Monday, January 25, 2010
A caller to Hugh Hewitt's radio show this evening made a great comment on the current health care bill. First, some background. As you may know, the bill currently nearing its (hopefully permanent) demise in the Senate has in it the requirement that all health insurance providers would eliminate any pre-condition dis-qualifiers. In other words, it would no longer matter how sick a person was, the law would require that the insurance company to which that person applied would provide full coverage notwithstanding the person's medical condition. So if some terminally ill patient came to ABC Insurance Co., they couldn't be turned away. Now there are some pretty clear problems with this provision.
One, obviously, is that it infringes on the freedom of an insurance provider to reject unwise contracts. If I ran a little insurance company on the side, I would be forced to sign a contractual agreement to pay for the care of anyone who came to my door.
Two, removing the ability to deny coverage means that someone has to foot the bill. Undoubtedly, the insurance company won't ultimately be the one, or they will go out of business. The cost will necessarily be passed down to all of their customers. Ultimately, only the big insurance companies will survive, but not before everyone is paying significantly more in premiums than they are currently paying. Guess who then comes to the rescue andnationalizes saves the entire health insurance world? That's right, the original creators of this Ponzi scheme, the U.S. government. Only then, they'll blame the big bad insurance companies for the high premiums... sound familiar?
So with that in mind, here is the comment from the caller: why do we stop with only eliminating pre-existing conditions for health insurance? Why not get rid of pre-existing conditions for life insurance and auto insurance as well? It shouldn't matter that someone has had a history of accidents and tickets on their driving record. Don't you realize how hard it is to pay for car insurance when your premiums are $500 a month? A lot of people are unable to afford car insurance, which means that legally, they can't drive. Which in turn means that it is very hard for them to hold a job, which means that they can't support their families.
Down with "pre-existing conditions"!
One, obviously, is that it infringes on the freedom of an insurance provider to reject unwise contracts. If I ran a little insurance company on the side, I would be forced to sign a contractual agreement to pay for the care of anyone who came to my door.
Two, removing the ability to deny coverage means that someone has to foot the bill. Undoubtedly, the insurance company won't ultimately be the one, or they will go out of business. The cost will necessarily be passed down to all of their customers. Ultimately, only the big insurance companies will survive, but not before everyone is paying significantly more in premiums than they are currently paying. Guess who then comes to the rescue and
So with that in mind, here is the comment from the caller: why do we stop with only eliminating pre-existing conditions for health insurance? Why not get rid of pre-existing conditions for life insurance and auto insurance as well? It shouldn't matter that someone has had a history of accidents and tickets on their driving record. Don't you realize how hard it is to pay for car insurance when your premiums are $500 a month? A lot of people are unable to afford car insurance, which means that legally, they can't drive. Which in turn means that it is very hard for them to hold a job, which means that they can't support their families.
Down with "pre-existing conditions"!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Nice points about car insurance. Sucks if it has pre-condition.
I'm not an American, so I wouldn't know, but I would have thought car insurance isn't a matter of life and death, but health insurance may be.
unkle e,
Health care can be a matter of life and death, health insurance rarely if ever is. In this country, a hospital must provide care to save the life of someone even if they can't pay for it. Now I don't like the law because it forces someone to provide care which is an affront on freedoms because it asserts a positive right.
Either way, the principles above remain the same: eventually, the Ponzi scheme collapses and government takes over.
The fact that this healthcare thing is almost finally dead is proof positive that the will of the People can still put a stop to the socialist and fascist tendencies of our government. That's what we saw in Massachussetts. I'm not going to vouch for the guy they elected, and he is more likely a snake than not, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt for now.
In case anyone is still blind to this fact, the government was trying to bail out the healthcare industry here by funneling [by force] tens of millions of dollars into the system. Ideally this would have helped patch up the economy, and would have given Obama credit for "solving" the health care crisis while crediting his banking cronies (Bernanke, Geithner, and company)with an improved economy. It was an utter failure.
What are they going to do next? War in Yemen? War is a racket, after all. And they have this new FAKE! bin Laden tape praising this African dude who failed to detonate his homemade firecracker on a plane. The stage is being set. If certain people in the Military Industrial Complex have their way, Yemen will be the new Afghanistan. It will be another pointless waste of money, but there will be a temporary economic boost. Who knows? Maybe Obama will get another Nobel Peace Prize out of the deal.
Post a Comment