Why did the GOP leave out preexisting conditions provision?

[dimera23]

I was very surprised to see that the Republicans left out a provision in their healthcare reform proposal that would prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage to customers with preexisting conditions. I thought this was something Republicans and Democrats agreed on.

What is the GOP reasoning for this?

[ExDem]

I was very surprised to see that the Republicans left out a provision in their healthcare reform proposal that would prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage to customers with preexisting conditions. I thought this was something Republicans and Democrats agreed on.

What is the GOP reasoning for this?

What are you looking at? What I see does address preexisting conditions. Do you have a link?

[dimera23]

What are you looking at? What I see does address preexisting conditions. Do you have a link?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-health-gop5-2009nov05,0,2750338.story

That's the link to the LA Times story. I read it in several others earlier today.

How did the GOP address preexisting conditions? Got a story?

[chris13]

You don't cover pre-existing conditions with INSURANCE.
That would be called ASSURANCE.

Insurance is basically a bet. You wager $1,000 a month that you will get sick and need to use the insurance, and the insurance company wagers literally a million dollars or so that you won't. That's the end game of a catastrophic illness.

[Flyboy84]

So I called up gieco the other day to get insurance for my car. And can you believe the nerve they had to deny me because I totalled my car last month and didn't have any insurance then. I mean, auto insurance is a right. How dare they leave me and my family out to dry, all in the name of thier greedy profits. Someone ought to do something to those greedy fat cats in the auto insurance to make them pay.

Sounds pretty ridiculous when you put it into perspective , doesn't it?

[tobybear]

Why would people pay for health insurance month after month, year after year, if all they ever needed to do was pay out a couple hundred a month for the few months they needed tens of thousands of dollars worth of medical procedures?

[The Bos'un]

Hell, every Tom, Dick, and Henrietta have their hands out for suppliments.

[Ballygrl]

I was very surprised to see that the Republicans left out a provision in their healthcare reform proposal that would prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage to customers with preexisting conditions. I thought this was something Republicans and Democrats agreed on.

What is the GOP reasoning for this?

You don't purchase fire insurance when your house is burning. The purpose of insurance is to have it before you actually need it.

[jimmyc123]

Why would people pay for health insurance month after month, year after year, if all they ever needed to do was pay out a couple hundred a month for the few months they needed tens of thousands of dollars worth of medical procedures?

That is why you make it a requirement that everyone have insurance.

[Ballygrl]

That is why you make it a requirement that everyone have insurance.

I know a lot of people are against that but I'm actually for it. When people choose not to purchase insurance because they have other things they'd rather do with their money, then they end up screwing the taxpayer if they need medical care and can't pay for it.

[ExDem]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-health-gop5-2009nov05,0,2750338.story

That's the link to the LA Times story. I read it in several others earlier today.

How did the GOP address preexisting conditions? Got a story?

Here is a link to the actual bill. The first page are the four main components.....number 1 addresses preexisting conditions. The link to the full bill is at the bottom.
http://rsc.tomprice.house.gov/Solutions/EmpoweringPatientsFirstAct.htm

[ChicoLibertarian]

I was very surprised to see that the Republicans left out a provision in their healthcare reform proposal that would prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage to customers with preexisting conditions. I thought this was something Republicans and Democrats agreed on.

What is the GOP reasoning for this?

Because preexisting conditions cost insurance companies a lot of money and Republicans are the party that protects corporate profits?

Republicans are in the pockets of corporations, which is no better than being a statist. Republicans fail, again.

[sideview]

I was very surprised to see that the Republicans left out a provision in their healthcare reform proposal that would prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage to customers with preexisting conditions. I thought this was something Republicans and Democrats agreed on.

What is the GOP reasoning for this?

You can get insurance if you have a preexisting condition, but that condition itself will not be covered for a period of time. Usually at least six months, but it depends on the condition and the insurance company.

[Ballygrl]

Because preexisting conditions cost insurance companies a lot of money and Republicans are the party that protects corporate profits?

Republicans are in the pockets of corporations, which is no better than being a statist. Republicans fail, again.

So basically you don't think the citizen bears any responsibility at all when it comes to things like insurance? I'd be curious to know how many people who don't purchase insurance are driving around in new cars? have big screen tv's? have multiple computers? take a few nice vacations per year?

[mdk190]

The GOP is not interested what so ever in helping pass any kind of reform. Their only job is stall Obama and regain power. The party of Pro-Life doesn't seem to care about it if your poor or already ill.

[Ballygrl]

The GOP is not interested what so ever in helping pass any kind of reform. Their only job is stall Obama and regain power. The party of Pro-Life doesn't seem to care about it if your poor or already ill.

The Democrats really need to get new talking points. :rolleyes:

[mdk190]

The Democrats really need to get new talking points. :rolleyes:

I am sure you will get yours once Gleen has made a speedy recovery.

[dad49er]

I see some debate here if this is true.
But if it is the answer is simple, they are kowtowing to the private insurance industry.

[Ballygrl]

I am sure you will get yours once Gleen has made a speedy recovery.

Not a Beck fan at all actually.

[Ballygrl]

I see some debate here if this is true.
But if it is the answer is simple, they are kowtowing to the private insurance industry.

They're not kowtowing to private insurance. Is it so wrong to expect people to be personally responsible to carry insurance before they get sick?

[mdk190]

They're not kowtowing to private insurance. Is it so wrong to expect people to be personally responsible to carry insurance before they get sick?

Lord knows getting ill is usually such a planned event. I think I can pencil in some cancer after I get insurance.

[Ballygrl]

Lord knows getting ill is usually such a planned event. I think I can pencil in some cancer after I get insurance.

Which is why people need insurance BEFORE they get sick. How hard is that to understand?

[RTchoke]

So basically you don't think the citizen bears any responsibility at all when it comes to things like insurance? I'd be curious to know how many people who don't purchase insurance are driving around in new cars? have big screen tv's? have multiple computers? take a few nice vacations per year?

Hmmmmmmmmmm...................

New car? ........... Nope. Our "newest" car is14 years old.
Big screen TV? ............. Nope. One TV and it's not even HDTV. It's over 10 years old.
Multiple computers?...........Nope. One homebuilt computer given to us by a friend when my 12 year old computer died a couple years ago.
Nice vacation? Nope. Hubby doesn't get vacation time. We go camping a few times a year within a couple hours drive of home.

I guess I could cut out those little extras.....:think:

Let's see

Mortgage
Ins - home and auto
Ins - accident/cat
electricity
phone
satellite TV - no cable here
internet
XM radio
food
gas

If I cut out the TV, internet and XM I can get a total of $100 extra bucks. Well, that's not gonna cut it. Maybe if I cut out some gas. Damn, I don't go anywhere and can get by on about a tank every 2-3 weeks and hubby only buys gas to get him to and from work. Guess that's not gonna work. I suppose I could cut down on our food bill. I mean heck, who needs to spend almost$300-$350 a month on food for a family of 3? I would love to get rid of the phone but not realistic. Besides the extra $40 buck for that isn't going to get me any closer to paying a premium anyway.

Guess I better find a way though since I am going to be forced to buy it. Bet the local hospital is really ****ed they got paid by me every time we went in for something.

But dammit I don't have insurance to cover every little sniffle because I'm living high on da hog instead. :rolleyes:

[historynut]

One thing that people overlook about insurance companies and preexisting conditions. When you get insured (by law) the company has to have the money to cover all possible claims.

So if you have a preexisting condition that could cost the company $100 million and the company has only $90 million by law they can not insure you.

So you would have a provision in healthcare reform that would prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage to customers with preexisting conditions while at the same time you have a law that says you can not cover them unless you have the money to cover possible claims.

Don't cover preexisting conditions pay a fine or go to jail.

Don't have the money to cover possible claims pay a fine or go to jail.

I notice that all the congressman that want to pass a law that would require coverage to customers with preexisting conditions forget about the law they passed that requires insurance companies to have the money to cover all possible claims.

[tobybear]

That is why you make it a requirement that everyone have insurance.


Then there wouldnt be Pre-Existing Conditions!

People would all have Pre-Existing Insurance!

And do the "50 million people currently without Health Insurance" know the Democrat plan is to force them to pay for something they claim they cant afford?

[Ballygrl]

Hmmmmmmmmmm...................

New car? ........... Nope. Our "newest" car is14 years old.
Big screen TV? ............. Nope. One TV and it's not even HDTV. It's over 10 years old.
Multiple computers?...........Nope. One homebuilt computer given to us by a friend when my 12 year old computer died a couple years ago.
Nice vacation? Nope. Hubby doesn't get vacation time. We go camping a few times a year within a couple hours drive of home.

I guess I could cut out those little extras.....:think:

Let's see

Mortgage
Ins - home and auto
Ins - accident/cat
electricity
phone
satellite TV - no cable here
internet
XM radio
food
gas

If I cut out the TV, internet and XM I can get a total of $100 extra bucks. Well, that's not gonna cut it. Maybe if I cut out some gas. Damn, I don't go anywhere and can get by on about a tank every 2-3 weeks and hubby only buys gas to get him to and from work. Guess that's not gonna work. I suppose I could cut down on our food bill. I mean heck, who needs to spend almost$300-$350 a month on food for a family of 3? I would love to get rid of the phone but not realistic. Besides the extra $40 buck for that isn't going to get me any closer to paying a premium anyway.

Guess I better find a way though since I am going to be forced to buy it. Bet the local hospital is really ****ed they got paid by me every time we went in for something.

But dammit I don't have insurance to cover every little sniffle because I'm living high on da hog instead. :rolleyes:

LOL, here's my list, and I pay almost $600 per month for our health insurance:

New Car? No, all cars paid off and they're 14, 10 and 7 years old

Big Screen TV? Yes, given to us by a relative for free, we would never of bought 1 on our own because of the cost

Computers? 3, 1 is 10 years old (free, hubby refurbished it), 1 is 8 years old (under $300), 1 Laptop is 9 years old (bought on ebay for $150)

Vacation? Haven't had a real 1 in 10 years, just weekend jaunts we can drive too

Shopping Sprees? Not in years, and if we do shop it's at Old Navy

But my health insurance premiums are paid every month!

[Ballygrl]

Then there wouldnt be Pre-Existing Conditions!

People would all have Pre-Existing Insurance!

And do the "50 million people currently without Health Insurance" know the Democrat plan is to force them to pay for something they claim they cant afford?

The number of people who don't have insurance because they can't afford it is approximately 12 million. Younger people choose not to carry it because they don't think they need it and would rather do something else with their money.

[Trip]

I know a lot of people are against that but I'm actually for it. When people choose not to purchase insurance because they have other things they'd rather do with their money, then they end up screwing the taxpayer if they need medical care and can't pay for it.

That failure to purchase insurance? It's called "FREEDOM' and is one of the things our constitution allegedly ensures.


If you give to Congress, for the first time ever in our history, the ability not only MANDATE we purchase something when we're doing nothing to cause it, by our mere existence, but also give Congress the ability to:

1) sell that insurance themselves, and
2) compete with the remaining private insurance, and
3) dictate the rules of insurance and the competition.

Then you may as well just tear up the ****ing Constitution, hand it back to the government with the phrase "compact nullified, do whatever the hell you want, please".

All you're rationalizing is Tyranny.

[jimmyc123]

Then there wouldnt be Pre-Existing Conditions!

People would all have Pre-Existing Insurance!


Exactly.

[dad49er]

They're not kowtowing to private insurance. Is it so wrong to expect people to be personally responsible to carry insurance before they get sick?

Bit difficult if they are denied before they even become sick. Or try to get insurance after being dropped for getting sick.

But then I guess mandating all have insurance is just enforcing personal responsibility.

[dizzy3a]

Because preexisting conditions cost insurance companies a lot of money and Republicans are the party that protects corporate profits?

Republicans are in the pockets of corporations, which is no better than being a statist. Republicans fail, again.

baloney....ain't even true

[dad49er]

So basically you don't think the citizen bears any responsibility at all when it comes to things like insurance? I'd be curious to know how many people who don't purchase insurance are driving around in new cars? have big screen tv's? have multiple computers? take a few nice vacations per year?

Gee, that's not stereotypical.:rolleyes:

[natalie addict]

They're not kowtowing to private insurance. Is it so wrong to expect people to be personally responsible to carry insurance before they get sick?

It isn't that simple. In my case, I had health insurance thru work but I've lost that job and work self-employed when I can find it. I can't get a private health insurance policy because of a preexisting condition at any price. I've had a job with group health benefits for the last 30 years and now I find myself in a position trying to find coverage and I can't.

Try calling an insurance broker and tell them you are a 50 year old male with diabetes and ask what kind of insurance you can get.

[RTchoke]

LOL, here's my list, and I pay almost $600 per month for our health insurance:

New Car? No, all cars paid off and they're 14, 10 and 7 years old

Big Screen TV? Yes, given to us by a relative for free, we would never of bought 1 on our own because of the cost

Computers? 3, 1 is 10 years old (free, hubby refurbished it), 1 is 8 years old (under $300), 1 Laptop is 9 years old (bought on ebay for $150)

Vacation? Haven't had a real 1 in 10 years, just weekend jaunts we can drive too

Shopping Sprees? Not in years, and if we do shop it's at Old Navy

But my health insurance premiums are paid every month!

Good for you. Bet you also make more money than people here do who have been struggling with double digit unemployment for years. The unemployment rate here in the county for March of this year was 16.5% People here are lucky to have a job. Employers also think they are being generous with the $9/hr too.

[RTchoke]

That failure to purchase insurance? It's called "FREEDOM' and is one of the things our constitution allegedly ensures.


If you give to Congress, for the first time ever in our history, the ability not only MANDATE we purchase something when we're doing nothing to cause it, by our mere existence, but also give Congress the ability to:

1) sell that insurance themselves, and
2) compete with the remaining private insurance, and
3) dictate the rules of insurance and the competition.

Then you may as well just tear up the ****ing Constitution, hand it back to the government with the phrase "compact nullified, do whatever the hell you want, please".

All you're rationalizing is Tyranny.

:clap:

[dad49er]

baloney....ain't even true

Which part of;

Originally Posted by ChicoLibertarian
"Because preexisting conditions cost insurance companies a lot of money and Republicans are the party that protects corporate profits?

Republicans are in the pockets of corporations, which is no better than being a statist. Republicans fail, again."

Are you responding to?:

They don't cost insurance companies money?
Then why not proceed?

