I decided my comment in response to Andrew deserves a new post.
Actually, with the exception of this Hyde Amendment stuff you shouldn't look at this as if the government has more control over YOU and your choices - they don't, and if more people understood that there wouldn't be so much opposition to reform. No, it's not you the government has more control over - they now have more control over the insurance companies who have been screwing over so many Americans. This is a good thing, despite all your notions of free-market blah blah. I don't understand why people defend these companies and the status quo in general. It's time someone defended those hard-working people who have been screwed over, taken advantage of, and bled dry by these companies!
Come on, you've heard all this before. Just one example of the screwing over: prior to this reform insurance companies could deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. What would you do if you had a chronically ill child, you lost your job and health insurance, then found a new job with new insurance, but that new insurance company (or ANY company that you could afford) refused to cover your child? This is why more government control is better - they won't allow such situations to happen (or at the very least they'll be minimized).
The exception to this is the abortion provision stuff - that is indeed a horrendous example of the government controlling what health care poor women should receive assistance for. Abortion is a legal medical procedure that should be covered by an affordable health insurance plan. I am disappointed in the Hyde Amendment still standing, and it's unfortunate that this was the only way this bill could pass.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Typically work-related insurance programs do NOT prohibit coverage for pre-existing conditions - so that's a false example.
But, let's talk about pre-existing conditions in the case of private insurance:
Suppose you just bought car insurance - and the first day it was in effect you called up your new insurer and said, "Oh gee, I actually crashed my car LAST WEEK, and now that I'm signed up with you, you have to pay for those damages!" or you got homeowners insurance - and then they had to cover the burglary and fire that occurred the week prior to coverage beginning.
If car and home insurance companies were legally required to do that - there can be only two outcomes: [1] they have to raise rates SUBSTANTIALLY to cover their suddenly increased costs; or [2] they go out of business.
Of course, the Obama administration understands the position this puts the insurance companies in (simple economics here) - and they look forward to option #2 so that they can then go to "single payer" (meaning "government is the only insurer"). And when the premium increases from option #1 hit they'll use that as a reason to then drive public opinion (via the media) to once again demonize companies trying to provide a service for a fee.
I could type all day - but that's the impact of forcing companies to
cover pre-existing conditions.
Looking forward to discussing any other points you'd like!
They call me... TreeHugger
the idea that opponents to this legislation and the way it was passed are "for the status quo" or are "defending insurance companies" is the same, tired old straw man Obama has been campaigning against his entire political career. I don't think the "status quo" shouldn't be improved upon, nor does anyone else.
-CG
Post a Comment