We're healthy people who don't want insurance

Originally posted by no1marauder
Personally, I wouldn't have cared and don't care now, if health insurance is mandatory. It's strictly to protect the profits of the health insurance industry and they've been raping the public for 20 years. I hope one of those Republican state AG lawsuits actually wins and the mandatory provision is struck while the other measures like no denials for pre-existing conditions, etc. are enforced. Serve the SOBs right.

If people could by fire insurance after their house was on fire, no one could stay in business selling fire insurance (well at least if they had to pay claims).

I bought a 20 year level term life insurance policy when I had kids even though it was more expensive than a 10 year policy so that I would not risk losing coverage at the wrong time. I won't risk being denied coverage while my kids are still living at home.

Whatever grievances we have for the insurance companies, they are amoral corporations. If we bankrupt them, the thousands they employ are without jobs, the people the currently cover are without coverage and the evil executives walk away freely to their next careers.

If we believe people should have health insurance, we should at least design our laws so the companies that provide it can stay in business.

Originally posted by techsouth
If people could by fire insurance after their house was on fire, no one could stay in business selling fire insurance (well at least if they had to pay claims).

I bought a 20 year level term life insurance policy when I had kids even though it was more expensive than a 10 year policy so that I would not risk losing coverage at the wrong time. I won't r ...[text shortened]... ance, we should at least design our laws so the companies that provide it can stay in business.

Someone gave the same dumb fire insurance analogy in another thread. I pointed out there if you wait for your house to be on fire to run over to the insurance company, you're going to lose the value of the house before the contract is signed. If you wait for a heart attack before you think about paying health insurance, you're going to be stuck with all the health care costs before you sign the contract. So even though the law makes it so the insurance companies can't deny because of pre-existing conditions, people still have a strong incentive to buy health insurance before they get sick (plus they have access to preventative care they wouldn't get otherwise).

I suggest you write the conservative Republicans AGs trying to get the mandatory insurance provision declared unconstitutional. Like I said, I could care less; the government can provide health insurance more cheaply than the private sector anyway (as they do in many countries).

Originally posted by no1marauder
10 Republican State AGs are just waiting for Obama to sign to file suit on the basis that the federal government requiring someone to buy health insurance is unconstitutional.

http://www.usinsuranceonline.com/news/article/10-states-will-sue-over-health-care-bill-passage-19682945

I'll be rooting for them; I'm sure the bill has a boile ...[text shortened]... private companies out of business so we can have the single payer system the country needs!

driver's insurance is already mandatory.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Someone gave the same dumb fire insurance analogy in another thread. I pointed out there if you wait for your house to be on fire to run over to the insurance company, you're going to lose the value of the house before the contract is signed. If you wait for a heart attack before you think about paying health insurance, you're going to be stuck with all health insurance more cheaply than the private sector anyway (as they do in many countries).

Admittedly the analogy could be reworked to make it less prone to obtuse rebuttals. There is not a challenge to understand the point unless you don't want to understand.

What if I bought flood insurance only when heavy rain was in the forecast and canceled it right after? I could essentially cover my entire risk by paying for only a few days per year.

Why would I be stuck with all the health care costs of a heart attack? After the initial treatment, any followup treatment for the rest of my life would be covered by my newly purchased insurance. Of course I would wait and see how much all the follow up treatments were going to cost and only buy "insurance" if it was more than I would have to pay for the "insurance".

Or what about cancer? I certainly don't have to fear the high cost of cancer treatment anymore. I just wait until I'm diagnosed, drive down the street, buy insurance for $1000 per month and demand $100,000 worth of treatment.
Once I'm cured (hopefully) and my month follow-up cost drop below $1000 per month, I'll be dropping the "insurance".

What if I know I need $5000 per month worth of medical treatment? I will now have the right to walk into an office and exchange $1000 per month insurance cost for a guaranteed $5000 per month treatment payment. Why is is so hard to see why that has a downside?

If I don't have insurance and wait for a stroke, big deal. I'm out maybe $20,000 for the initial stroke, but I'm free to buy "insurance" to pay for the lifetime of treatment that follows. I risk maybe $20,000, but I save $1000 per month. Sure, that's some incentive to buy insurance, but a lot less than there was before. In general I would choose no insurance once things are stacked that way.

I was out of my normal job for a year, and I paid for Cobra. Not because of their coverage, but just to prevent future denial of coverage if I were to develop a major medical condition. But once the government forces insurance companies to take all comers, I can almost assure you I won't be paying for insurance again until I'm sick.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The bill specifically bans them from the exchanges and subsidies.

However, Hospitals can not deny treatment.
An example:
in the year 2008 Peace Health did 7 million in "free" work
when I saw my Neuro last June, ( 2009 ) they had hit the 100 million mark, and had 1/2 year yet to go...... guess what?
My Neuro was sharing one nurse with the 4 others in her office,, why?

Originally posted by Hugh Glass
ok, I'm wondering about illegal aliens.
Are they covered now, at the expense of the tax payers?
What are your thougths?

I think they've done everything possible to make sure they aren't being covered.

But in my view, America needs to make up its collective mind about what it wants to do - either grant illegals some sort of amnesty or take serious measures that will force them to leave or some combination of both.

But if we're going to continue with a policy that looks the other way and allows them to stay in the US for many years, get jobs, settle down, have kids, etc - then after a certain amount of time, they've become de facto legal residents and should be treated as such by the law. So that would include allowing them to buy coverage like anyone else.

Originally posted by Hugh Glass
However, Hospitals can not deny treatment.
An example:
in the year 2008 Peace Health did 7 million in "free" work
when I saw my Neuro last June, ( 2009 ) they had hit the 100 million mark, and had 1/2 year yet to go...... guess what?
My Neuro was sharing one nurse with the 4 others in her office,, why?

But illegal immigrants constitute less than 4% of the population, and the problem can be largely resolved by issuing passports to those who have normal working jobs.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
But illegal immigrants constitute less than 4% of the population, and the problem can be largely resolved by issuing passports to those who have normal working jobs.

I didn't know that figure, but it still looks higher than it should be... how does anyone actually know the figure? A wild guess?

11.2M / 308M = 3.63%

2008 figure for illegal immigrants from NYT

2010 figure for USA pop from wikipedia

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/31/us/31immig.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States