Republicans don't protect corporations?
Of course they do.

Republicans are in the pocket of corporations?
Of course they are, but to be fair corporations give to both parties, but generally prefer the Republican Party. And the GOP in response sponsors more legislation favorable to corporations.

[RTchoke]

It isn't that simple. In my case, I had health insurance thru work but I've lost that job and work self-employed when I can find it. I can't get a private health insurance policy because of a preexisting condition at any price. I've had a job with group health benefits for the last 30 years and now I find myself in a position trying to find coverage and I can't.

Try calling an insurance broker and tell them you are a 50 year old male with diabetes and ask what kind of insurance you can get.

The unobtainium kind? :razz:

[dad49er]

It isn't that simple. In my case, I had health insurance thru work but I've lost that job and work self-employed when I can find it. I can't get a private health insurance policy because of a preexisting condition at any price. I've had a job with group health benefits for the last 30 years and now I find myself in a position trying to find coverage and I can't.

Try calling an insurance broker and tell them you are a 50 year old male with diabetes and ask what kind of insurance you can get.

Same here but ulcerative colitis, arthritis, and a depressed immune system.

[dizzy3a]

Which part of;

Originally Posted by ChicoLibertarian
"Because preexisting conditions cost insurance companies a lot of money and Republicans are the party that protects corporate profits?

Republicans are in the pockets of corporations, which is no better than being a statist. Republicans fail, again."

Are you responding to?:

They don't cost insurance companies money?
Then why not proceed?

Republicans don't protect corporations?
Of course they do.

Republicans are in the pocket of corporations?
Of course they are, but to be fair corporations give to both parties, but generally prefer the Republican Party. And the GOP in response sponsors more legislation favorable to corporations.

All of it is not true...and yuo're full of it as well. Look at what you wrote: "but to be fair corporations give to both parties." Duhhhh....get clue...loose the conspiracy.

[Mr. M]

Then there wouldnt be Pre-Existing Conditions!

People would all have Pre-Existing Insurance!

And do the "50 million people currently without Health Insurance" know the Democrat plan is to force them to pay for something they claim they cant afford?

Page 1337 of Pelosi's Plan...


re-open Tappahannock Debtor's Prison.


Franchise as necessary.

[dad49er]

All of it is not true...and yuo're full of it as well. Look at what you wrote: "but to be fair corporations give to both parties." Duhhhh....get clue...loose the conspiracy.

If it is not all true, then preexisting conditions do not cause insurance companies a lot of money.
So it shouldn't be any problem covering them.

You don't believe corporations give to both parties?
Listen, they're smart, they cover all the bases, duh!

[Trip]

Page 1337 of Pelosi's Plan...


re-open Tappahannock Debtor's Prison.


Franchise as necessary.

crap.

Now i gotta look. If I'm being Rick Rolled I'm gonna be really irradiated (nuke-ular too) :))

[RTchoke]

Then there wouldnt be Pre-Existing Conditions!

People would all have Pre-Existing Insurance!

And do the "50 million people currently without Health Insurance" know the Democrat plan is to force them to pay for something they claim they cant afford?

No. They conveniently leave that part out. They spout off about "affordable healthcare" and "access to affordable healthcare". How far do you think this crap would go if they actually said they were mandating everyone buy health insurance? That, that was their big fix?

[dizzy3a]

If it is not all true, then preexisting conditions do not cause insurance companies a lot of money.
So it shouldn't be any problem covering them.

You don't believe corporations give to both parties?
Listen, they're smart, they cover all the bases, duh!

So they do support liberal democrats, NO????? Ever heard of Goldman Sachs???? I guess that is a swell conservative organization....NOT. The conspiracy is so old and meaningless it leaves liberals looking like *$#@.

[Wino]

It isn't that simple. In my case, I had health insurance thru work but I've lost that job and work self-employed when I can find it. I can't get a private health insurance policy because of a preexisting condition at any price. I've had a job with group health benefits for the last 30 years and now I find myself in a position trying to find coverage and I can't.

Try calling an insurance broker and tell them you are a 50 year old male with diabetes and ask what kind of insurance you can get.
A good reason to move away from employer based health insurance to employee based health insurance. That way, you take your insurance with you and not being dependent upon a particular job.

[Mr. M]

crap.

Now i gotta look. If I'm being Rick Rolled I'm gonna be really irradiated (nuke-ular too) :))

lol...


Come clean.

Would you really be surprised if it was in the fine print?

[RTchoke]

A good reason to move away from employer based health insurance to employee based health insurance. That way, you take your insurance with you and not being dependent upon a particular job.

IMHO tying your insurance to your job is absolutely one of the stupidest things there is.

[Trip]

So they do support liberal democrats, NO????? Ever heard of Goldman Sachs???? I guess that is a swell conservative organization....NOT. The conspiracy is so old and meaningless it leaves liberals looking like *$#@.

Yeah, the old attacks have been reversed but the Libs are still mouthing the same tired rhetoric as if it had timeless relevance.

GE and the boon in Corporate profits they're expecting with Cap and Tax is a good example, not to mention GE's CEO Jeffrey Immelt being on Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board.

Can anyone say "conflict of interest"? But the Libs, they don't want to pay attention to any of this.

[Trip]

lol...


Come clean.

Would you really be surprised if it was in the fine print?


Honestly, no, and those who cannot pay their Health Care fine, or won't, do have to be "dealt with" somehow, eh?

Of course the page number 1337 was a dead giveaway (thank god my bookmark for the Pelosi PDF was wrong). :))

[Mr. M]

So they do support liberal democrats, NO????? Ever heard of Goldman Sachs???? I guess that is a swell conservative organization....NOT. The conspiracy is so old and meaningless it leaves liberals looking like *$#@.

I suppose old memes are the best...


Business abandons GOP for Democrats

By: Jeanne Cummings
Oct 15, 2007

All 10 of the top-giving industries tracked by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan money and politics watchdog group, are now donating more cash to Democrats than Republicans. A year ago, Republicans had the edge in six of the 10 sectors.

Financial powerhouse Goldman Sachs has sent 71 percent of its cash this year to Democrats while JPMorgan delivered 68 percent of its checks to the new majority.

Citigroup Inc. followed close behind, with 63 percent of its cash deposited in the accounts of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her colleagues. Even the big drug companies are trying to warm up to their adversaries; that sector is giving at a rate of 50-50.

[WildRose]

Because preexisting conditions cost insurance companies a lot of money and Republicans are the party that protects corporate profits?

Republicans are in the pockets of corporations, which is no better than being a statist. Republicans fail, again.Without profits there would be no insurance companies. 3% ain't much of a profit anyhow.

Try running a business with just a 3% profit margin sometime; shortly after you do we'll see you in the unemployment lines.

[JeffR]

Isn't the issue with preexisting conditions along these lines:


You purchase insurance
Years later you are diagnosed for the first time with a disease
The insurance company claims the condition existed before you got their insurance, and thus refuse to cover you



That being the case, the analogy of insuring a car that you wrecked last month is inaccurate. A closer analogy would be your house unknowingly is on fire while you are out purchasing home insurance.

[WildRose]

Isn't the issue with preexisting conditions along these lines:


You purchase insurance
Years later you are diagnosed for the first time with a disease
The insurance company claims the condition existed before you got their insurance, and thus refuse to cover you


That being the case, the analogy of insuring a car that you wrecked last month is inaccurate. A closer analogy would be your house unknowingly is on fire while you are out purchasing home insurance.And in most states it's against the law for them to attempt to do that. If it's happening in your state see your state insurance board about it.

[goodlife]

You don't cover pre-existing conditions with INSURANCE.
That would be called ASSURANCE.

Insurance is basically a bet. You wager $1,000 a month that you will get sick and need to use the insurance, and the insurance company wagers literally a million dollars or so that you won't. That's the end game of a catastrophic illness.

Amen...and it's not the American taxpayers job to provide "assurance" or even "insurance" for every other American.
Insurance is not a right.

[Trip]

Isn't the issue with preexisting conditions along these lines:


You purchase insurance
Years later you are diagnosed for the first time with a disease
The insurance company claims the condition existed before you got their insurance, and thus refuse to cover you



That being the case, the analogy of insuring a car that you wrecked last month is inaccurate. A closer analogy would be your house unknowingly is on fire while you are out purchasing home insurance.

That claim would be fine, well and good, except for the fact that, even as evidenced in this thread, people are calling "preexisting conditions" conditions that are known to exist when they go to apply for insurance. And that's how the Oval Occupant has spoken on it too.

And it is the equivalent of going to an auto insurance company and saying "I need insurance and I already had an accident last month."

[JeffR]

Ah, ok, WildRose & Trip. I wasn't on the same page here.

[Trip]

Insurance is in the business of recognizing risk and calculating future liabilities ensuing from that risk into the cost of the policy.

In the case of a pre-existing condition, those liabilities are known and then there's the added risk of future complications associated with that known condition in addition to other risks included outside the known condition as well.

Going into an insurance company with diabetes or some other illness and expecting a "good deal", with them 'eating' the cost of your known condition is just not reasonable.

Perhaps government might mandate, using tyrannous coercion, that insurance agencies take people from a known liability pool, but this is the same as demanding everyone not needing health care coverage to pay for your condition. It is a disguised policy of "economic redistribution", just as Cap and Tax is hiding the direct tax on energy and burying it in costs. Government wouldn't be giving those with known conditions anything without first legalizing theft from others.

"But beyond that, "the full power of centralized government" -- this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. "

Ronald Reagan, Oct. 27, 1964, "A Time For Choosing" (http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/ronaldreaganatimeforchoosing.htm)

[Kelzan]

You don't purchase fire insurance when your house is burning. The purpose of insurance is to have it before you actually need it.

I hope no liberal politicians are on this thread. They don't need any more ideas.:D

[Gabby]

Because preexisting conditions cost insurance companies a lot of money and Republicans are the party that protects corporate profits?

Republicans are in the pockets of corporations, which is no better than being a statist. Republicans fail, again.

Here read the bill. It does provide for pre-existing conditions.

http://rsc.tomprice.house.gov/UploadedFiles/HR_3400_EPFA.pdf


Subtitle A—Safety Net for Individuals With Pre-Existing Conditions
Sec. 201. Requiring operation of high-risk pool or other mechanism as condition
for availability of tax credit.

TITLE II—HEALTH INSURANCE POOLING MECHANISMS FOR INDIVIDUALS
Subtitle A—Safety Net for Individuals With Pre-Existing Conditions
SEC. 201. REQUIRING OPERATION OF HIGH-RISK POOL OR OTHER MECHANISM AS CONDITION FOR AVAILABILITY OF TAX CREDIT.

[Trip]

Here read the bill. It does provide for pre-existing conditions.

http://rsc.tomprice.house.gov/UploadedFiles/HR_3400_EPFA.pdf


Subtitle A—Safety Net for Individuals With Pre-Existing Conditions
Sec. 201. Requiring operation of high-risk pool or other mechanism as condition
for availability of tax credit.

TITLE II—HEALTH INSURANCE POOLING MECHANISMS FOR INDIVIDUALS
Subtitle A—Safety Net for Individuals With Pre-Existing Conditions
SEC. 201. REQUIRING OPERATION OF HIGH-RISK POOL OR OTHER MECHANISM AS CONDITION FOR AVAILABILITY OF TAX CREDIT.

Thanks, Gabby!

I can now remove the "Perhaps" from my preceding post about the high risk pool.

[Gabby]

A good reason to move away from employer based health insurance to employee based health insurance. That way, you take your insurance with you and not being dependent upon a particular job.

The republican bill addresses your issue .....

http://rsc.tomprice.house.gov/UploadedFiles/HR_3400_EPFA.pdf


Subtitle A—Safety Net for Individuals With Pre-Existing Conditions
Sec. 201. Requiring operation of high-risk pool or other mechanism as condition
for availability of tax credit.

TITLE II—HEALTH INSURANCE POOLING MECHANISMS FOR INDIVIDUALS
Subtitle A—Safety Net for Individuals With Pre-Existing Conditions
SEC. 201. REQUIRING OPERATION OF HIGH-RISK POOL OR OTHER MECHANISM AS CONDITION FOR AVAILABILITY OF TAX CREDIT.
------------------------


38 states of high risk pools. I live in New Mexico. We have a great one here. In your situation it would run you about $100 a month. Premiums are dependent on age and income. The insurance is provided by private insurance companies. I used it in the 1980's and early 1990's when I was self employed.


list of all state high risk pools

http://www.naschip.org/states_pools.htm

[Trip]

The republican bill addresses your issue .....

http://rsc.tomprice.house.gov/UploadedFiles/HR_3400_EPFA.pdf


Subtitle A—Safety Net for Individuals With Pre-Existing Conditions
Sec. 201. Requiring operation of high-risk pool or other mechanism as condition
for availability of tax credit.

TITLE II—HEALTH INSURANCE POOLING MECHANISMS FOR INDIVIDUALS
Subtitle A—Safety Net for Individuals With Pre-Existing Conditions
SEC. 201. REQUIRING OPERATION OF HIGH-RISK POOL OR OTHER MECHANISM AS CONDITION FOR AVAILABILITY OF TAX CREDIT.
------------------------


38 states of high risk pools. I live in New Mexico. We have a great one here. In your situation it would run you about $100 a month. Premiums are dependent on age and income. The insurance is provided by private insurance companies. I used it in the 1980's and early 1990's when I was self employed.


list of all state high risk pools

http://www.naschip.org/states_pools.htm

I guess this is somewhat better than the highly unconstitutional Democrat plan, still keeping the government out of the business of insurance. But, as I said previously, it is still:

... using tyrannous coercion, that insurance agencies take people from a known liability pool, but this is the same as demanding everyone not needing health care coverage pay for your condition. It is a disguised policy of "economic redistribution", just as Cap and Tax is hiding the direct tax on energy and burying it in costs. Government wouldn't be giving those with known conditions anything without first legalizing theft from others.

Anyone disagree this GOP plan for existing conditions is more "fair" and more constitutional than the Democrat/Pelosi plan?

Where do we draw the line and say "no more", and recognize that while these things may be beneficial to SOME in society, government does not have any right to demand that we support other's conditions? Slippery slope?

[Gabby]

Thanks, Gabby!

I can now remove the "Perhaps" from my preceding post about the high risk pool.

You're welcome! Always glad to bring some facts to the discussion... though I know that for some that takes the fun out of it.

