broke, or jack the prices for everyone. It will not be economically efficient.

-t

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

Quick question regarding this point: if health insurance companies cannot discriminate for pre-existing conditions, why should I buy health insurance? I mean, if an insurance company can never turn me down, why pay for insurance when I'm healthy? I can just wait until I get sick and then start paying for insurance then.

Am I crazy?

Yes, because you're assuming that insurance has to work a specific way and can't work in any other. Everyone should be able to purchase insurance, but for people with pre-existing conditions it should cost more to do so. If you have cancer, you can be pretty sure that your medical bills will be higher than those of someone who is in good health. So you pay more for your insurance than they do, and in exchange you get more treatment than they do. But, because your costs are amortized over a long period of time you aren't hit with a giant spike in cost whenever you need treatment.

Personally, I think there are much simpler yet more significant changes that could be made to our insurance system. For example it's ridiculous that it should be tied to your work; that one aspect of insurance alone is what results in many, many people not being covered, not being covered sufficiently, or being barred from taking what might be a better paying job that would allow them to better afford to handle their medical expenses except for the fact that they would be deprived of their insurance. There is no good reason that insurance should be provided by employers, or linked to one's job.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I would like to note, that all my answers to the below questions are dependent upon the insurance industry operating in a relatively free market system (which they absolutely do not now, causing, as much as you might want to deny it, many of our current problems). There should be competition, and freedom to compete, amongst the insurance companies.

Why would you think that I would deny that?

Prohibit Health Insurance Companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions?
support

Prohibit Health Insurance Companies from canceling coverage once the insured gets sick?
support

Prohibit Health Insurance Companies from setting "lifetime" or "yearly" benefit limits?
support - This is a major cause of medically related bankruptcies. It's essentially a backdoor method of denying coverage. As a consumer you buy insurance to cover your medical expenses when you need it. If an insurance company can say "We'll gladly take your premiums for years ... decades even ... but if you get sick and it costs us more than $100K in a year or $500K over the life of the policy we're going to just stop paying." A major illness (e.g. cancer, heart disease, stroke, etc.) can easily surpass the these limits. It just strikes me as an attempt by insurance companies to get out of paying for major or catastrophic medical cases.

Limit the amount which Health Insurance Companies can charge higher premiums based on age, health status, or gender?
support - The point of insurance is to spread the risk. To do that you need as large a pool as possible. I have no problem charging older people higher rates. Statistically they will cost more. However, if companies are allowed to price them out of the market then that hurts everyone because we as a society end up paying even more for the uninsured when they eventually end up going to the emergency room. Should females of child-rearing age pay higher premiums than males of the same age? Even if they have no children and don't plan to? I'm not proposing a hard and fast cap per se on what an insurance company can charge a higher risk customer (i.e. No more than $5000 per month). I'm thinking something along the line of saying that a companies highest rates can be no more than X % higher than their lowest rates. What X % is should be determined by a commission of government regulators, insurance industry reps, and health care experts.

Limit the amount Health Insurance Companies can raise premiums each year?
support - Runaway inflation in health care costs are a big deal. Not just for the government, but for the economy in general. It it is allowed to continue to rise at several times the overall inflation rate it will destroy the US economy. Something must be done to curb this. Primarily this should be addressed with increased competition. But this should also be in the toolbox to use if necessary.

Monitor and penalize Health Insurance Companies for high rates of frivolous claim denials?
support - Routinely denying claims figuring that most customers will just accept the outcome in an attempt to pad insurance company profits should be a crime IMO.

Federally regulated minimum coverage standards for health insurance plans?
don't support - The fact of the matter is that most insurance policies are long, complicated documents full of legalese. Something the average person ... no scratch that ... the vast majority of people don't read. And it doesn't really matter anyway because most people get insurance through their employer and their options are limited. You either roll with what your employer has ... or your spouse's employer has .... or you do without. People want to know the bottom line. Premiums, co-pays, and deductibles. And the majority don't have lawyers on retainer to interpret these documents that are full of loopholes designed to allow insurance companies to wiggle out of their obligations to pay when paying customers get sick. I think it's a good idea for the government in its role of promoting the general welfare of society to establish certain minimum ground rules so that consumers can trust that they won't have to deal with "Well if you refer to page 250 Section D paragraph 32 it says that if your kidney failure occurred on a Tuesday your policy would not cover that." type of situations.

Federal regulation that Health Insurance Companies spend a certain minimum percentage of their premiums on patient care?
support - Again, this is cost control measure. Do it in consultation with government regulators, insurance industry reps, and health care experts. But people's premiums shouldn't continue to skyrocket to pay for unnecessary overhead, outrageous executive compensation, and silly TV ads from companies that engage in all sorts of shenanigans to get out of paying for actual care.

