Posted on 01/14/2013 7:59:10 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Look at the white people column again.
As you state, insurance is the pooling of funds to cover risk. For those who buy insurance, and continue to pay the premiums, when the risk event occurs the insurance pays off. Those who choose not to purchase insurance bear the full risk and if a risk event occurs must absorb the full loss.
If I have a fire and I’m insured, the insurance company pays for the loss. I then rebuild the house and continue to pay insurance. If the house burns down a second time my homeowner’s insurance again pays to restore the house up to the limits of the policy. Unless there is fraud, the first fire (i.e. the preexisting condition) does not prevent me from continuing my insurance or being reimbursed if I have another fire.
Private health insurance is different in the US market due primarily to the lack of national portability. Ignore employer group insurance. If I buy an individual policy in New York, then move to Florida I cannot take my health insurance policy, and coverage, with me. I have to buy a new policy in Florida. If while covered by insurance in New York I am treated for cancer, when I move to Florida and try to buy insurance the cancer is considered a preexisting condition and may prevent me from purchasing health insurance in Florida. This has nothing to do with me expecting someone else to pay for my health care. I’ve paid for my health care prior to my move and wish to continue paying for my insurance coverage at my new location. The problem is the preexisting condition, which occurred when I was covered by insurance in another state, prevents me from buying insurance based on the way the system is constructed today. The same thing occurs if I lose my job (and employer health care coverage) and become self employed. I am willing to continue to pay the premiums for my existing policy/coverage, but that option ends when Cobra ends.
I suggest a conservative answer to the situation is to permit and encourage a national market for insurance which includes the policy portability which does not exist in our current state regulated market. Along with portability, the health insurance laws should allow employees in group plans to have the option of contracting directly with insurance companies instead of the contract being between the insurance company and the employer. With complete plan portability, the preexisting problem I outlined is eliminated for people who are actually paying into the system. If I lose my job with a company, as long as continue to pay the premium for my policy I still have insurance. If I move from New York to Florida, I do not have to buy a new insurance policy, my existing health insurance policy continues as long as I pay the premium. If I’m hired by a new employer who offers health insurance benefits, the new employer can pay whatever amount per employee its health insurance benefit equates to directly to the company providing my health insurance.
While I agree with you in principle that this isn’t your problem, or my problem, the reality is the elected representatives of the people have decided it is our problem. Unfortunately, given the current makeup of the electorate, if the answer we conservatives provide to every problem debated in the political arena is “too bad”, we are going to see more of our property and liberty taken from us by government. Perhaps it is time for us to engage in the debate by offering practical and real solutions. One reason we lost the healthcare debate is we did not provide alternatives that addressed the issues and concerns raised by the opposition, as well as many citizens, when we had control of Congress and the White House. Once the Democrats captured Congress and the White House they had the opportunity to address the problem in a way that made it our problem.
More national problems, or perceived problems, are going to be addressed by Congress in the near future. They include immigration, college education funding, gun control, the solvency of Social Security and Medicare, and funding the increasing size of government. I’m afraid “too bad” isn’t going to be an acceptable answer to the Democrats and their voters. If “too bad” is all we have to offer, the elected representatives will choose other options and in doing so continue to take our property and infringe on our liberty.
See my response (#44) to isthisnickcool.
In principle I agree with you. Unfortunately, it appears 51% of the American people and the majority our elected representatives do not. I fear if we continue to engage in debate by offering “welcome to the crowd” as our answer, we will continue to lose at the ballot box and suffer the consequences.
“I fear if we continue to engage in debate by offering “welcome to the crowd” as our answer, we will continue to lose at the ballot box and suffer the consequences.”
This was said once too about slavery. I have no right to claim the fruits of other’s labors to fulfill my needs and desires. Nor does anyone else have claim to mine.
It is injust. Perpetuating an injustice to desire ephemeral popularity is a losing cause for team conservative.
I understand everything you said. Maybe health and disability insurance should be open to the same restraints as far as portability as life insurance is. I don’t believe that this should apply to property and casualty lines. I believe that property and casualty lines regulation should stay with the states. Local overview has made for a very stable market in the P&C lines. Unlike health and disability insurance property and casualty insurance is based on localized risk factors such as location, construction, use, etc. while health and disability is based on actuarial experience of human beings. In the latter regard allowing for the pooling of risk across a broader base would allow for better rates.
My view is that the pooling of health and diability policies among a broader base by allowing for multi-state grouping of risks (people) would likely by itself have solved the “health care” issue in the United States.
Your analogy regarding the fire insurance and house rebuilding after a fire is nonsensical. The first fire is not a pre-existing condition once the house is rebuilt. The house is no longer on fire.
As far as the other issues such as college education (I paid for my own and my child) while the answer “too bad” may not be an answer some want to hear my response is “too bad” we have morons in Washington and in the White House passing laws that are unconstitutional. It is also “too bad” that the Supreme Court has lost its mind. Things are what they are and if conservatives must become liberals, meaning we must in the words of Texan Clayton Williams “relax and enjoy it” you can count me out. If the ship is going to sink I prefer not to help it. Actually, I’m not going for along for the ride because there are always ways around obstacles.
I pay my own way as well. My first paying job at age 6 working on a neighbor’s farm for 25 cents a day. I cleaned toilets, dug ditches, threw newspapers, hauled furniture, mowed yards, and painted houses for cash in hand before I was old enough to work my way through college with paycheck jobs and start climbing the corporate ladder. I also paid for the portion of my child’s education she could not cover herself while working during her school years. I’ve never asked anyone or any entity for a hand for me or my family and I never intend to do so.
I also know what it is like to lose a job, lose employer paid health insurance, and not be able to buy health insurance at any price due to preexisting conditions which occurred while insured under an employer plan. Fortunately I saved a enough of my income and to able to pay for my medical care on my own. I’ve also not applied for the Social Security disability payments for which i am eligible because I prefer to be self reliant. I might add that Social Security is an insurance program I was compelled to participate in and into which I have paid the maximum amount for 30 years.
Rightly or wrongly I have the potential to benefit from Obamacare because in 2014 I will be able to purchase the health insurance I’ve been trying to buy but the market will not provide. I might add this is a program to which I am opposed as I believe there are market based health care reforms which should be enacted (such as allowing portability and a national insurance market) and which would lower health care costs while providing options not available today for people to protect themselves from the future risk of being in the pre existing condition insurance dilemma.
So here is my problem. If I claim to be a conservative would you have me stand on principle, refuse to buy health insurance under Obamacare, and then be compelled by the IRS to pay a fine for not having insurance under the law? Or should I buy the health insurance the government will require companies to provide people with pre existing conditions, knowing that this will mean my fellow citizens are being forced by government to “subsidize” my medical care expenses?
If I stand on principle, and continue to pay my own way, my costs go up because the Obamacare law requires me to pay a substantial fine for not being insured. However if I buy insurance available under the law to those with preexisting conditions, my fellow conservatives will consider me to be a chiseler because they are being compelled to subsidize the cost of my medical care. Under the second choice my health care costs will go down substantially so it is certainly in my economic interest to obey the law. Recognize that due to the fine imposed by the government and enforced by the IRS, for not having health insurance, I will no longer have the option of simply continuing to pay my own way and be left alone.
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.