New Mexico has a very good risk pool. Premiums are based on income and age.

The pool runs in the red every year. At the end of the year, the overage is divided among all of the insurance companies who do business here in NM. This basically spreads the risk evenly to all insurers so that none of them handle an overly large part of the burden.

A person who joins the pool can choose from several private insurance companies with choices in deductables. Obviously the lower the deductable, the higher their premium.

Pre-existing conditions are not covered for 6 months. But newconditions are. After the 6 months period, the person is covered for all medical conditions. This is how they prevent people form only buying insurance when they need it.

If a person has had insurance for up to the time they apply to the risk pool, pre-existing conditions are covered from day one.

A low income 18 year old would pay about $15 a month. Low income 50 year old about $100. A high income 50 year old would pay about $550.

I used the risk pool years ago when I was self employed. The insurance was as good as the very good plan I have now through my employer.

I've checked out the risk pools in many states. The NM one is about the best I've seen out there.

[Trip]

You're welcome! Always glad to bring some facts to the discussion... though I know that for some that takes the fun out of it.

New Mexico has a very good risk pool. Premiums are based on income and age.

The pool runs in the red every year. At the end of the year, the overage is divided among all of the insurance companies who do business here in NM. This basically spreads the risk evenly to all insurers so that none of them handle an overly large part of the burden.

A person who joins the pool can choose from several private insurance companies with choices in deductables. Obviously the lower the deductable, the higher their premium.

Pre-existing conditions are not covered for 6 months. But newconditions are. After the 6 months period, the person is covered for all medical conditions. This is how they prevent people form only buying insurance when they need it.

If a person has had insurance for up to the time they apply to the risk pool, pre-existing conditions are covered from day one.

A low income 18 year old would pay about $15 a month. Low income 50 year old about $100. A high income 50 year old would pay about $550.

I used the risk pool years ago when I was self employed. The insurance was as good as the very good plan I have now through my employer.

I've checked out the risk pools in many states. The NM one is about the best I've seen out there.

Excellent argument, Gabby! And you've enlightened me in an area I clearly did not know enough about. Thanks again.

[Gabby]

I guess this is somewhat better than the highly unconstitutional Democrat plan, still keeping the government out of the business of insurance. But, as I said previously, it is still:

... using tyrannous coercion, that insurance agencies take people from a known liability pool, but this is the same as demanding everyone not needing health care coverage to pay for your condition. It is a disguised policy of "economic redistribution", just as Cap and Tax is hiding the direct tax on energy and burying it in costs. Government wouldn't be giving those with known conditions anything without first legalizing theft from others.

Anyone disagree this GOP plan for existing conditions is more "fair" and more constitutional than the Democrat/Pelosi plan?

The way I see it is that risk pools spread out risk. It sets an even playing field for all insurance companies who choose to do business in the state.

Statistics on the high risk pool are that only about 5% of the people in the high risk pool actually use above average amounts of insurance.

When I was in the pool, it was because I had TB years ago. Yet the years I was in the pool I used no more medical care than I ever have before or after. Even when I had TB, the country health department treated me for free like they do everyone with TB. At that time I paid $550 a month for it. My husband and son were covered under a family policy for $140 a month. So that $550 was very high back than.

[str8shtr1]

The GOP is not interested what so ever in helping pass any kind of reform. Their only job is stall Obama and regain power. The party of Pro-Life doesn't seem to care about it if your poor or already ill.

AMEN!!!!

They think everyone who gets sick got sick on purpose without insurance, I wish someone out there other than a few blogger would call them on their overt "life" hypocrisy

[str8shtr1]

Which is why people need insurance BEFORE they get sick. How hard is that to understand?

That's IF you can afford it.

No one who cheerleads for the insurance company can say with a straight face that a 22 yr should be able to afford the average 100 a month for COMPREHENSIVE insurance.

Comprehensive meaning no asterisk policies which 80% of people have currently

[Trip]

AMEN!!!!

They think everyone who gets sick got sick on purpose without insurance, I wish someone out there other than a few blogger would call them on their overt "life" hypocrisy

The irony of your timing is thick given that Gabby has just posted the specifics of the the GOP plan.

The GOP does not operate anywhere close to your characterization of it.

But the Democrats clearly do operate under the belief that a person's problems are everyone else's problem to remedy, no matter the cost. And this policy is clearly one that is an anetham to our founding principles and prohibited government by our constitution.

You need to work on not operating by superficial understandings and vague comparisons.

[str8shtr1]

...Try calling an insurance broker and tell them you are a 50 year old male with diabetes and ask what kind of insurance you can get.

The republican plan for you and the rest of the 30% of Americans in the "pre-existing" category (which the HCI's can define themselves) is to ......DIE QUICKLY.

Believe it or not some here still think having lupus is an emergency.

[Trip]

That's IF you can afford it.

No one who cheerleads for the insurance company can say with a straight face that a 22 yr should be able to afford the average 100 a month for COMPREHENSIVE insurance.

Comprehensive meaning no asterisk policies which 80% of people have currently

Anyone having a cell phone and/or computer and/or cable tv has no excuse. They've chosen to spend their monies elsewhere. Neither insurance nor any of these listed niceties are any sort of guaranteed right in this country.

Insurance companies make between 2%-3% profit which is well below other industries. The cost of overhead and bureaucracy in government Democratic plans far exceeds this profit margin added to insurance company's CODB so you have NO BASIS whatsoever for your attack on insurance companies! The argument is one founded in ignorance.

[str8shtr1]

The irony of your timing is thick given that Gabby has just posted the specifics of the the GOP plan...

I have no idea what you're talking about

...But the Democrats clearly do operate under the belief that a person's problems are everyone else's problem to remedy, no matter the cost...

Yeah, cause the constitution says nothing about promoting general welfare which the GOP things the HCI's are doing by making COMPREHENSIVE coverage unaffordable.

[str8shtr1]

Anyone having a cell phone and/or computer and/or cable tv has no excuse....

Please link and quote a COMPREHENSIVE HC policy that a 22 yr making the mean average income for that age bracket can afford (BTW: this is where all of you guys run and hide under any one of numerous banners and never L&Q)

...Insurance companies make between 2%-3% profit which is well below other industries....Their revenues have doubled regardless of their slim margins....Trip, lets both act as if we're not stupid while carrying on this conversation, the GOP TPM's have been read studied and countered already

[Trip]

I have no idea what you're talking about

It's obvious you don't.



Yeah, cause the constitution says nothing about promoting general welfare which the GOP things the HCI's are doing by making COMPREHENSIVE coverage unaffordable.

"General welfare" is applicable only the the listed powers of government that follow.

"GENERAL WELFARE"

"General welfare" is not individual welfare and is specifically written to not involve such.


The words "general welfare" (or even welfare) appears only twice in the Constitution, first in the preamble and second in Article 1, Section 8:"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

The "general welfare" clause was not an independent grant of power. It was preceding the list of enumerated powers and applies to these and these alone. Furthermore, the entire phrase is ""general Welfare of the United States". This was to dealing with the welfare of each individual state, the United States being the whole, and not the welfare of each individual citizen within those States.

The meaning of the word "Welfare" at the time is important to its application to the several States. The 1828 edition of Noah Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language shows how "Welfare" was defined 40 years after it was written in the Constitution:

WEL´FARE, n. [well and fare, a good going; G. wohlfahrt; D. welvaard; Sw. valfart; Dan. velfærd.]

1. Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness; applied to persons.

2. Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applies to states.

Quite obviously definition #1, above, could not possibly represent what Congress is entitled to do. Congress cannot reasonably effect our personal misfortune, nor our sickness, nor our heath, nor the common blessings we enjoy in life. Definition 1 is a statement of one's personal status and by no means any sort of "general welfare".

A clear distinction is made with respect to welfare as applied to persons and states. In the Constitution the word "welfare" is used in the context of states and not persons. The "welfare of the United States" is not congruous with the welfare of individuals, people, or citizens. Definition #2 is clearly the only applicable definition.

In fact, Article 1, Section 8 is applied to STATES and not individually as shown by the full phrase, "general Welfare OF THE UNITED STATES" not being relevant to individual citizen welfare, and this is further shown by its pairing with "common defense".

Regarding that "common defense", we don't have government subsidizing each of us having guns, do we?

[Gabby]

The republican plan for you and the rest of the 30% of Americans in the "pre-existing" category (which the HCI's can define themselves) is to ......DIE QUICKLY.

Believe it or not some here still think having lupus is an emergency.
Guess you did not read the Republican bill did you? Or the information I posted about risk pools?

[Trip]

Please link and quote a COMPREHENSIVE HC policy that a 22 yr making the mean average income for that age bracket can afford (BTW: this is where all of you guys run and hide under any one of numerous banners and never L&Q)

Your question is presumptive, one that believes that everyone, even a 22 year old without any desire to achieve, is entitled to health care. They're not.


Their revenues have doubled regardless of their slim margins....Trip, lets both act as if we're not stupid while carrying on this conversation, the GOP TPM's have been read studied and countered already

And Oil Company revenues more than doubled, but they too have a lower than normal profit margin. The only valid criticism of oil companies was that they were not investing enough in "R&D", but this is irrelevant because were prohibited from expanding supply by the same critical Democrats.

And you want to talk about revenues? Democrats have decreased tax revenues by their obscene tax policies decreasing GDP, and this has coincided with their increased spending.

[Gabby]

Please link and quote a COMPREHENSIVE HC policy that a 22 yr making the mean average income for that age bracket can afford (BTW: this is where all of you guys run and hide under any one of numerous banners and never L&Q)


Do you think that 22 yr old will get his health insurance for free from the public option?

My 22 year old son has medical care through the military.

My 19 and 20 year old children are covered under my policy as long as they are in school, until they are 25 years old.

In New Mexico a low income 22 year old can get hearth insurance through the risk pool for about $25 a month.

[str8shtr1]

It's obvious you don't.
1. Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness; applied to persons.

2. Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applies to states.Quite obviously definition #1, above, could not possibly represent what Congress is entitled to do. Congress cannot reasonably effect our personal misfortune,...

Bankruptcy laws don't exist? Sickness isn't an unusual calamity?

When placed up against the constitution the rights arguments for letting people suffer and or die don't measure up.

[Obummer]

Please link and quote a COMPREHENSIVE HC policy that a 22 yr making the mean average income for that age bracket can afford (BTW: this is where all of you guys run and hide under any one of numerous banners and never L&Q)

There are numerous catastrophic coverage policies that can be found on the internet for less than $100 per month. Very affordable.

Your state might be hindering competition and if that is the case, pressure YOUR state politicians to change the rules in your state but there is no reason to throw the entire system in other states under the bus.

[Trip]

[/B]Bankruptcy laws don't exist? Sickness isn't an unusual calamity?

When placed up against the constitution the rights arguments for letting people suffer and or die don't measure up.

Sickness is an unusual calamity for the states. The H1N1 flu "pandemic emergency" we're under now is an action of the "general welfare", not providing insurance of each individual.


Individual sickness is not covered under "general Welfare"; individual sickness would be "individual Welfare" aka socialism. The Constitution of these United States does not provide for socialism.

[Gabby]

The irony of your timing is thick given that Gabby has just posted the specifics of the the GOP plan...

I have no idea what you're talking about

I have no idea what you're talking about.
http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=63470691&postcount=61

The republican bill addresses your issue .....

http://rsc.tomprice.house.gov/UploadedFiles/HR_3400_EPFA.pdf


Subtitle A—Safety Net for Individuals With Pre-Existing Conditions
Sec. 201. Requiring operation of high-risk pool or other mechanism as condition
for availability of tax credit.

TITLE II—HEALTH INSURANCE POOLING MECHANISMS FOR INDIVIDUALS
Subtitle A—Safety Net for Individuals With Pre-Existing Conditions
SEC. 201. REQUIRING OPERATION OF HIGH-RISK POOL OR OTHER MECHANISM AS CONDITION FOR AVAILABILITY OF TAX CREDIT.
------------------------


38 states of high risk pools. I live in New Mexico. We have a great one here. In your situation it would run you about $100 a month. Premiums are dependent on age and income. The insurance is provided by private insurance companies. I used it in the 1980's and early 1990's when I was self employed.


list of all state high risk pools

http://www.naschip.org/states_pools.htm

[str8shtr1]

Your question is presumptive, one that believes that everyone, even a 22 year old without any desire to achieve, is entitled to health care. They're not.

I told you you would run from the L&Q request didn't I? Didn't I?

You even try, and fail, to straw man the question with a person desire to achieve.

You can't L&Q a COMPREHENSIVE HC plan that is affordable for a 22 yr old making the mean avg income for that age bracket cause they don't exist.....period.

If the avg. 22yr old hard working American got sick with cancer the conservative plan for that person is to die quickly....that doesn't sound like anything close to "provide for general welfare"

...And you want to talk about revenues?...

Yes, insurance company revenues have doubled because they're charging double while their margins have been stangnent it's pushing more and more people out of the system.

Democrats have decreased tax revenues by their obscene tax policies decreasing GDP, and this has coincided with their increased spending.

Yawn, Reagan...Bush1 and Bush2 all either doubled or increased national debt relative to GDP. I'd take conservatives more seriously if they believed half of the stuff they say they're against.

[str8shtr1]

Do you think that 22 yr old will get his health insurance for free from the public option?...

No....anything else?

...In New Mexico a low income 22 year old can get hearth insurance through the risk pool for about $25 a month.

L&Q, ...I doubt if you'll run like your homey did but I aint holdin mah breath.

[Gabby]

No....anything else?
What do you think the premium will be for the public plan for a 22 yr old? Seems that you are assuming that it will be less than $100 a month. But in reality you have no idea if it will be less or not.



L&Q, ...I doubt if you'll run like your homey did but I aint holdin mah breath.

What does 'L&Q' mean? I'm assuming it means Link & Quote. Is that right?

If so here's the link... I cannot put the quote here because it's a table http://www.nmmip.org/2009/exhibit%20d.htm

[str8shtr1]

There are numerous catastrophic coverage policies that can be found on the internet for less than $100 per month. Very affordable..

ANOTHER straw man, I said COMPREHENSIVE cause catastrophic doesn't cover a busted spleen.

Also, because I've been told this too many times by cheer leaders of the HCI's and it's been false.

Please L&Q said plan for YOUR state that isn't chalked full of exemptions for the insurer?

...Your state might be hindering competition and if that is the case,...

No, this historically red state is NOT hindering competition in one bit.