Limit the amount of awards in punitive damages for successful malpractice lawsuits?
ambivalent - I think the jury is still out on how much this contributes to runaway health care cost inflation. But I can see how fear off lawsuits leads to the practice of defensive medicine which drives up costs. At the same time, I wouldn't want something like this to screw over a guy whose careless/incompetent surgeon removed the wrong kidney or whatever. I suppose it would all come down to what the limit would be?

Require adults to have health insurance for themselves and their dependents otherwise face a fine?
ambivalent - such a requirement in the face of unaffordable insurance rates would be an onerous burden to place on large segments of the public. However, if it were coupled with subsidies if needed ... or better yet reduced rates due to increased competition in the market then it would be ok.

Federal government subsidies for those below a certain income level to make health insurance affordable?
ambivalent - on the one hand this is appealing because it would cost the taxpayers less to do this than pay higher costs when the uninsured go to the emergency room. But on the other hand is expanding government obligations the way to go? In any event, this wouldn't make a lot of sense unless a lot of the structural flaws in the health insurance market are addressed first.

Excise tax on high-dollar "Cadillac" health insurance plans to drive down overall healthcare spending and help pay for Health Insurance subsidies?
don't support - never understood the logic of this one. If most people wouldn't be affected by this because their plans don't fit the criteria ... then how is it going to have an appreciable impact on healthcare spending?

Surtax on the wealthy to help pay for Health Insurance subsidies?
ambivalent - if subsidies are enacted then fine. A minimal tax on the wealthy to help pay or it would be better than financing it on the backs of the already strapped middle class. But again, the focus should be on addressing the structural flaws in the health insurance market that inhibit competition.

Establish Health Insurance Exchanges AT THE STATE LEVEL to create marketplaces for individuals and small businesses to purchase insurance?
don't support - the piecemeal, state-by-state approach to health insurance is part of the problem. In too many states there are only a handful of insurance companies controlling the entire market.

Establish a single Health Insurance Exchange AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL to create a centralized marketplace for individuals and small businesses to purchase insurance?
support - this will enable nationwide competition and eliminate the virtual monopolies that exist in many parts of the country. Increased competition is a good thing.

Repeal the anti-trust exemption for Health Insurance Companies in order to foster competition?
support - this is just a no brainer.

Repeal the law which bans re-importation of lower priced drugs from foreign countries?
support - outrageous pharmaceutical prices are a huge factor in skyrocketing health care costs. There's no reason why American's should be paying several times more for a drug than foreigners pay. The only reason this foolishness exists is because of politicians being in the pockets of lobbyists.

Repeal the law which allowed Pharmaceutical companies to advertise on TV?
support - there's no reason for consumers to be paying ridiculous prices for drugs to cover these multi-million dollar TV ad campaigns. Most times people don't even know what the drug is for ... so why the expensive TV spot? The US healthcare system did quite well when this wasn't allowed. And I don't see how allowing TV ads for drugs has benefited consumers. All it's done is pad the pockets of the drug companies and made things even more expensive for consumers.

OAW

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Why would you think that I would deny that?

Not you, necessarily, but there are certainly some people out there who think that all of our ills are caused by a lack of government regulation and refuse to acknowledge that the regulation itself might cause problems. The 'you' was intended to refer to you specifically.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

Quick question regarding this point: if health insurance companies cannot discriminate for pre-existing conditions, why should I buy health insurance? I mean, if an insurance company can never turn me down, why pay for insurance when I'm healthy? I can just wait until I get sick and then start paying for insurance then.

Am I crazy?

It will cost you more to purchase health insurance after you are already sick. Just like a life insurance policy will cost you a lot more if you purchase it at 50 than if you did at 25.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Not you, necessarily, but there are certainly some people out there who think that all of our ills are caused by a lack of government regulation and refuse to acknowledge that the regulation itself might cause problems. The 'you' was intended to refer to you specifically.

Gotcha. Well I think there are ills that resulted from lack of regulation (e.g. the near meltdown of the financial system in 2007/2008) and I think there are ills that result from too many regulations (e.g. the hodgepodge system of state-by-state regulation in the health insurance industry). I'm certainly not one who believes that unchecked capitalism is the answer to every problem. The circumstances in which my ancestors came to this country is a clear and undeniable example of how unchecked capitalism can run off the rails. IMO, a good "free-market" capitalistic system needs ground rules. Not overly burdensome regulations for the sake of regulations. But a regulatory framework that promotes the common good is definitely needed to keep the system functioning smoothly.

