Posted on 11/30/2010 9:56:46 AM PST by roses of sharon
Lou:
You said in very concise words what I’m trying to say in my long winded post 99.
DOH!
I understand where you are coming from. The reason why you have to have the mandate even if you don't use it is ue to the fact it's easier and more cost effective to have it on your plan due to administrative reasons. It would be a nightmare for insurance carriers to have a ala carte plan-hard to keep track of who has what. Very similar to why car companies went to package deals where if you want AC you have to get power seats to. It's cheaper to make cars this way versus each one totally different.
What would be wrong with letting people opt out of mandates for a corresponding reduction in premiums?
Take for instance mandatory maternity clause. Every group plan has it. It's built into the rates that only so many people will use maternity. If the carriers removed maternity off your plan it would not lower the rates. Again it's easier(less expensive) administratively to have all plan benefits the same.
I would be fine with the OPTION to keep or add your kids to a policy up to 26 but it should not be mandatory. In this economic mess that BO has made infinitely worse I and a lot of people I know have adult children, usually single and are laid off or can’t find a steady job that either pays enough buy individual insurance or doesn’t offer any plan. Those in that type of situation will be on the dole anyway if they have to go in for any care so at least I could help them out for a period of time until they can get on their feet again.
So when all those candidate ran on a promise to repeal Obamacare then they were just lying to us?
Yes.
Take away insurance from the sick! And from the children!
The GOP has now fallen in the trap that either they incur the wrath of their base or get hammered by the Democrats for being mean to the sick and to the children.
Its a Hobson’s Choice.
It’s important that the GOP put this into writing in the form of a 6000-page “reform” package to the 3,000-page health care bill, so that the resulting 9000-page result can be real “reform.” And, to guarantee that the reform is taken seriously, the creation of oh, about 15 to 20 more Federal agencies are needed to oversee the implementation of the reform.
Kind of like tax reform, that adds about 1000 pages to the Internal Revenue Code every time it’s reformed.
About ten years ago. I almost got banned for suggesting it. Times change...
EXACTLY
I second that motion. One more in favor, and it's carried...
Aye!
Potomac at dawn?
THANK YOU! Taking notes.
I never liked the substance abuse mandate either. Some mandates are good like forcing carriers to pay for at least 48 hours of a hospital stay after a pregnancy.
Oh and yes you are correct the lobbying groups that push this stuff are very very very powerful.
I should have gotten banned for saying nothing will change in Washington next year.
Turns out I was more prescient than I thought.
I met him a couple of times. Very seriously conservative.
I warned y’all. No change in Rep leadership??.....no change PERIOD!
I’m in.
That's the thinking that got us to this point.
Campaign to restore liberty and lawful constitutional self-government.
How do you prevent post-facto coverage if the pre-existing clause is in play, except by mandating everyone purchase?
Then you do not know beans about insurance. Insurance is for future events—not pre-exising conditions. If you make insurance companies take people with pre-existing conditions, that is no longer insurance and lots of folks will just not get insurance until they have to get insurnace (i.e., they get sick and have a pre-exising condition).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.