[str8shtr1]

....If so here's the link... I cannot put the quote here because it's a table http://www.nmmip.org/2009/exhibit%20d.htm

NM's plan sounds better than what congress is drawing up right now, it's simple and affordable but NOT nationwide which is a shame.

It doesn't apply to my state which has the highest number of legal residents that aren't covered by HCI....it's a red state and the "die quickly" mantra is strictly adhered to if someone doesn't have coverage

[Trip]

[/B]Bankruptcy laws don't exist? Sickness isn't an unusual calamity?

When placed up against the constitution the rights arguments for letting people suffer and or die don't measure up.

And furthermore "health INSURANCE" does not equate with "medical TREATMENT" in this country. This is another LIE being advanced by Liberals to create a false sense of crisis, only fabricated by falsely tying insurance with medical treatment. The truth is far different -->


My sister is a "big Lib", and despite having two Master's degrees (both in Peace Studies (whodda thunkit)) has chosen to work in amateur theater and pursue her artsy fun desires.

A while ago my sister had a "bite" on her arm that quickly spread and inflamed (http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1515341&highlight=Trip), covering her whole forearm in a red sheath.

She went into the hospital in D.C. having no insurance. She was initially though to have "Necrotizing fasciitis" - the flesh eating bacteria. She was rushed into surgery right away. Again, she had no health insurance and had no money saved up. It turns out she had entered septic shock and was kept unconscious for about 4 weeks, never being allowed to "wake" from that first surgery. My sister was on dialysis for about 8 weeks.

Doctors think it may have started from a spider bite, but they had no idea for sure. Despite no health care, she didn't wait in long lines, but was rushed into surgery and went from surgery to 3 weeks of ICU care (extremely expensive) where she was comatose the entire time. Her kidneys had shut down and her lungs were full of fluids and she couldnt breathe, resulting in her being on a respirator as well. She had a 70% chance of dying in the first 48 hours. They gave her a new drug called Xigris (http://www.xigris.com/index.jsp) which costs $7,000 per dose and I've no idea how many doses she took because it was taken by IV. That drug saved her life but it is even now controversial because they are unsure of its cost effectiveness.

She was on dialysis 5 weeks full-time and then periodic dialysis a few weeks thereafter.

What that would mean now, to *ME* under "Obama-Care", is she would have died in that hospital admitting room, STILL WAITING for the TRIAGE to then decide what order they get to wait for the doctor, because 2 hours waiting to be triaged and then 8 hours or more to just consult a Doctor is an UNCOMMONLY GOOD day in Canada, France And Britain! She would have died yet again waiting for the doctor. She would have then died again waiting for open room for her emergency surgery, and died yet again waiting for an overfilled hospital bed. She then would have likely died from withholding medication, with the Xigris (http://www.xigris.com/index.jsp) medication even now being contested due to cost effectiveness.

My sister would be d-e-a-d now.

The worst part of Obama-"Care" is that no doctor would have been making these decisions, but rather government bureaucrats who in no-way ever answer to the American Voter, and nowhere having ANY ACCOUNTABILITY for their decisions.

But dialysis machines being currently "rationed"? Not so much a major consideration...but under Obama/Pelosi care, it's a certainty.

Your assertion there is a connection between health insurance and receiving medical care is false. However under Government Insurance, everything in the country will be rationed and given by bureaucratic process. Everything except the special policies that Congress awards themselves and federal employees.

[Trip]

....it's a red state and the "die quickly" mantra is strictly adhered to if someone doesn't have coverage

THAT is complete and utter ******** as shown in my previous post!

[str8shtr1]

What do you think the premium will be for the public plan for a 22 yr old?...

Don't know, doesn't matter if the rest of the premiums under the pools are affordable and taking away the HCI's anti trust exemption THEN enforcing it is a small step in that direction.

...Seems that you are assuming that it will be less than $100 a month. But in reality you have no idea if it will be less or not...

What seems common amongst all the plans, save the GOPs, is the ability for the HCI's to drop and deny will be taken away which is a good thing. Taking away their ability to screw the American people who have been paying premiums for a long time will bankrupt them all in less than generation and that's why their greedy butts get.

Greed is NOT good, Gecko was supposed to be an example of what NOT to do.

[Gabby]

NM's plan sounds better than what congress is drawing up right now, it's simple and affordable but NOT nationwide which is a shame.

It doesn't apply to my state which has the highest number of legal residents that aren't covered by HCI....it's a red state and the "die quickly" mantra is strictly adhered to if someone doesn't have coverage

What state do you live in?

All states should look at NM's plan. It's been working for decades now. There is no reason that every state cannot have a pool this.

NJ took an even easier path... they passes laws that say that noone can be turned down for pre-existing conditions and that they have to be charged the same as everyone else. Thus the risk is spread around that way.

[str8shtr1]

And furthermore "health INSURANCE" does not equate with "medical TREATMENT" in this country. This is another LIE being advanced by Liberals to create a false sense of crisis, only fabricated by falsely tying insurance with medical treatment...

Please L&Q the federal law that states a medical facility HAS to treat you if you become UNDEATHLY ill with lupus or cancer? You ran from the last L&Q request, you'll run from this one too.

...Under Government Insurance, everything in the country will be rationed and given by bureaucratic process.

There's no rationing going on under the "free market"?

TIA

[Gabby]

What seems common amongst all the plans, save the GOPs, is the ability for the HCI's to drop and deny will be taken away which is a good thing. Taking away their ability to screw the American people who have been paying premiums for a long time will bankrupt them all in less than generation and that's why their greedy butts get.

Greed is NOT good, Gecko was supposed to be an example of what NOT to do.

Most states, if not all, already have laws against dropping people when they get sick.

[str8shtr1]

...There is no reason that every state cannot have a pool this...

except for the federal law that exempts HCI's from anti trust laws and what the GOP is fighting against now?

...NJ took an even easier path... they passes laws that say that no one can be turned down for pre-existing conditions and that they have to be charged the same as everyone else. Thus the risk is spread around that way.You're making case for federalizing NM and NJ's laws; states like the one I live in refuse to implement those laws.

[str8shtr1]

Most states, if not all, already have laws against dropping people when they get sick.

Except in the case of fraud which is now what the HCI's are doing with preconditions without appeal.

Under the HCI's sole descretion then can say you kept the fact that you sneezed wrong while in the 3rd grade from them and drop you like a hot rock if you get sick with a multi million dollar illness....again, without appeal.

Even NM's allows for HCI's to do this and there's no appeal process which is why HCI's do this up to 21% of claims in the most progressive states like CA. http://www.calnurses.org/media-center/press-releases/2009/september/california-s-real-death-panels-insurers-deny-21-of-claims.html

Also, there' are no laws against denial\delay in which an HCI can approve your claim and wait a couple of years to pay out then reimburse you at their leisure.

They are that slimy, I have two cousins that work on both sides of the phone for them......they hate them

[Gabby]

There's no rationing going on under the "free market"?

TIA

Here's the problem I have with the fed gov running health insurance. The gov is the one that makes the laws.

So we have the gov to make the laws, the HCI companies, health care providers, and patients. That if 4 entities each acting as a check and balance to the others.

If the gov runs the health insurance they have too much power in making the laws and providing the insurance. Now they can control the medical care providers by putting presure on them as they do with medicaid and medicare already. And we the patients have no one to turn to . We cannot sue the gov as we can our health insurance providers right now. The checks and balances would be mostly gone.

Our gov has done nothing to fix problems for decades. If anything the gov has contributed to the problems by letting things like medicare/medicaid fraud get out of hand, not dealing with tort reform.

We need the gov to legislate and create a healthier playing field, not to distory what we have and reinvent our medical insurance and care systems and than control them.

[str8shtr1]

Here's the problem I have with the fed gov running health insurance. The gov is the one that makes the laws.

So we have the gov to make the laws, the HCI companies, health care providers, and patients. That if 4 entities each acting as a check and balance to the others.

If the gov runs the health insurance they have too much power in making the laws and providing the insurance. Now they can control the medical care providers by putting presure on them as they do with medicaid and medicare already. And we the patients have no one to turn to . We cannot sue the gov as we can our health insurance providers right now. The checks and balances would be mostly gone.

Our gov has done nothing to fix problems for decades. If anything the gov has contributed to the problems by letting things like medicare/medicaid fraud get out of hand, not dealing with tort reform.

We need the gov to legislate and create a healthier playing field, not to distory what we have and reinvent our medical insurance and care systems and than control them.

Please replace fed government with "free market" in your reply and tell me which one can the American people influence the most?

Some rich dude who gets 70 million a year or a state rep who can be voted out of office?

I'll take the lesser of two evils at this point

[Gabby]

except for the federal law that exempts HCI's from anti trust laws and what the GOP is fighting against now?
Apparently anti-trust laws have nothing to do with the high risk insurance pools. Otherwise why is it that 38 states already have such pools? If 38 states can do it, than all the states can.

To say that the GOP is fighting the idea of all states creating risk pools is just not true. I gave you a link to the bill they are proposing. It supports state run risk pools.

You're making case for federalizing NM and NJ's laws; states like the one I live in refuse to implement those laws.
The citizens of a state can push a pool to be started. Though, I personally would not object to the federal gov passing laws establishing either the NM model for the NJ model country wide. In both cases the insurance is provided by private insurance with the gov doing what they are meant to do…. Legislate and gov… not run health insurance.

[Trip]

Please L&Q the federal law that states a medical facility HAS to treat you if you become UNDEATHLY ill with lupus or cancer? You ran from the last L&Q request, you'll run from this one too.

Your previous request had was no more able to be supplied evidence in your favor than I supplied.

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (42 U.S.C. § 1395dd, EMTALA) is a United States Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. It requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. As a result of the act, patients needing emergency treatment can be discharged only under their own informed consent or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.


There's no rationing going on under the "free market"?



Is that a question or a statement? The limited things are rationed by a result of limited supply, like organs and things like that. The thing about the free market is that when there is a shortage of something, then the costs adjust and hospitals have a motivation to obtain more of the damanded service or item.

This is not true under government rationioned care. The rationing is based on overall costs and this is done by bureaucratic mandate without ANY appeal nor any alternative recourse in a country where the government will control ... every ... single ... medical ... service. In Britain there is a limit on elderly care. If your procedure costs more than £35,000 then you're screwed: denied!

Furthermore, these cost-effectiveness limitations bring to a halt medical advancement, new technologies and cures. Under O-Care these will be precluded by cost-effectiveness limitations. There will be no motivation whatsoever for medicine to advance and come up with new treatments and cures. In fact medicine will go backwards, having lesser access to newer treatments and higher technologies, as shown in other countries with socialized medicine.

-= See attached graphs =-

[Trip]

Please replace fed government with "free market" in your reply and tell me which one can the American people influence the most?

Some rich dude who gets 70 million a year or a state rep who can be voted out of office?

I'll take the lesser of two evils at this point

The American people have far more influence on private insurance than they would when health care is a bureaucratized, government mandated monstrosity where even any single politician no longer has any real influence on policies given the monolithic practices "established by law".

[Gabby]

Please replace fed government with "free market" in your reply and tell me which one can the American people influence the most?

Some rich dude who gets 70 million a year or a state rep who can be voted out of office?

I'll take the lesser of two evils at this point
Congress members are very hard to vote out of office. Look at the length of their careers in Congress... 20,30,50 years. Incumbents are very hard to vote out of office... once in they have so much money thrown at them that they usually cannot be beat.

As for the 70 million a year guy... hit the share holders and he'll be gone in a heart beat. Companies can be brought to their knees with publicity and a good law suit. Look at the case of the healthy baby who was refused insurance because they said he was too fat. The news got ahold of that and the insurance company changed their polices in a week.

[str8shtr1]

The American people have far more influence on private insurance than they would when health care is a bureaucratized.

Not when the HCI's have anti trust exemptions in which the GOP is fighting tooth and nail for them to keep.

[Trip]

Not when the HCI's have anti trust exemptions in which the GOP is fighting tooth and nail for them to keep.

You mean the anti trust exemptions involved in the prohibition of interstate purchase of health care policies that Democrats are not even addressing?

(And Pelosi wants to say they have the right to enact Health Care mandates given the "interstate commerce clause" -- when that commerce is PROHIBITED by congress!)

Ya know, your entire position on this is one framed entirely in Partisan Politics rather than enlightened consideration of the facts. I honestly don't understand what is in that kool-aid that makes it so damned addicting for you Democrats.

[Jagergeist]

Healthcare will be a tough problem to fix. I think the people who think free markets should prevail conveniently ignore the fact companies will act in a way to protect their profit. For the people who think government should control all they ignore the fact government has a track record or royally screwing some programs up in the past.

Either extreme appears to be wrong and we need to focus on repairing the hybrid model.

[Trip]

Healthcare will be a tough problem to fix. I think the people who think free markets should prevail conveniently ignore the fact companies will act in a way to protect their profit. For the people who think government should control all they ignore the fact government has a track record or royally screwing some programs up in the past.

Either extreme appears to be wrong and we need to focus on repairing the hybrid model.

PROFIT is the one thing that ensures price competitiveness and the exclusion of bureaucratic excess and entrenched corruption, or would you want to argue the benefits of $5,000 hammers and the management of Social Security and Medicare?

Government is no good at solving problems; Government is damned good at making more problems.

[str8shtr1]

Apparently anti-trust laws have nothing to do with the high risk insurance pools. Otherwise why is it that 38 states already have such pools? If 38 states can do it, than all the states can...

The pools don't protect from preconditions and deny\delay while anti trust exemptions protect the HCI's and keep premium payers locked. Again, even in NM you can't go to the pool if you HAVE HC coverage and they are deny\delaying.

...To say that the GOP is fighting the idea of all states creating risk pools is just not true...

I never said they're fighting the pools I did say they are fighting the repealing of the HCI's anti trust exemptions.

[str8shtr1]

You mean the anti trust exemptions involved in the prohibition of interstate purchase of health care policies that Democrats are not even addressing?...

No, I don't mean that one....you do know what a pool is don't you? Have you even read the house or senate bills?

...I honestly don't understand what is in that kool-aid that makes it so damned addicting for you Democrats.

I honestly don't understand what is in the water or what ever so called conservatives (unless it comes to national defense, then its spend like a drunken sailor) drink that makes them hate facts so much.

[Trip]

The pools don't protect from preconditions and deny\delay while anti trust exemptions protect the HCI's and keep premium payers locked. Again, even in NM you can't go to the pool if you HAVE HC coverage and they are deny\delaying.