OAW

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OAW 

It will cost you more to purchase health insurance after you are already sick. Just like a life insurance policy will cost you a lot more if you purchase it at 50 than if you did at 25.

OAW

Yes, that's a fact. The question is: Do you agree with that principle ?

To put it in simple terms: if you have a preexisting condition, you are NOT buying insurance, you are buying treatment.

-t

[OAW]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Yes, that's a fact. The question is: Do you agree with that principle ?

Again ... why wouldn't I agree with that principle?

Originally Posted by turtle777

To put it in simple terms: if you have a preexisting condition, you are NOT buying insurance, you are buying treatment.

Well that's just silly. If you are buying health insurance you are buying treatment regardless of if you have a pre-existing condition or not.

OAW

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Again ... why wouldn't I agree with that principle?



Well that's just silly. If you are buying health insurance you are buying treatment regardless of if you have a pre-existing condition or not.

OAW

Then how is that INSURANCE and not just a treatment plan?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

Then how is that INSURANCE and not just a treatment plan?

Again. People don't buy INSURANCE for the sake of having a policy that they can frame and hang on the wall. The only value in INSURANCE is what the policy PROVIDES WHEN NEEDED. In the case of health insurance that is "treatment". In the case of car or homeowner's insurance that is "repairs". This really shouldn't be a difficult concept to understand.

OAW

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Again. People don't buy INSURANCE for the sake of having a policy that they can frame and hang on the wall. The only value in INSURANCE is what the policy PROVIDES WHEN NEEDED. In the case of health insurance that is "treatment". In the case of car or homeowner's insurance that is "repairs". This really shouldn't be a difficult concept to understand.

OAW

Uhm, me thinks you don't understand the difference.

Buying treatment = 100% chance of it happening
Buying insurance = x% (<<100%) chance of happening

The reason why insurance premiums can be kept low is because risk is spread. If every insured person had a 100% chance of treatment being necessary, there wouldn't be any insurance sold.

-t

[OAW]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Uhm, me thinks you don't understand the difference.

Buying treatment = 100% chance of it happening
Buying insurance = x% (<<100%) chance of happening

Actually I do understand the difference. You are presuming that the "treatment" is necessarily for something catastrophic. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. If someone purchases a policy and then goes to see a doctor for a checkup is it any less "treatment" if it was a month ahead of time instead of a day? When he continues to pay premiums month after month that far exceed the cost of that initial doctor visit does that make it any more or less "treatment"? This is the nature of health insurance and what makes it different from property or life insurance. The latter insures against individual unanticipated "loss events" ... i.e. theft, accident, etc. So of course a company isn't going to pay for a loss event that occurred prior to the policy being in force. Health insurance is a different animal altogether. It is insurance against the unanticipated AND anticipated health care expenditures. It allows for those expenditures to be paid for over time rather than all-at-once as they occur.

Originally Posted by turtle777

The reason why insurance premiums can be kept low is because risk is spread. If every insured person had a 100% chance of treatment being necessary, there wouldn't be any insurance sold.

Duh. That's the nature of the insurance business. How about you tell me something I don't know? .

And speaking of risk, most Americans get their health insurance through their employer so they participate in a group plan that spreads the risk across all the employees who sign up for the plan. Interestingly enough, such plans rarely involve medical underwriting. If you want in you just sign up during open enrollment and you pay what everybody else pays ... regardless of your age, health status, etc. It's generally only when an individual purchases a health insurance policy directly that pre-existing conditions and all that becomes an issue.

So that can be another aspect of health insurance reform to discuss:

Prohibit Health Insurance Companies from using medical underwriting to deny coverage or charge higher premiums?

support, ambivalent, don't support?

OAW

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OAW 

It is insurance against the unanticipated AND anticipated health care expenditures. It allows for those expenditures to be paid for over time rather than all-at-once as they occur.

That's contradictory. Anticipated (as in known, pre-exsiting) claims are never covered in any insurance.
It goes against the basic idea of insurance. That's why I said: you can't call this insurance if you include anticipated losses.

Originally Posted by OAW 

Duh. That's the nature of the insurance business. How about you tell me something I don't know? .

Did anyone ever tell you that you are a tool ?
You claim to know, and still, you write stuff that shows that you have twisted ideas about the whole thing.

-t

[Big Mac]

President Reagan on Government Health Care/Socialism (1961)

The problem of preexisting conditions is a complex one. You can't insure your car against an accident that occurs after the fact, and you can't insure a life if the subject is no longer living. Covering a loss that has already occurred is something that insurance isn't designed for.

