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..

"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..

"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..

"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.

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.

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..

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.

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..

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.