WRONG! The pools are specifically established to deal with preconditions and deny/delay is minimized and overcome by recourse to adminstrative appeal and the fact that losses in the preconditions pool are spread equally among all providers.


I never said they're fighting the pools I did say they are fighting the repealing of the HCI's anti trust exemptions.

Got reference links (plural) for this ?

[Trip]

No, I don't mean that one....you do know what a pool is don't you? Have you even read the house or senate bills?



I honestly don't understand what is in the water or what ever so called conservatives (unless it comes to national defense, then its spend like a drunken sailor) drink that makes them hate facts so much.

Yeah, I read the first bill cover-to-cover and my posts on the matter are among the most specific references on this forum, if you care to search my post history.

No i have not thoroughly read the current "Pelosi bill" because there is no doubt in my mind that it is entirely prohibited by the Constitution and it will be stopped, never enacted, even if passed by Congress. Just the mere fact they would mandate everyone has coverage and fine those who do not is prohibited by specific reference in the Constitution and also previous Supreme Court decision.

There's some facts you need to deal with yourself, like the ensured freedoms of the country in which you allegedly live and why it is an anathema to our principles to be subject to the tyranny of government mandate on these issues.

[str8shtr1]

...For the people who think government should control all they ignore the fact government has a track record or royally screwing some programs up in the past...

No one who is a mature adult said a government ran by "we the people" is perfect it's just that there is a generation of Americans who do NOT believe that America's government is ALWAYS "the problem" for everything and have seen when it's ran by competent people who don't hate it that Americas government can be part of the solution.

The government ran by Americans for Americans does somethings right....

[Trip]

No one who is a mature adult said a government ran by "we the people" is perfect it's just that there is a generation of Americans who do NOT believe that America's government is ALWAYS "the problem" for everything and have seen when it's ran by competent people who don't hate it that Americas government can be part of the solution.

The government ran by Americans for Americans does somethings right....

The government run by Americans for Americans according to the Constitituon does minmal things only prescribed by the Constitution.


Everything, literally everything else without exception, the government has attempted beyond those prescribed has led only to inefficiency, institutionalized corruption, higher costs, lower supply and failure.

[str8shtr1]

...and deny/delay is minimized and overcome by recourse to adminstrative appeal .

Which could take some years while in the mean time you're still payin premiums and have to pay the bill etc...

BTW: You noticed you established my position on deny\delay with this recourse process and you didn't address the recession fraud right?

...Got reference links (plural) for this ?

I'll give you one of mine if you give me one of yours :)

[str8shtr1]

The government run by Americans for Americans according to the Constitituon does minmal things only prescribed by the Constitution...

Great, it still does some of those things right especially when we the people are directly involved. This government was never meant for the passive citizen.

...Everything, literally everything else without exception...

The fire dept in my city is ran by pretty cool people, I would take your statement seriously if it didn't seem like it was denigrating some really decent people who are involved with our government at all levels.

I don't hate Americas government.

[Trip]

Which could take some years while in the mean time you're still payin premiums and have to pay the bill etc...

BTW: You noticed you established my position on deny\delay with this recourse process and you didn't address the recession fraud right?



Actually, no, I did not support your position in regard to deny/delay because:

1) There is no appeal (nor even any incentive for one) in a rule dominated, institutionalized bureaucracy, especially one in which our law-makers are making the rules and exempted from participation.

2) The fact of the dispersion of the costs in the "prior condition" pool, with those costs spread among all participating insurances companies, removes virtually all motivation for delay/deny.


I'll give you one of mine if you give me one of yours :)

Yours don't have any. :snooty:

[Trip]

Great, it still does some of those things right especially when we the people are directly involved. This government was never meant for the passive citizen.



The fire dept in my city is ran by pretty cool people, I would take your statement seriously if it didn't seem like it was denigrating some really decent people who are involved with our government at all levels.

I don't hate Americas government.

The fire department is run by generally by the community and persons directly involved in the community. Imagine if it were run by bureaucratic rule where fires requiring too much manpower and cost to fight, with lesser chance of positive results, were allowed to burn. And you'd have no one to appeal to locally, only some Washington bureaucrat in no way answerable nor affected by the real results of his legislation in which he was only a part (one voice among many) and established by majority vote. So what if it might spread to a congested housing area; so what if the community hospital is put at risk; them's THE RULES!


"We're beyond our budget for this quarter."
"There's a limited mileage miles per week on the fire engines due to carbon footprint"
"The rules say you've been in violation of the Green Housing rules for 6 weeks now and we are prohibited by law from putting out the fire on your 'unlawfully occupied' home."
"I'm sorry we cannot put out the fire on your home due to EPA rule 700-8AD, because you are within 300 yards of a wetlands area and there is no EPA-permitted Runoff Basin meeting EPA standard 700-WET. And besides, the recently Endangered Species "Gingrich Newt" is in that wetlands! But you can apply for an exemption using form EPA-911-HOT. Have We answered all your questions sufficiently?"

And don't ya know, those Washington bureaucrats have their own independent fire department, not constrained by the rules applied to everyone else, and nowhere worried about inflationary costs because you, the taxpayer, pay for it! Glory be tyranny!

I'm still looking for something the GOVERNMENT does right.. outside its specified powers.

[toreyj01]

That claim would be fine, well and good, except for the fact that, even as evidenced in this thread, people are calling "preexisting conditions" conditions that are known to exist when they go to apply for insurance. And that's how the Oval Occupant has spoken on it too.

And it is the equivalent of going to an auto insurance company and saying "I need insurance and I already had an accident last month."
A notable exception to this is the case of a woman who came down with breast cancer and was denied coverage because she did not claim a history of acne as a child when she signed up for her insurance.

[withoutfeathers]

I was very surprised to see that the Republicans left out a provision in their healthcare reform proposal that would prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage to customers with preexisting conditions. I thought this was something Republicans and Democrats agreed on.

What is the GOP reasoning for this?Taking care of people who are sick is good and moral and just...but it isn't insurance.

Insurance companies should not be held responsible for enforcing our moral obligations.

[withoutfeathers]

You don't cover pre-existing conditions with INSURANCE.
That would be called ASSURANCE.Actually, it would be called philanthropy.

Legally, the terms insurance and assurance are equivalent. It used to be common for mutual underwriters to use assurance in preference to insurance, but it never really made a difference.

On the point, however, you are exactly correct: Covering pre-existing conditions is not insurance.

Insurance is basically a bet. You wager $1,000 a month that you will get sick and need to use the insurance, and the insurance company wagers literally a million dollars or so that you won't. That's the end game of a catastrophic illness.Again, on the larger point you are right. Specifically, however, health insurers are not betting that you won't get sick; they are betting that your medical risk (the amount of claims for which they will be liable) will be less than the amount of premiums they will collect from you over time.

[withoutfeathers]

Because preexisting conditions cost insurance companies a lot of money and Republicans are the party that protects corporate profits?Claims don't cost the insurance companies anything. That would be against the law in every state in the union. Pre-existing conditions cost policy holders (aka premium payers) a lot of money.

[withoutfeathers]

The GOP is not interested what so ever in helping pass any kind of reform. Their only job is stall Obama and regain power. The party of Pro-Life doesn't seem to care about it if your poor or already ill.If you want to give people stuff and you can muster the votes in congress to do it, then so be it. Just don't **** on my leg and try to tell me that it is raining.

[withoutfeathers]

Lord knows getting ill is usually such a planned event. I think I can pencil in some cancer after I get insurance.OK, but why should the insurance companies be held responsible for your illness? Did they cause it?

[withoutfeathers]

If I cut out the TV, internet and XM I can get a total of $100 extra bucks. Well, that's not gonna cut it. Maybe if I cut out some gas. Damn, I don't go anywhere and can get by on about a tank every 2-3 weeks and hubby only buys gas to get him to and from work. Guess that's not gonna work. I suppose I could cut down on our food bill. I mean heck, who needs to spend almost$300-$350 a month on food for a family of 3? I would love to get rid of the phone but not realistic. Besides the extra $40 buck for that isn't going to get me any closer to paying a premium anyway.My heart goes out to you, but are you trying to tell me that the insurance industry is responsible for your financial prediciment?

[jasan22]

A notable exception to this is the case of a woman who came down with breast cancer and was denied coverage because she did not claim a history of acne as a child when she signed up for her insurance.

I do love anecdotal evidence presented by libs. If that were the case then she would have recourse to sue her insurance company. Pathetic thing is that the dims have a provision in their pathetic bill, strike that, no bill yet, that would cut benefits, increase taxes or cut people off when the money going out is greater than the money coming in. I have also come to the conclusion over the years that the dims and libs are the laziest bunch of pansies on the planet who want someone else to care for their every whim. Pathetic, really it is.

[AvgGuyIA]

Then there wouldnt be Pre-Existing Conditions!

People would all have Pre-Existing Insurance!

And do the "50 million people currently without Health Insurance" know the Democrat plan is to force them to pay for something they claim they cant afford?Oh no...to win the votes of the 50 million, Democrats require that WE get to pay the health insurance premiums of the 50 million.

[AvgGuyIA]

Why don't they just legislate Liberal Health Care? Anybody who is a Liberal gets to sign up for it and pay the premiums just like they are expected in the Pelosi bill. They will go to liberal doctors and liberal hospitals for their care and have it paid for free because all liberals are contributing to the pool.

[jasan22]

Why don't they just legislate Liberal Health Care? Anybody who is a Liberal gets to sign up for it and pay the premiums just like they are expected in the Pelosi bill. They will go to liberal doctors and liberal hospitals for their care and have it paid for free because all liberals are contributing to the pool.

That wouldn't work for long, since libs want others to pay for their every whim and they would run out of money pretty fast. One thing I have always wondered is why libs want to take care of people who get ill due to lifestyle choices, like HIV/AIDS, diabetes, hypertension etc.

[dad49er]

So they do support liberal democrats, NO????? Ever heard of Goldman Sachs???? I guess that is a swell conservative organization....NOT. The conspiracy is so old and meaningless it leaves liberals looking like *$#@.

Like I said both sides.
But more to more conservative candidates and Republicans.

[dantes]

I do love anecdotal evidence presented by libs. If that were the case then she would have recourse to sue her insurance company. Pathetic thing is that the dims have a provision in their pathetic bill, strike that, no bill yet, that would cut benefits, increase taxes or cut people off when the money going out is greater than the money coming in. I have also come to the conclusion over the years that the dims and libs are the laziest bunch of pansies on the planet who want someone else to care for their every whim. Pathetic, really it is.

You're recommendation is to sue the insurance company?

First, this is entirely legal, so there are no grounds for a suit. That's the problem that the provision is aimed at.

Second, a lawsuit! How long do you think that would take? Years! The judicial system and breast cancer operate on different time lines. She doesn't have time for a lawsuit.

[jasan22]

You're recommendation is to sue the insurance company?

First, this is entirely legal, so there are no grounds for a suit. That's the problem that the provision is aimed at.

Second, a lawsuit! How long do you think that would take? Years! The judicial system and breast cancer operate on different time lines. She doesn't have time for a lawsuit.


What is even more idiotic is using one anecdotal piece to destroy an entire industry. The dems have already put in their takeover bill that they can cut benefits, revenue or raise taxes for everyone covered, like you would be since the gov't seems to be your sugar daddy. Yes, if someone has insurance and gets cancer the insurance company should pay, if they don't sue. To sit around saying woe is me is pathetic and childish, then again that is a typical lib now days. Keep getting treatment and sue, or be a piece of trash and hope that someone else will pay for you. Like I said, libs seem to be the laziest pieces of trash on the planet.

[jasan22]

You're recommendation is to sue the insurance company?

First, this is entirely legal, so there are no grounds for a suit. That's the problem that the provision is aimed at.

Second, a lawsuit! How long do you think that would take? Years! The judicial system and breast cancer operate on different time lines. She doesn't have time for a lawsuit.

Another thing, since you insist on this one instance. You can sue your insurance company, you cannot sue the federal gov't. Same thing will happen here as is happening in England, cancer meds are too expensive and they don't have the money so they suggest you die. Seems you want to take Grayson's advice to heart, since that will happen when you get sick and the gov't runs out of money, hell there have been several libs saying that is the goal.

[dantes]

What is even more idiotic is using one anecdotal piece to destroy an entire industry. The dems have already put in their takeover bill that they can cut benefits, revenue or raise taxes for everyone covered, like you would be since the gov't seems to be your sugar daddy. Yes, if someone has insurance and gets cancer the insurance company should pay, if they don't sue. To sit around saying woe is me is pathetic and childish, then again that is a typical lib now days. Keep getting treatment and sue, or be a piece of trash and hope that someone else will pay for you. Like I said, libs seem to be the laziest pieces of trash on the planet.

There are many, many anecdotes about this same problem. How about the one with the "overweight" baby being denied coverage. How about the rape victim being denied coverage. A man once complained of fatigue during a visit to his doctor and his insurance company, years later, refused to pay for his leukemia treatment because they considered it a pre-existing condition. Leukemia! It goes on and on. It happens every day. It's a problem. Denying it's existence is denying reality.

[withoutfeathers]

Try calling an insurance broker and tell them you are a 50 year old male with diabetes and ask what kind of insurance you can get.But why does some, random, insurance company owe you reperations for your misfortune?

[jasan22]

There are many, many anecdotes about this same problem. How about the one with the "overweight" baby being denied coverage. How about the rape victim being denied coverage. A man once complained of fatigue during a visit to his doctor and his insurance company, years later, refused to pay for his leukemia treatment because they considered it a pre-existing condition. Leukemia! It goes on and on. It happens every day. It's a problem. Denying it's existence is denying reality.

Yes, let's talk about the fat baby who's parents had insurance and canceled their policy hoping to get a better one, then making hay about it. Dumbass parents then complain and people like you buy their narrative hook line and sinker. What is funny is that you seem to think that the government can do a better job when they are already saying they are ready and willing to cut benefits the minute they start running out of money. End result is what you are complaining about, but not bright enough to get, more people will be ill and more people will die. That is the sad thing about being lazy and wanting someone else to take care of your every whim, you are at their mercy.