However, preexisting conditions is a special aspect of health insurance that doesn't really exist in other insurance categories. Health insurance companies take on people with preexisting conditions all the time: A person with a preexisting condition who gets hired by an employer who has a group insurance plan for employees will get taken on to that insurance plan without medical underwriting. Such people will be covered in spite of their preexisting conditions, including the long list of preexisting diagnoses that make one ineligible for private insurance. Given that the largest insurers are willing to write group policies despite the open enrollment policy, it suggests that either they're too lenient on group plans or too harsh on individual medical underwriting.

Additionally, a preexisting condition is a known risk and possibly a peril in insurance terms, but it isn't necessarily an active, direct injury or loss (as is an auto accident, a building fire, a flood, a death, etc.). A person can live with a preexisting condition for many years and be in decent health otherwise but still be denied (or heavily rated up so as to make a plan unaffordable) private health insurance because of a diagnosis years before. Those people still need health insurance because of the distortion of third party medical payments that make the cash option an untenable expense and risk for most. Some people get diagnosed with an illness, make substantial positive health changes but still be denied for private insurance because of an old diagnosis that doesn't really apply to them anymore.

Given that the large insurers were willing to change their policy on preexisting conditions, I find it difficult to believe that their financial picture would be that greatly impacted by taking on the portion of people most impacted by issue. For those who contend that it's too difficult to insure those with preexisting conditions affordably, how do you account for group insurance open enrollment? Also, look at the example of whole life insurance. "On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero," but there's still whole life insurance. One could say that mortality is a preexisting condition, but there are still policies designed to be in force and pay out no matter how long a person lives. People are guaranteed to have some health expenses over the course of their lives, and people are guaranteed mortality, so given those two realities why do insurers commonly cover one type of guarantee but attempt to get out of the other? As I've said before, the insurance companies have brought upon themselves this problem. If they had decided as an industry to come up with a solution years ago, much of Obama's rationale for "reform" would be eliminated.

Prohibit Health Insurance Companies from denying coverage. . . - see above

Prohibit Health Insurance Companies from canceling coverage. . . - generally support

Prohibit Health Insurance Companies from setting "lifetime" [limits]. . . - generally oppose, insurance companies need to be able to limit risk to a defined amount

Limit the amount which Health Insurance Companies can charge higher premiums. . . - depends on the impact on premiums for the majority

Limit the amount Health Insurance Companies can raise premiums each year? - support

Monitor and penalize Health Insurance Companies for high rates of frivolous claim denials? - support

Federally regulated minimum coverage standards for health insurance plans? - depends

Federal regulation that Health Insurance Companies spend a certain minimum percentage. . . - depends, what is the remedy?

Limit the amount of awards in punitive damages for successful malpractice lawsuits? - support

Require adults to have health insurance for themselves and their dependents. . . - oppose, leave it up to states

Federal government subsidies for those below a certain income level. . . - support if it means reducing Medicaid roles, not expanding them

Excise tax on high-dollar "Cadillac" health insurance plans to drive down overall healthcare spending. . . - support

Surtax on the wealthy to help pay for Health Insurance subsidies? - oppose, tax burdens are too high, cut gov. spending elsewhere and move toward a fair tax system

Establish Health Insurance Exchanges AT THE STATE LEVEL to create marketplaces. . . - support

Establish a single Health Insurance Exchange AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. . . - oppose, but the federal government could help states administer the state exchanges

Repeal the anti-trust exemption for Health Insurance Companies. . . - depends on the impact

Repeal the law which bans re-importation of lower priced drugs. . . - support

Repeal the law which allowed Pharmaceutical companies. . . - oppose

Here are some of mine to add to OAW's list:

Remove state barriers to nationwide insurance plan competition - support

Promote movement toward individual insurance plan ownership from employer based coverage - support

Promote HSAs and more individual responsibility for medical spending - support

Transition away from Medicare (Socialized medicine for the elderly that is bankrupting us) toward market based solutions - support

[OAW]

Originally Posted by turtle777

Did anyone ever tell you that you are a tool ?
You claim to know, and still, you write stuff that shows that you have twisted ideas about the whole thing.

Really? I'm a tool? Oh wow!

I'm not going to trade insults with you turtle. I think I've made my point pretty clear. I also think that most of us around here understand what I'm saying. But for your sake I'll point out just why this statement is simply not true ....

Originally Posted by turtle777 

That's contradictory. Anticipated (as in known, pre-exsiting) claims are never covered in any insurance.
It goes against the basic idea of insurance. That's why I said: you can't call this insurance if you include anticipated losses.

