If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Sometimes stupid loses
Neil Harrington wrote: As far as forcing insurance companies to accept people with pre-existing conditions, this has already been thoroughly discussed elsewhere. That provision would allow (in fact, encourage) people to NOT buy insurance until some condition developed, and then the insurance company would be forced to accept them. That is like demanding that an insurance company give you fire insurance after your house started burning down. It's ridiculous. This is also the single best reason for mandating health insurance coverage so that insurance companies are not faced with 60 year olds walking in and demanding insurance after a life with no coverage. They are both not as healthy and have a habit of getting care for a chronic conditions only and the have never been part of the system. The next step after that becomes a single payer system private or publicly run which would not be all that different from many states right now. I lived in NH for a few years and the number of real health insurance companies was very limited (2 or3 at most). Privately run single payer is more complex and has potentially higher corruption risks but it could be an option. w.. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Sometimes stupid loses
"Walter Banks" wrote in message ... Neil Harrington wrote: As far as forcing insurance companies to accept people with pre-existing conditions, this has already been thoroughly discussed elsewhere. That provision would allow (in fact, encourage) people to NOT buy insurance until some condition developed, and then the insurance company would be forced to accept them. That is like demanding that an insurance company give you fire insurance after your house started burning down. It's ridiculous. This is also the single best reason for mandating health insurance coverage so that insurance companies are not faced with 60 year olds walking in and demanding insurance after a life with no coverage. They are both not as healthy and have a habit of getting care for a chronic conditions only and the have never been part of the system. That's a good point, but there still is no constitutional basis for the government demanding that you buy a certain product. The next step after that becomes a single payer system private or publicly run which would not be all that different from many states right now. I lived in NH for a few years and the number of real health insurance companies was very limited (2 or3 at most). Privately run single payer is more complex and has potentially higher corruption risks but it could be an option. w.. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Sometimes stupid loses
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
... "Walter Banks" wrote in message ... Neil Harrington wrote: As far as forcing insurance companies to accept people with pre-existing conditions, this has already been thoroughly discussed elsewhere. That provision would allow (in fact, encourage) people to NOT buy insurance until some condition developed, and then the insurance company would be forced to accept them. That is like demanding that an insurance company give you fire insurance after your house started burning down. It's ridiculous. This is also the single best reason for mandating health insurance coverage so that insurance companies are not faced with 60 year olds walking in and demanding insurance after a life with no coverage. They are both not as healthy and have a habit of getting care for a chronic conditions only and the have never been part of the system. That's a good point, but there still is no constitutional basis for the government demanding that you buy a certain product. The overlooked fact in all of this. There is no constitutional basis for the entire bill. The federal government has no constitutional authority in this at all. They keep broadening their powers and the citizens have allowed it all of these years. The constitution was written to limit the power of the governement. If anything, this is a state matter, not a federal one. The next step after that becomes a single payer system private or publicly run which would not be all that different from many states right now. I lived in NH for a few years and the number of real health insurance companies was very limited (2 or3 at most). Privately run single payer is more complex and has potentially higher corruption risks but it could be an option. w.. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Sometimes stupid loses
"Pete Stavrakoglou" wrote in message ... "Neil Harrington" wrote in message ... "Walter Banks" wrote in message ... Neil Harrington wrote: As far as forcing insurance companies to accept people with pre-existing conditions, this has already been thoroughly discussed elsewhere. That provision would allow (in fact, encourage) people to NOT buy insurance until some condition developed, and then the insurance company would be forced to accept them. That is like demanding that an insurance company give you fire insurance after your house started burning down. It's ridiculous. This is also the single best reason for mandating health insurance coverage so that insurance companies are not faced with 60 year olds walking in and demanding insurance after a life with no coverage. They are both not as healthy and have a habit of getting care for a chronic conditions only and the have never been part of the system. That's a good point, but there still is no constitutional basis for the government demanding that you buy a certain product. The overlooked fact in all of this. There is no constitutional basis for the entire bill. The federal government has no constitutional authority in this at all. They keep broadening their powers and the citizens have allowed it all of these years. The constitution was written to limit the power of the governement. If anything, this is a state matter, not a federal one. Yes, exactly. I think Ann Coulter was probably right when she said that 75% of what Congress does is unconstitutional. The Tenth Amendment tells us that the federal government's powers are limited to those enumerated in the Constitution, and nothing more. All other powers "are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Yet the government goes far, far beyond the powers given to it, and has been doing so for a long time now. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Sometimes stupid loses