[dantes]

Yes, let's talk about the fat baby who's parents had insurance and canceled their policy hoping to get a better one, then making hay about it. Dumbass parents then complain and people like you buy their narrative hook line and sinker. What is funny is that you seem to think that the government can do a better job when they are already saying they are ready and willing to cut benefits the minute they start running out of money. End result is what you are complaining about, but not bright enough to get, more people will be ill and more people will die. That is the sad thing about being lazy and wanting someone else to take care of your every whim, you are at their mercy.

How dare the family cancel their policy and look to get a better one! Who do they think they are! It's not like the market place should allow them to switch! They must be required to maintain the same policy, no matter how bad or costly it gets, because they no other insurance company will cover them!

That's your idea of a competitive marketplace? One that cuts out people for fickle reason,

The provision you quote is in the bill because the public option operates like any other insurance company in this regard. When it has to pay more than it takes in, it has the choice of increasing premiums or cutting benefits. Every insurance company acts this way. Never mind the fact that the CBO has stated that the public option will have better benefits than the average private option and that it will maintain them.

Peppering your responses with insults is not necessary. We can have this discussion without them.

[dad49er]

So they do support liberal democrats, NO????? Ever heard of Goldman Sachs???? I guess that is a swell conservative organization....NOT. The conspiracy is so old and meaningless it leaves liberals looking like *$#@.

This illustrates my point pretty well:

As Power Shifts, So Do The Dollars
The Democrats are getting more PAC funds this election season

Venture capitalists have decided to plant their political seed money with Democrats this year after investing mostly in Republicans in 2006. Casino operators have switched their bets to the party newly in power on Capitol Hill. And defense contractors are not staying the course: They've flipped from giving 62% of their donations to Republicans before the election to 67% to Democrats now.

In the 2006 election cycle, business political action committees (PACs) gave 66% of their $234 million in donations to Republicans. This year, though, corporate interests have rewarded Democrats for taking back control of Congress for the first time in 12 years by funneling 58% of their $7 million in early money to them, ... .

It's not the first time companies have changed donation habits. When Republicans captured Congress from Democrats in 1994, GOP receipts from business PACs soared, from 49.9% before the election to 72% in the next campaign.

Most outfits deny they are opportunistic and say they've always tried to reward friends in both parties. "In any given year it may skew slightly to one party, but on average it balances out," says Mechell Clark, AFLAC's media relations manager. Since 1979, 54% of AFLAC's PAC money has gone to Republicans. It has given a majority to Democrats in 5 of the 14 previous election cycles, each time when that party controlled both houses.

So advantage Republicans.

TOO SOON TO JUDGE?
Some companies caution against over-interpreting any trends. Home Depot has shifted its PAC contributions from 71% Republican in 2006 to 55% Democratic in 2007. But spokesman Ron DeFeo warns: "It is much too early to make judgments about the partisan balance of our giving." DeFeo says the PAC is nonpartisan and supports candidates "who advocate policies that promote a favorable business climate for the Home Depot."

So Home Deot switched in 2007, covering there bases by giving to the party in power, but gave 71% to the GOP in 2006 compared to 55% Democratic in 2007.

Some gave more to GOP despite Democrats coming to power:

Of course, not every company has reversed gears. ExxonMobil, Halliburton, PricewaterhouseCoopers, and U.S. Bancorp have remained loyal to the Republican Party. ExxonMobil spokesman Gantt Walton says his company's contributions are "very, very consistent," no matter which party is in power. "We focus on candidates that are pro-business and want to strengthen the free-enterprise system."

Summation:

So as you see corporations do give to both parties, covering all there bases and doing what is politically expedient. And if you look at the dollar figures over a period of time more money is going to the GOP, especially when they are in power. It really isn't a mystery Republican policies tend to be more pro-business, and favor corporations.

Full article here:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_17/b4031050.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_business week+exclusives

[jasan22]

How dare the family cancel their policy and look to get a better one! Who do they think they are! It's not like the market place should allow them to switch! They must be required to maintain the same policy, no matter how bad or costly it gets, because they no other insurance company will cover them!

That's your idea of a competitive marketplace? One that cuts out people for fickle reason,

The provision you quote is in the bill because the public option operates like any other insurance company in this regard. When it has to pay more than it takes in, it has the choice of increasing premiums or cutting benefits. Every insurance company acts this way. Never mind the fact that the CBO has stated that the public option will have better benefits than the average private option and that it will maintain them.

Peppering your responses with insults is not necessary. We can have this discussion without them.

This is the problem when you argue from an emotional standpoint. Yes, the irresponsible parents had the right to cancel their policy, it is also their right to be stupid enough not to research what other policies cover before making that dumb decision. They are also stupid for then going to the press to complain about the plight they caused by their own actions. Like people who get HIV/AIDS from their own lifestyle decisions and many expect others to take care of them and the libs go along with that line of reasoning. The problem with the bill in the House is that it will force private insurance companies out of business over time and lead to more people not getting the help they need when they get cancer, through no fault of their own. I don't think any insurance company should cover anything that you caused upon yourself, lung cancer from smoking, lip/throat cancer from chew, AIDS from not using protection etc. Expecting others to take care of your every whim is what drives costs up, expecting insurance companies to do things that will lead to their demise, in an effort to "cover" everyone is the height of irresponsibility. What is sad is that there is a large segment in our society that is so dependent upon the gov't that they have no idea/desire to take care of themselves, and the libs prey on them.

[RTchoke]

My heart goes out to you, but are you trying to tell me that the insurance industry is responsible for your financial prediciment?

Nope, never said it was. I paid for my insurance every two weeks out of my paycheck and rarely used it. They love people like me. But once I was not working for some silly reason I couldn't come up with $800-900 a month for COBRA to keep my coverage. that is one reason tying insurance to your employer is stupid.

I'm not asking for pity, nor sympathy. We actually make more than the median income for our state but not by much. We do OK, but I do not want to be forced to buy something by the government that I do not need. We have an accident/cat policy. Do you think I'll be able to keep just that with this new plan? Probably not, because it won't' be enough to meet the standards of the almighty Pelosi as to what I should have.

We pay every dime of our healthcare out of pocket and have no problem doing so. I was just illustrating to another poster that her thought that everyone who doesn't have insurance now is living it high on the hog with expensive toys and luxury vacations and just can't be bothered to buy it. Even if I cut out what could be considered "luxury" items like internet, XM and the TV I still couldn't get any more than an extra $100 so sitting there telling my to cut out all the extras doesn't make a diime's bit of difference when those extras are few and cost very little.

you must be under the impression I want this health care monstrosity. I most certainly do not.

[dantes]

This is the problem when you argue from an emotional standpoint. Yes, the irresponsible parents had the right to cancel their policy, it is also their right to be stupid enough not to research what other policies cover before making that dumb decision. They are also stupid for then going to the press to complain about the plight they caused by their own actions. Like people who get HIV/AIDS from their own lifestyle decisions and many expect others to take care of them and the libs go along with that line of reasoning. The problem with the bill in the House is that it will force private insurance companies out of business over time and lead to more people not getting the help they need when they get cancer, through no fault of their own. I don't think any insurance company should cover anything that you caused upon yourself, lung cancer from smoking, lip/throat cancer from chew, AIDS from not using protection etc. Expecting others to take care of your every whim is what drives costs up, expecting insurance companies to do things that will lead to their demise, in an effort to "cover" everyone is the height of irresponsibility. What is sad is that there is a large segment in our society that is so dependent upon the gov't that they have no idea/desire to take care of themselves, and the libs prey on them.

I'm not being emotional about this problem. I'm recognizing it's existence and trying to find a solution. Who in their right mind would think that an insurance company would think their healthy baby had a preexisting condition? Have you ever tried reading the list of preexisting conditions? First of all, it takes a doctor to understand what most of the conditions are. And second, there are literally thousands of things they can go to in order to take you off their rolls. The most scuzzy part of it, is they will often wait until you get sick to do so. Then they go back through your records looking for something to use against you after you've been paying premiums the entire time.

Your thought that people bring this on themselves is most or less true, but I'm not sure what your proposing. Should people with insurance be denied coverage if they develop lung cancer since they did it to themselves? Determining what you brought on yourself isn't always easy. Using your example of HIV, try to prove they got it from having unprotected sex and not a blood transfusion. You can play the odds, but if you wanted to do so in court, it would be nearly impossible.

[withoutfeathers]

Nope, never said it was.That may explain why my question was directed at natalie addict, and not you. ;)

I paid for my insurance every two weeks out of my paycheck and rarely used it. They love people like me. But once I was not working for some silly reason I couldn't come up with $800-900 a month for COBRA to keep my coverage. that is one reason tying insurance to your employer is stupid.I happen to agree with that.

I'm not asking for pity, nor sympathy. We actually make more than the median income for our state but not by much. We do OK, but I do not want to be forced to buy something by the government that I do not need. We have an accident/cat policy. Do you think I'll be able to keep just that with this new plan? Probably not, because it won't' be enough to meet the standards of the almighty Pelosi as to what I should have.

We pay every dime of our healthcare out of pocket and have no problem doing so. I was just illustrating to another poster that her thought that everyone who doesn't have insurance now is living it high on the hog with expensive toys and luxury vacations and just can't be bothered to buy it. Even if I cut out what could be considered "luxury" items like internet, XM and the TV I still couldn't get any more than an extra $100 so sitting there telling my to cut out all the extras doesn't make a diime's bit of difference when those extras are few and cost very little.

you must be under the impression I want this health care monstrosity. I most certainly do not.I'm confused. Did you mean this as a response to another post?

[RTchoke]

That may explain why my question was directed at natalie addict, and not you. ;)

I happen to agree with that.

I'm confused. Did you mean this as a response to another post?

You quoted me in this post and directed it to me. That is why I responded.

http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=63477771&postcount=120

[tnt]

So I called up gieco the other day to get insurance for my car. And can you believe the nerve they had to deny me because I totalled my car last month and didn't have any insurance then. I mean, auto insurance is a right. How dare they leave me and my family out to dry, all in the name of thier greedy profits. Someone ought to do something to those greedy fat cats in the auto insurance to make them pay.

Sounds pretty ridiculous when you put it into perspective , doesn't it?

Will you die if your car doesn't get repaired?

[RTchoke]

Will you die if your car doesn't get repaired?

OMG!! The people's are dying!! Everybody panic!!! Quickly!!

Having health insurance mandated upon you will not guarantee you will not die either.

[rckirby]

We have to get past the inbred nonsense of having 'insurance' pay for everything......

If we didn't get 'spoiled' and expect free health insurance (paid by employer).....if we didn't expect it to pay for every dr. visit, every med.....we wouldn't be in this pickle. And the g'mint is only going to make it worse by a trillion.

Have a basic 'catastrophic' plan....that YOU pick out and pay for. Negotiate with your dr for services and pay cash.

Sadly, this g'mint fosters and fertilizes this 'free' nonsense........but after all, we do understand that they don't give a **** about our health.....its about:

CONTROL

[rckirby]

Will you die if your car doesn't get repaired?

We also don't expect our car insurance to pay for oil changes, gas, wiper blades, brakes etc etc etc.

Imagine this.......we are expected to maintain our vehicle responsibly and on our own dime <gasp>

[jmb6]

Hmmmmmmmmmm...................

New car? ........... Nope. Our "newest" car is14 years old.
Big screen TV? ............. Nope. One TV and it's not even HDTV. It's over 10 years old.
Multiple computers?...........Nope. One homebuilt computer given to us by a friend when my 12 year old computer died a couple years ago.
Nice vacation? Nope. Hubby doesn't get vacation time. We go camping a few times a year within a couple hours drive of home.

I guess I could cut out those little extras.....:think:

Let's see

Mortgage
Ins - home and auto
Ins - accident/cat
electricity
phone
satellite TV - no cable here
internet
XM radio
food
gas

If I cut out the TV, internet and XM I can get a total of $100 extra bucks. Well, that's not gonna cut it. Maybe if I cut out some gas. Damn, I don't go anywhere and can get by on about a tank every 2-3 weeks and hubby only buys gas to get him to and from work. Guess that's not gonna work. I suppose I could cut down on our food bill. I mean heck, who needs to spend almost$300-$350 a month on food for a family of 3? I would love to get rid of the phone but not realistic. Besides the extra $40 buck for that isn't going to get me any closer to paying a premium anyway.

Guess I better find a way though since I am going to be forced to buy it. Bet the local hospital is really ****ed they got paid by me every time we went in for something.

But dammit I don't have insurance to cover every little sniffle because I'm living high on da hog instead. :rolleyes:

Well evidentially, you feel that $100 is better spent on entertainment and not on health insurance.

If insurance costs 1000 a month -- Would you be willing to take a $900 subsidy to pay for healthcare and find the other $100 somewhere else?

Would it mean you had to cancel those "extras"?

It is my firm belief that people such as yourself want your cake and to eat it, too.

[jmb6]

A good reason to move away from employer based health insurance to employee based health insurance. That way, you take your insurance with you and not being dependent upon a particular job.

Damn, this would be great. However, the tax credits companies get are not being passed on to individual purchasers.

[tnt]

We also don't expect our car insurance to pay for oil changes, gas, wiper blades, brakes etc etc etc.

Imagine this.......we are expected to maintain our vehicle responsibly and on our own dime <gasp>

If you equate car ownership to the health and life of a citizen, then sure, continue with your analogy.

But a car =/= a human being.

[RTchoke]

we have to get past the inbred nonsense of having 'insurance' pay for everything......

If we didn't get 'spoiled' and expect free health insurance (paid by employer).....if we didn't expect it to pay for every dr. Visit, every med.....we wouldn't be in this pickle. And the g'mint is only going to make it worse by a trillion.

Have a basic 'catastrophic' plan....that you pick out and pay for. Negotiate with your dr for services and pay cash.

Sadly, this g'mint fosters and fertilizes this 'free' nonsense........but after all, we do understand that they don't give a **** about our health.....its about:

Control

+1

[tnt]

We have to get past the inbred nonsense of having 'insurance' pay for everything......

If we didn't get 'spoiled' and expect free health insurance (paid by employer).....if we didn't expect it to pay for every dr. visit, every med.....we wouldn't be in this pickle. And the g'mint is only going to make it worse by a trillion.

Have a basic 'catastrophic' plan....that YOU pick out and pay for. Negotiate with your dr for services and pay cash.

Sadly, this g'mint fosters and fertilizes this 'free' nonsense........but after all, we do understand that they don't give a **** about our health.....its about:

CONTROL

The truth is, a single payer system would ultimately be more ideologically pleasing to both sides, but the conservative talkers have poisoned that well.