Customer has diabetes. It's a pre-existing condition. Insurance company issues him a policy anyway ... albeit a more expensive one. Is his subsequent treatment "never covered in any insurance" as you claim? Do you really believe that his yearly (or more often) doctor visits, his insulin medication, and his blood sugar monitoring equipment are NOT "anticipated expenditures" for the insurance company? What does the customer have in his records if not an "insurance policy"? Isn't that what it says at the top of the page? Can you produce a single example of this "treatment policy" of which you speak?

Quite frankly, you don't seem to be grasping that different types of insurance work in different ways. I tried to point this out before because you keep trying to make a point about health insurance as if it operated like property insurance. Of course, there are similarities. But there very important differences. "Anticipated (as in known, pre-existing) claims are never covered in any insurance" ... is very much a true statement in the property insurance arena. However, it is not necessarily true in the health insurance arena. I mean seriously ... there's only so much one can do to explain the obvious to you.

So it seems to me that you now have the following options ... from best to worse:

1. Concede the point.
2. Simply remain silent or move on to another topic.
3. Attempt a rebuttal of the example I just gave above.
4. Continue with the silly little insults.

It's up to you.

OAW

[Lint Police]

I think i'll go buy car insurance to get my car fixed next time I crash. Who needs insurance when you can buy it just when you need it?

I'll gladly pay a little more if my car is already crashed to get it fixed. Heck, I could just as well cancel my coverage again once they pay to fix the car since they will be required to fix it next time it is wrecked. lol.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Lint Police 

I think i'll go buy car insurance to get my car fixed next time I crash. Who needs insurance when you can buy it just when you need it?

I'll gladly pay a little more if my car is already crashed to get it fixed. Heck, I could just as well cancel my coverage again once they pay to fix the car since they will be required to fix it next time it is wrecked. lol.

fantastic idea, I'm in for that.

[Big Mac]

Oh, and by the way, 2,500 page bills need to go permanently. If a given piece of legislation can't be stated in under 100 pages at most, there's something horribly wrong.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

If a given piece of legislation can't be stated in under 100 pages at most, there's something horribly wrong bad hidden in it.

Fixinated.

-t

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The problem of preexisting conditions is a complex one.

::::::all the way through to:::::::

As I've said before, the insurance companies have brought upon themselves this problem. If they had decided as an industry to come up with a solution years ago, much of Obama's rationale for "reform" would be eliminated.

Amazingly ... I agree with everything you said in that part of your post.

I do find this odd about your position though. On the one hand you say this ....

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Establish Health Insurance Exchanges AT THE STATE LEVEL to create marketplaces. . . - support

Establish a single Health Insurance Exchange AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. . . - oppose, but the federal government could help states administer the state exchanges

How do you support STATE LEVEL health insurance exchanges ... which would be regulated on a hodgepodge "state-by-state" basis .... oppose FEDERAL LEVEL health insurance exchanges ... which would create a nationwide level playing field with a single set of regulations ... and then turn around and say this ....

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Remove state barriers to nationwide insurance plan competition - support

It seems to me that STATE LEVEL health insurance exchanges would further entrench the barriers to the nationwide competition that you seek. A tad bit contradictory n'est-ce pas?

OAW

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

fantastic idea, I'm in for that.

Same with fire insurance. I'd get one once my house is on fire.
And disability insurance as well - I'll sign up once I'm disabled.

It's really sad that those zealous lefties don't realize that they completely screw up the original intent or insurance by bringing in their "nice ideas" about fairness. In the end, it's broken for everybody. But that's more fair, apparently.

-t

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Oh, and by the way, 2,500 page bills need to go permanently. If a given piece of legislation can't be stated in under 100 pages at most, there's something horribly wrong.

Is this a position you take consistently? Does this apply to various "Consolidated Appropriations Acts", a recent "National Defense Authorization Act", the Bush "No Child Left Behind Act", and the Bush "Energy Policy Act"?

Word Bill
Count
314,900 Affordable Health Care for American Act
314,832 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, 2005
314,573 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
296,111 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005
276,849 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008
274,559 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
258,205 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008
250,286 Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008
246,984 Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003
226,492 Energy Policy Act, 2005

For Bills in Congress, How Long is Long? - Blog - OpenCongress

Or does this only apply to legislation sponsored by Democrats or legislation you oppose? Note: half of these bills were sponsored by Democrats, half by Republicans.

OAW

[Big Mac]

All of it. Government is too large and too powerful, and the legislation it produces is too complex. When Congressmen readily and unapologetically admit that they can't possibly be expected to read or comprehend the legislation they pass, it's an obvious cue that government is out of control.