Walter Banks wrote:
Neil Harrington wrote: As far as forcing insurance companies to accept people with pre-existing conditions, this has already been thoroughly discussed elsewhere. That provision would allow (in fact, encourage) people to NOT buy insurance until some condition developed, and then the insurance company would be forced to accept them. That is like demanding that an insurance company give you fire insurance after your house started burning down. It's ridiculous. This is also the single best reason for mandating health insurance coverage so that insurance companies are not faced with 60 year olds walking in and demanding insurance after a life with no coverage. They are both not as healthy and have a habit of getting care for a chronic conditions only and the have never been part of the system. The next step after that becomes a single payer system private or publicly run which would not be all that different from many states right now. I lived in NH for a few years and the number of real health insurance companies was very limited (2 or3 at most). Privately run single payer is more complex and has potentially higher corruption risks but it could be an option. w.. An insurance company can charge you a very small amount for your health coverage when you are a teenager or twenty one, but the rates they charge can rise with time, so if you walk in when you are 60, then you will pay a huge premium. This is as it should be, and it is the case for other insurance policies too. If they overcharge you, well, that's what competition is all about. You just go to another carrier and get a proper price. But whe3n the government makes laws in restraint of trade, then all the insurance companies are on some screwed up rate schedule, then what do you expect? the government has caved into lobbies, and the consumer is the one who pays the price. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Sometimes stupid loses
Bill Graham wrote: Neil Harrington wrote: As far as forcing insurance companies to accept people with pre-existing conditions, this has already been thoroughly discussed elsewhere. That provision would allow (in fact, encourage) people to NOT buy insurance until some condition developed, and then the insurance company would be forced to accept them. That is like demanding that an insurance company give you fire insurance after your house started burning down. It's ridiculous. This is also the single best reason for mandating health insurance coverage so that insurance companies are not faced with 60 year olds walking in and demanding insurance after a life with no coverage. They are both not as healthy and have a habit of getting care for a chronic conditions only and the have never been part of the system. The next step after that becomes a single payer system private or publicly run which would not be all that different from many states right now. I lived in NH for a few years and the number of real health insurance companies was very limited (2 or3 at most). Privately run single payer is more complex and has potentially higher corruption risks but it could be an option. w.. An insurance company can charge you a very small amount for your health coverage when you are a teenager or twenty one, but the rates they charge can rise with time, so if you walk in when you are 60, then you will pay a huge premium. This is as it should be, and it is the case for other insurance policies too. If they overcharge you, well, that's what competition is all about. You just go to another carrier and get a proper price. But when the government makes laws in restraint of trade, then all the insurance companies are on some screwed up rate schedule, then what do you expect? the government has caved into lobbies, and the consumer is the one who pays the price. You defined the 16th century way insurance is used to handle risk management. Health insurance doesn't fit the model. The uninsured would either pay for their treatment or die. In the US the last option is not allowed and this changes the equation. Without insurance there are few consequences. Public single payer is what would happen if everyone decided they should not have insurance. The difference is it is lower cost than the current system, w.. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Sometimes stupid loses
Walter Banks wrote:
Bill Graham wrote: Neil Harrington wrote: As far as forcing insurance companies to accept people with pre-existing conditions, this has already been thoroughly discussed elsewhere. That provision would allow (in fact, encourage) people to NOT buy insurance until some condition developed, and then the insurance company would be forced to accept them. That is like demanding that an insurance company give you fire insurance after your house started burning down. It's ridiculous. This is also the single best reason for mandating health insurance coverage so that insurance companies are not faced with 60 year olds walking in and demanding insurance after a life with no coverage. They are both not as healthy and have a habit of getting care for a chronic conditions only and the have never been part of the system. The next step after that becomes a single payer system private or publicly run which would not be all that different from many states right now. I lived in NH for a few years and the number of real health insurance companies was very limited (2 or3 at most). Privately run single payer is more complex and has potentially higher corruption risks but it could be an option. w.. An insurance company can charge you a very small amount for your health coverage when you are a teenager or twenty one, but the rates they charge can rise with time, so if you walk in when you are 60, then you will pay a huge premium. This is as it should be, and it is the case for other insurance policies too. If they overcharge you, well, that's what competition is all about. You just go to another carrier and get a proper price. But when the government makes laws in restraint of trade, then all the insurance companies are on some screwed up rate schedule, then what do you expect? the government has caved into lobbies, and the consumer is the one who pays the price. You defined the 16th century way insurance is used to handle risk management. Health insurance doesn't fit the model. The uninsured would either pay for their treatment or die. In the US the last option is not allowed and this changes the equation. Without insurance there are few consequences. Public single payer is what would happen if everyone decided they should not have insurance. The difference is it is lower cost than the current system, w.. As near as I can see, there are two ways to solve the problem. We can either mandate that everyone purchase health insurance, (or just socialize the system and let the government buy it with the taxpayer's money) Or, we can stop treating those without insurance and let them die on the streets. As a libertarian, I am in favor of the second way. But, it seems that the majority of the population in this country can't handle that, and is insisting that we have a socialized system. So, since this is the case, why not do it right? Just make all the doctors public employees, pay them (and all their services and equipment) out of the taxpayers money, and be done with it. This business of messing around with "mister in-between" is obviously not working, and is just prolonging the agony. The question in my mind is: How far away will we be from government food so no one starves to death, government housing so no one is homeless, government uniforms, so no one is too cold, or feels bad because he/she isn't as well dressed, government cars, so nobody has to endure inadequate transportation......etc, etc? I paid for my own health insurance (and everything else) all of my working life, so I am a loser in this new socialized system. But it seems that there is no way to leave one system and adopt another without screwing somebody, so I guess I'll just have to bite the bullet, and accept my fate like a man. But make no mistake about it. I WAS TAUGHT TO TAKE CARE OF MYSELF, AND DID SO, AND NOW I HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF THE DUMMIES TOO! You may laugh at me, but don't say I am wrong. I am intelligent enough to know when I am getting screwed. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Sometimes stupid loses
Bill Graham wrote: But, it seems that the majority of the population in this country can't handle that, and is insisting that we have a socialized system. So, since this is the case, why not do it right? Just make all the doctors public employees, pay them (and all their services and equipment) out of the taxpayers money, and be done with it. This business of messing around with "mister in-between" is obviously not working, and is just prolonging the agony. Why not have a single payer? In most countries all it took was some influential person to be denied coverage and that was the beginning of the end of private companies determining treatment. w.. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Sometimes stupid loses
Walter Banks wrote:
Bill Graham wrote: But, it seems that the majority of the population in this country can't handle that, and is insisting that we have a socialized system. So, since this is the case, why not do it right? Just make all the doctors public employees, pay them (and all their services and equipment) out of the taxpayers money, and be done with it. This business of messing around with "mister in-between" is obviously not working, and is just prolonging the agony. Why not have a single payer? In most countries all it took was some influential person to be denied coverage and that was the beginning of the end of private companies determining treatment. w.. Well, the way it is now, the insurance companies have bought and paid for our congressmen, so socializing the whole system is looking pretty good, even to me. It seems that no government works when its leaders are corrupt, even a Constitutional Republic. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sometimes stupid loses | Neil Harrington[_6_] | Digital Photography | 1 | April 1st 11 05:07 AM |
Sometimes stupid loses | Pete Stavrakoglou | Digital Photography | 0 | March 31st 11 02:33 PM |
Sometimes stupid loses | Pete Stavrakoglou | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | March 31st 11 01:44 PM |