[tnt]

We have to get past the inbred nonsense of having 'insurance' pay for everything......

If we didn't get 'spoiled' and expect free health insurance (paid by employer).....if we didn't expect it to pay for every dr. visit, every med.....we wouldn't be in this pickle. And the g'mint is only going to make it worse by a trillion.

Have a basic 'catastrophic' plan....that YOU pick out and pay for. Negotiate with your dr for services and pay cash.

Sadly, this g'mint fosters and fertilizes this 'free' nonsense........but after all, we do understand that they don't give a **** about our health.....its about:

CONTROL

and yes, the insurance companies have kind of over stepped their bounds and literlly run the whole show now some how.

I would much prefer simply catastrophic and a tax free account for well care etc...

But again, those fighting to maintain the status quo will have none of it.

There are a lot of good ideas out there - better perhaps than the crap we'll end up getting. But the argument has been so polluted and distorted byt the status quo side.

[johnrocks]

Kinda goes against the core foundation of insurance to forbid pre existing conditions since insurance is insuring against future unknown circumstances, to have a law stating no pre existing illness is saying we need paid healthcare not insurance, I know, I'm a nit picker when it comes to the correct use of some terminology, especially when it concerns two things dear to me; my health and my profession.

[RTchoke]

Well evidentially, you feel that $100 is better spent on entertainment and not on health insurance.

If insurance costs 1000 a month -- Would you be willing to take a $900 subsidy to pay for healthcare and find the other $100 somewhere else?

Would it mean you had to cancel those "extras"?

It is my firm belief that people such as yourself want your cake and to eat it, too.

Do you not see that I have an accident/catastrophic policy? Do you not see that I am NOT asking for the government to help me? Do you not see that under this plan I would not be able to do what I do know which is pay for all medical treatment we get but have a backup if something really hits the fan?

Do you not see the point I was making was that some people who do not have insurance to cover every little damn sniffle are not necessarily living high on the hog but are responsible enough to to take care of themselves without Nanny Pelosi butting her Botoxed face into our lives?

Want my cake and eat it too. :rolleyes:

I DON'T WANT THIS ****ING PLAN!!!!

Is that clear enough for those who are reading impaired?

[tnt]

Kinda goes against the core foundation of insurance to forbid pre existing conditions since insurance is insuring against future unknown circumstances, to have a law stating no pre existing illness is saying we need paid healthcare not insurance, I know, I'm a nit picker when it comes to the correct use of some terminology, especially when it concerns two things dear to me; my health and my profession.

Rick is right. And you've mentioned this too.

The problem is we have allowed Health Insurance to become the only reliable path to health care through forcing it onto employers.

No one has the sack to really change things, but our country would do better - financially, health-wise AND ideologically FOR BOTH THE RIGHT AND THE LEFT - with a radically re-designed system through which we pay for health care out of pocket and carry catistrophic plans.

The problem of the uninsured then becomes easier - financially and ideologicly - to deal with.

[johnrocks]

Rick is right. And you've mentioned this too.

The problem is we have allowed Health Insurance to become the only reliable path to health care through forcing it onto employers.

No one has the sack to really change things, but our country would do better - financially, health-wise AND ideologically FOR BOTH THE RIGHT AND THE LEFT - with a radically re-designed system through which we pay for health care out of pocket and carry catistrophic plans.

The problem of the uninsured then becomes easier - financially and ideologicly - to deal with.

Yep, the entire market started inflating when government started getting involved, now so many think of it as a right and free as long as someone other than themselves is footing the bill. I would be much less opposed if hospitals,clinics and healthcare professionals were just build,created and employed just to care for those less fortunate or uninsurable, it would beat tainting the entire system as has been the case for decades.

[BravoBuzzard]

Boo hoo hoo hoo...

This actually brought a tear to my eye.

To read this, I had to stick my bottom lip and and read it like a 4 year old. GOP doesn't care about the poor or already ill.

Whatever...


The GOP is not interested what so ever in helping pass any kind of reform. Their only job is stall Obama and regain power. The party of Pro-Life doesn't seem to care about it if your poor or already ill.

[tnt]

Yep, the entire market started inflating when government started getting involved, now so many think of it as a right and free as long as someone other than themselves is footing the bill. I would be much less opposed if hospitals,clinics and healthcare professionals were just build,created and employed just to care for those less fortunate or uninsurable, it would beat tainting the entire system as has been the case for decades.

That's what I mean.

But now, go ahead, TRY to get support for a govt. owned hospital....the cries of SOCIALIST!!!! will blow out your ear drums.

But in reality, that's a better solution. IMO. For both sides.

[tnt]

Boo hoo hoo hoo...

This actually brought a tear to my eye.

To read this, I had to stick my bottom lip and and read it like a 4 year old. GOP doesn't care about the poor or already ill.

Whatever...

He didn't say that.

He said the GOP doesn't want to pass any sort of reform at all.

Do you disagree?

[ExDem]

That's IF you can afford it.

No one who cheerleads for the insurance company can say with a straight face that a 22 yr should be able to afford the average 100 a month for COMPREHENSIVE insurance.

Comprehensive meaning no asterisk policies which 80% of people have currently

Yeah, going to the bar and buying a bag of pot is more important than buying insurance.

[ExDem]

He didn't say that.

He said the GOP doesn't want to pass any sort of reform at all.

Do you disagree?


Yes, did you read the GOP plan that has been linked in this thread numerous times???:wall:

[withoutfeathers]

You quoted me in this post and directed it to me. That is why I responded.

http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=63477771&postcount=120Sorry! My mistake. I was in a hurry and actually intended this to be a response to a differnet post. Just morning bone-headedness, I guess. :redface:

[johnrocks]

That's what I mean.

But now, go ahead, TRY to get support for a govt. owned hospital....the cries of SOCIALIST!!!! will blow out your ear drums.

But in reality, that's a better solution. IMO. For both sides.

Their was a hospital here that sold for 100 million dollars a couple years ago, 237 bed state of the art facility,cancer center,women and children's center. 10000 of those could have been built with what we spent just in Irag, not counting the rest of the money blown abroad.

[tnt]

Yes, did you read the GOP plan that has been linked in this thread numerous times???:wall:

Because they have produced legislation doesn't mean they really want to pass reform.

[RTchoke]

Yes, did you read the GOP plan that has been linked in this thread numerous times???:wall:

"But that isn't a REAL plan". - standard canned response inserted

[withoutfeathers]

Will you die if your car doesn't get repaired?Yes. Everybody dies regardless of whether or not their car gets repaired. The same holds true with health care. It doesn't make you immortal.

[withoutfeathers]

Yep, the entire market started inflating when government started getting involved, Pure coincidence, I'm sure.

[ExDem]

Because they have produced legislation doesn't mean they really want to pass reform.

The Dems have produced copious amounts of legislation, AND they have a majority that could pass it with NOT ONE SINGLE REPUBLICAN NEEDED. WHAY HAVEN'T THEY? So really, when you look at the facts, isn't it the DIMS that do not want to pass reform?

[tnt]

Their was a hospital here that sold for 100 million dollars a couple years ago, 237 bed state of the art facility,cancer center,women and children's center. 10000 of those could have been built with what we spent just in Irag, not counting the rest of the money blown abroad.

Yep.

I was also just thinking about unemployment and food stamps - there was a thread yesterday that got me thinking.

Take the stimulus money, build vegatable farms, fish farms, dairy farms.

Govt. owned.

Give unemployed people jobs there. Take the food and give it to food stamp recepients. And supply fed. prisons, etc....

The provides a DRIECT INFUSION via jobs as well as cost cutting measures through out current fed. spending.

But there is NO WAY you could even suggest these sort of things given the effectiveness of destroying change simply by calling things SOCIALIST.

Heck, labeling HC reform socialist has styied the process AND IT"S NOTHING CLOSE TO SOCIALIST!!!!

Crazy days.

Ultimately, I think, this hyper aggressive talk radio conservative group has really done damage to the country.

[tnt]

Yes. Everybody dies regardless of whether or not their car gets repaired. The same holds true with health care. It doesn't make you immortal.

Will you die today if you don't get your flat fixed today?

[johnrocks]

Pure coincidence, I'm sure.

When government "fixes" one problem, they normally create two in it's place.

[dad49er]

Because they have produced legislation doesn't mean they really want to pass reform.

Smoke and mirrors.
Bit like Ron Paul,
add an earmark to a bill then vote against the bill.

[tnt]

The Dems have produced copious amounts of legislation, AND they have a majority that could pass it with NOT ONE SINGLE REPUBLICAN NEEDED. WHAY HAVEN'T THEY? So really, when you look at the facts, isn't it the DIMS that do not want to pass reform?

The dems have their own problems. But it is clear they want to pass something. They just don't have the balls to do what they think is right. They are being political pansies.

The reps. produced a non started so their base could brag about their 'can do attitude'.

Hey, all speculation and IMHO and YMMV, but that's the way I see it.

[ISYairio]

john, I want some assurance. Plskthx.

:razz:

[OIVORY]

That failure to purchase insurance? It's called "FREEDOM' and is one of the things our constitution allegedly ensures.


If you give to Congress, for the first time ever in our history, the ability not only MANDATE we purchase something when we're doing nothing to cause it, by our mere existence, but also give Congress the ability to:

1) sell that insurance themselves, and
2) compete with the remaining private insurance, and
3) dictate the rules of insurance and the competition.

Then you may as well just tear up the ****ing Constitution, hand it back to the government with the phrase "compact nullified, do whatever the hell you want, please".

All you're rationalizing is Tyranny.

This needs to be repeated in every thread about the Dem plan.
Each and every one of them.

[withoutfeathers]

Will you die today if you don't get your flat fixed today?Probably not. And I also probably won't die today if my insurance is canceled, or if I put off a doctor visit until next week. If I need emergency care, all I need to do is get to an ER.

[RTchoke]

Sorry! My mistake. I was in a hurry and actually intended this to be a response to a differnet post. Just morning bone-headedness, I guess. :redface:

No problem. :mrgreen: I just don't get how being responsible for my family with catastrophic coverage and paying my own sniffles bills and not having any extras other than some TV, internet and a decent radio system equates to me being somebody who ****ed away all my money on fancy doodads. :))

Stereotypes are fun. :mrgreen:

[withoutfeathers]

No problem. :mrgreen: I just don't get how being responsible for my family with catastrophic coverage and paying my own sniffles bills and not having any extras other than some TV, internet and a decent radio system equates to me being somebody who ****ed away all my money on fancy doodads. :))

Stereotypes are fun. :mrgreen:Complete agreement here.

I would also add that people who don't know how to assume a little risk management on their own shouldn't complain about how high their insurance premiums are.

[RTchoke]

Complete agreement here.

I would also add that people who don't know how to assume a little risk management on their own shouldn't complain about how high their insurance premiums are.

I don't get people who think that insurance is there to cover every little thing and they should have no or very little expense out of pocket for anything. :confused:

Guess that is why it is so easy for them to accept a total takeover by the govt of their healthcare. Our income was cut by more than half when I no longer was working. We also no longer had health insurance for me or my daughter. We had been covered by may plan as well as double coverage for hubby. Hubby was covered by his plan at work but it was far to expensive to add us since he worked commission and at that time we struggled with paying $600-700 a month just for gas (when it was at its peak price) since he had to work so far away. So we got him closer to home, took a small cut in hourly rate but a guaranteed 80 hours a pay period and got an accident/cat plan to cover us and pay out of pocket for anything else medical related.

Now, if this passes, what works for us and allows us to take care of medical issues is gonna be gone. I love being punished for being responsible. :confused:

[ExDem]

The dems have their own problems. But it is clear they want to pass something. They just don't have the balls to do what they think is right. They are being political pansies.

The reps. produced a non started so their base could brag about their 'can do attitude'.

Hey, all speculation and IMHO and YMMV, but that's the way I see it.

What does YMMV stand for?

Well I guess you can read the minds of Republicans. What a talent you have. I must lack your talent because it is certainly not clear to me that the DIMS want to pass something. They could pass it today. If they wanted to, they would. It is that simple.

[cmorlan]

So I called up gieco the other day to get insurance for my car. And can you believe the nerve they had to deny me because I totalled my car last month and didn't have any insurance then. I mean, auto insurance is a right. How dare they leave me and my family out to dry, all in the name of thier greedy profits. Someone ought to do something to those greedy fat cats in the auto insurance to make them pay.

Sounds pretty ridiculous when you put it into perspective , doesn't it?

actually Auto insurance is a requirement I think its wrong for insurance company's to be able to refuse to sell you something you're REQUIRED by law to have. I also thing its wrong for them to force hi premiums for something the government make you get. insurance is always more expensive in states were the requirement and penalties are higher why is that? Money they have you over a barrel and they know it.

[withoutfeathers]

insurance is always more expensive in states were the requirement and penalties are higher why is that?Because premiums are set by the 51 state (and DC) insurance commissioners, and that's how much those unelected officials believe you should pay.

[Rurudyne]

People with known preexisting conditions not getting insurance?

I'm okay with that.

[bloods vs crips]

Please link and quote a COMPREHENSIVE HC policy that a 22 yr making the mean average income for that age bracket can afford (BTW: this is where all of you guys run and hide under any one of numerous banners and never L&Q)

Their revenues have doubled regardless of their slim margins....Trip, lets both act as if we're not stupid while carrying on this conversation, the GOP TPM's have been read studied and countered already

a healthy 22 year old can get coverage for like $150/month. If they are working full time, that's easily covered. If they have a $400 car payment and $5000 in credit cards, probably not.

[johnrocks]

a healthy 22 year old can get coverage for like $150/month. If they are working full time, that's easily covered. If they have a $400 car payment and $5000 in credit cards, probably not.

They can get one in my zip code (non smoker) with a $500 deductible and $1000 max. out of pocket limit from Blue Cross for $67.99 per month. Less than a cell phone and internet access.

[Lima India Bravo]

Which is why people need insurance BEFORE they get sick. How hard is that to understand?

Get a clue. Pre-existing condition doesn't mean someone waits until they get sick to get insurance. It means they have a pre-existing condition when moving from one insurance company to another. If I want to become self employed, and buy my own insurance, I may not be able to because I have diabetes. I'm currently insured, but I'll be leaving this employer soon and will be self employed. So far, I've had zero luck getting insurance from the couple of companies I've contacted. One wants an astronomical premium and will not cover diabetes or any diabetes related issue for six months, the other wants a more reasonable premium, but won't cover the diabetes or any diabetes related issues for one year.

[chris13]

The GOP is not interested what so ever in helping pass any kind of reform. Their only job is stall Obama and regain power. The party of Pro-Life doesn't seem to care about it if your poor or already ill.

What does the Republican alternative include? Glad you asked. Some of the highlights are:


Increasing incentives for people to use health savings accounts
Capping non-economic awards in medical malpractices cases
Incentives for states to drive down premium costs
Allowing health insurance to be sold across state lines

What does the Republican plan NOT include?


Employer mandates
Individual health insurance mandates
A requirement for insurers to cover pre-existing conditions
Probably some abortion stuff that I couldn't care less about


As the Republicans introduced their bill the Democrats were passing around a binder with a cover page reading "Republican Health Care Plan." Inside you would only find blank pages. Very cute ... the Republicans introduce a 233 page plan, and the Democrat Socialist Party refuses to acknowledge its very existence.

[donesprague]

So I called up gieco the other day to get insurance for my car. And can you believe the nerve they had to deny me because I totalled my car last month and didn't have any insurance then. I mean, auto insurance is a right. How dare they leave me and my family out to dry, all in the name of thier greedy profits. Someone ought to do something to those greedy fat cats in the auto insurance to make them pay.

Sounds pretty ridiculous when you put it into perspective , doesn't it?

I went to a grocery store because I was hungry. They actually made me pay for the food. How dare the greedy people keep me hungry. I could become too weak to get to the hospital for free health care if I keep getting charged for food.


Someone should do something about making sure people can get free food. OK, I know that some people get free food but I receive too much retirement pay. It just insn't fair.

This too sounds pretty ridiculous. The worst thing is that some people believe it is the thing to do.

[Ballygrl]

Get a clue. Pre-existing condition doesn't mean someone waits until they get sick to get insurance. It means they have a pre-existing condition when moving from one insurance company to another. If I want to become self employed, and buy my own insurance, I may not be able to because I have diabetes. I'm currently insured, but I'll be leaving this employer soon and will be self employed. So far, I've had zero luck getting insurance from the couple of companies I've contacted. One wants an astronomical premium and will not cover diabetes or any diabetes related issue for six months, the other wants a more reasonable premium, but won't cover the diabetes or any diabetes related issues for one year.

I have a clue, I worked in the darn field for 20 years. This is why the system needs some tweaking not a total overhaul. NJ has a law that states you can't be denied insurance because of a pre-existing condition, as long as you can show proof that your currently insured before you change, you can't get turned down. I know this also personally because I was diagnosed with an illness, had surgery 6 months later, and changed insurance companies 2 months before surgery and everything was covered. The States that mandate coverage despite pre-exisiting conditions are: Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Vermont and Washington.

There are pre-existing conditions and pre-existing conditions, you have people born with a particular illness that need insurance yet are denied, again, tweak the system to be able to cover those people, then you have people who don't care to carry insurance, in particular a young person who thinks because they're young they don't need it, then all of a sudden they get sick, what are insurances companies supposed to do? and how fair is it that the rest of us who do the right thing basically get punished? If that's the way it should work, then to heck with my putting out almost $600 per month for insurance, I'll save all that money and just purchase insurance when I need it.

Yes, the system need tweaking, but not a total overhaul just to satisfy the whims of a few who aren't doing the right thing.

Also there are about 1500 insurance companies in the US, why not allow people to shop around and buy out of state? why am I stuck with only like 5 choices in NJ? open the insurance pool up to everyone.

I do feel sorry for you because at least you want to do the right thing, the only thing I can suggest to you right now is to take out the insurance plan that has a reasonable rate even though they won't cover your diabetes for a year, and maybe speak to the social service dept. at your local hospital and ask them for their advice on what to do if your diabetes flares up, you would have to be treated at the hospital if it's necessary for you to be treated. Also if it's the med costs that you're worried about, then make sure to contact the drug companies, explain your situation and see if you can somehow can your meds for free from them or from your Doctors office if they carry samples. Also look into a clinic in your area where you can pay on a sliding scale if you need to be treated for your diabetes.

I wish you luck.

[Ballygrl]

Lima India Bravo, here's some info that might be helpful to you:

http://www.americandiabetes.com/insurance_coverage_information.htm

Also here's a map where you choose your state and it tells you what's available to you:

http://www.diabetes.org/living-with-diabetes/treatment-and-care/health-insurance-options/health-insurance-in-your-state/

[historynut]

Get a clue. Pre-existing condition doesn't mean someone waits until they get sick to get insurance. It means they have a pre-existing condition when moving from one insurance company to another. If I want to become self employed, and buy my own insurance, I may not be able to because I have diabetes. I'm currently insured, but I'll be leaving this employer soon and will be self employed. So far, I've had zero luck getting insurance from the couple of companies I've contacted. One wants an astronomical premium and will not cover diabetes or any diabetes related issue for six months, the other wants a more reasonable premium, but won't cover the diabetes or any diabetes related issues for one year.

Perhap you could do what I did when I was leaving my job. I got myself on my wifes insurance so that by the time I left I was covered. I think it's called planning ahead.

Sometimes you have to pay for insurance twice but in the long run you are never without coverage and you save money

[bloods vs crips]

Perhap you could do what I did when I was leaving my job. I got myself on my wifes insurance so that by the time I left I was covered. I think it's called planning ahead.

Sometimes you have to pay for insurance twice but in the long run you are never without coverage and you save money

how do you plan ahead to get on your wife's when you are not married?

Shocking I know, some people are not married. What if your wife has insurance through you, and her company doesn't offer it? Ouch, now there are two of you without insurance.

[smibbo]

People with known preexisting conditions not getting insurance?

I'm okay with that.

Like Autism? Something that has no medical symptoms requiring therapeutic care yet is considered a pre-existing condition?

Or scholiosis. or diabetes. or ya know.. pregnancy.

All can (and often are) considered pre-existing conditions.

My insurance company tried to deny me coverage for when I was hospitalized for spinal meningitis. Because they tried to say it wasn't an emergency. Ya know, cuz it was viral, not bacterial. Which couldn't be known until I went to the ER and had a spinal tap. They relented because my brother the lawyer knew what to say to them but that's a fine example of an insurance company denying coverage because of some wonky rules that THEY set up. Which they do. All the time. If you have insurance I suggest you ask for a complete outline of your coverage and read the whole thing. Not the synopsis.

[smibbo]

When government "fixes" one problem, they normally create two in it's place.

Yeah, thanks Nixon for that whole HMO thing. Sure made health care easier and cheaper... for the insurance companies. Oh and so much less beaurocracy too. Thanks Nixon, you great republican you.

[Mr. M]

Yeah, thanks Nixon for that whole HMO thing. Sure made health care easier and cheaper... for the insurance companies. Oh and so much less beaurocracy too. Thanks Nixon, you great republican you.

To be fair, the bill was sponsored by Senator Kennedy (and co-sponsored by Hubert Humphrey) and passed nearly unanimously in the Senate and by a wide margin in the House, both of which were heavily Democratic.

[WildRose]

To be fair, the bill was sponsored by Senator Kennedy (and co-sponsored by Hubert Humphrey) and passed nearly unanimously in the Senate and by a wide margin in the House, both of which were heavily Democratic.And it WAS what "We the people" wanted at the time.:rolleyes:

As usual when "we the people" demand something and get it, we find ourselves extremely short sighted and end up creating more problems than we solved.

[Mr. M]

And it WAS what "We the people" wanted at the time.:rolleyes:

As usual when "we the people" demand something and get it, we find ourselves extremely short sighted and end up creating more problems than we solved.

And looking back a generation or so for a scapegoat...

[Mohawk5]

Kind of struck me as odd.

Maybe their betting on the scum balls in the insurance industry to change their tune on their own.

Did seem odd though.

[tobybear]

They can get one in my zip code (non smoker) with a $500 deductible and $1000 max. out of pocket limit from Blue Cross for $67.99 per month. Less than a cell phone and internet access.

Not if they have a prepaid cell phone and dialup! :))


Who am I kidding?

College aged kids with prepaid cell phones and Dial Up! :)) :))

:))

:))

[historynut]

how do you plan ahead to get on your wife's when you are not married?

Shocking I know, some people are not married. What if your wife has insurance through you, and her company doesn't offer it? Ouch, now there are two of you without insurance.

You can find out how your coverage will cost beforehand and put money in the bank. Sometimes insurance companies will let you pay extra with the extra going to extended coverage (did that back in the 80's). Since I've had pre-existing conditions for a long time I've been doing things like that for a long time. I even have an earthquake kit at home.

When your 10 years old your parents plan for you when you grow up it's your job.

[Rurudyne]

Like Autism? Something that has no medical symptoms requiring therapeutic care yet is considered a pre-existing condition?

Or scholiosis. or diabetes. or ya know.. pregnancy.

All can (and often are) considered pre-existing conditions.

My insurance company tried to deny me coverage for when I was hospitalized for spinal meningitis. Because they tried to say it wasn't an emergency. Ya know, cuz it was viral, not bacterial. Which couldn't be known until I went to the ER and had a spinal tap. They relented because my brother the lawyer knew what to say to them but that's a fine example of an insurance company denying coverage because of some wonky rules that THEY set up. Which they do. All the time. If you have insurance I suggest you ask for a complete outline of your coverage and read the whole thing. Not the synopsis.
Remember, insurance is a form of gambling. You pay the insurer, your bookie, a sum of money so that, if something goes wrong, he'll pay you a "benefit" in return. How much you pay for a premium depends on the actuarial "odds" (just as in horse racing, you pay more to win $100 at 3 to 1 than at 100 to 1) and just how much risk you are exposing the insurer to (if there's a low deductible or very high benefit limit). When someone "wins" their bet (and with winning like this who needs winning?) that is when the insurer pays out.

But what you've paid in not only reflects what you might get out but also something to offset the insurer's operating costs and profit.

Please reexamine the Case of you having a known condition going in and you will see that what you are asking the insurer to do is to cope with KNOWN COST rather than accept your gamble. What you are describing is not "Insurance" but "Assurance" (the more honest term used for so-called "life insurance" companies, since odds of dying at some point are are 1:1).

So when you have a known condition (going in) like one of the ones you list and you rely on insurance to pay for it one of two things is happening:

Either you will be paying the insurer more than the upfront cost had you paid yourself (because as the middleman he gets a markup for the service).

Or someone else will be forced to subsidize your expenses through THEIR premiums because they are forced to buy coverage for something that they may not reasonably have a risk for — i.e. they are forced to be over-insured.

Since I reason that someone shelling out money in the former instance would simply be a fool and someone receiving a subsidy for their assurance is simply demanding a preference, a gift at someone else's expense ... then, no, I've no problem with insurers NOT covering preexisting conditions any more than I've no problem with an auto insurance company not paying to fix an already wrecked car (i.e. before the insurance was bought).

You see, there is a moral and ethical difference between winning a bet (say if someone developed diabetes WHILE COVERED by insurance) and demanding a gift.

[ExDem]

To be fair, the bill was sponsored by Senator Kennedy (and co-sponsored by Hubert Humphrey) and passed nearly unanimously in the Senate and by a wide margin in the House, both of which were heavily Democratic.


Yeah, but Michael Moore didn't present the facts in the movie "Sicko" so how is a lib to know?

BTW---I have had HMO insurance and never had a bit of trouble with it at all.

[Lima India Bravo]

I have a clue, I worked in the darn field for 20 years. This is why the system needs some tweaking not a total overhaul. NJ has a law that states you can't be denied insurance because of a pre-existing condition, as long as you can show proof that your currently insured before you change, you can't get turned down. I know this also personally because I was diagnosed with an illness, had surgery 6 months later, and changed insurance companies 2 months before surgery and everything was covered. The States that mandate coverage despite pre-exisiting conditions are: Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Vermont and Washington.

And it should be all states that mandate coverage despite pre-existing conditions.

There are pre-existing conditions and pre-existing conditions, you have people born with a particular illness that need insurance yet are denied, again, tweak the system to be able to cover those people,

Agreed.

then you have people who don't care to carry insurance, in particular a young person who thinks because they're young they don't need it, then all of a sudden they get sick, what are insurances companies supposed to do?

Require them to carry a policy that covers catastrophic illness. That's what I think I may end up doing. I can easily afford to purchase my insulin and pump supplies and pay for regular Dr. visits.

and how fair is it that the rest of us who do the right thing basically get punished? If that's the way it should work, then to heck with my putting out almost $600 per month for insurance, I'll save all that money and just purchase insurance when I need it.

It isn't fair. That's why mandating that everyone have at least a catastrophic policy would, in my opinion, be the right way to go. Additionally, setting up a "triage" type of system at ER's would weed out those people who use the ER like a free clinic. If they don't need critical care, send them to a walk-in clinic.

Yes, the system need tweaking, but not a total overhaul just to satisfy the whims of a few who aren't doing the right thing.

I don't think it's the "whims" of a few that are behind this.

Also there are about 1500 insurance companies in the US, why not allow people to shop around and buy out of state? why am I stuck with only like 5 choices in NJ? open the insurance pool up to everyone.

Yes. Why not?.....Could it be because the insurance companies don't WANT to?

<<snip>>

I wish you luck.

Thanks.

[historynut]

People keep saying they should mandate coverage for pre-existing conditions. But they also want there rates to go down.
That is kind of like going to the car dealer, ask for a car with everything on it then then ask to pay the same amount for it as a car with nothing on it.
Doesn't work that way.

Want costs to go down -

Allow people to shop around and buy out of state. Insurance companies would love to sell to more people and make more money. People in smaller states would love to have more insurance companies to buy from and have lower rates.

Lawsuits, if I go to court for a crime the first thing that happens is you go before a judge where it is decided if there enough envidence for a hearing if not they let you go.
Why not do that with lawsuits. If the lawyer can show evidence that he has a case let it go forward like it does now. If the lawyer can not show evidence that he has a case then require him to post a bond covering all costs for the other side. Unless the lawyer is sure he will win he will not post a bond.

[Rurudyne]

People keep saying they should mandate coverage for pre-existing conditions. But they also want there rates to go down.
That is kind of like going to the car dealer, ask for a car with everything on it then then ask to pay the same amount for it as a car with nothing on it.
Doesn't work that way.
Indeed. These so-called "reforms" are simply more of the same sort of shenanagins that has caused premiums to become so high — what broke the thing in the first place.