Mitt "No insurance for uninsured with pre-existing conditions"

[NickyJ]

Make health insurance mandatory and you don't have that problem.

Unfortunately, simply telling someone they need health care doesn't erase the cost... If it worked that way, then I could tell someone who scrapes by on minimum wage that having a yacht is mandatory and that would make it affordable to get one.

 

[downtown]

Whatever. The Supreme Court will uphold the healthcare bill anyway.

I highly doubt this, and it looks like the court watchers that have been on CQ and CNN seem to think we're headed towards a 5-4 against.

 

[Yeekim]

If you're going to insist on insurance-based healthcare, then you can't expect insurers to cover pre-existing conditions. That's the whole point of insurance - to insure people against future events. Romney is right: insurance doesn't work if people can rock up to an insurer after their house has blown down, pay $10, then claim for $250,000 of hurricane damage.

Indeed. Reading through the comments felt like people have completely forgotten what "insurance" was once supposed to mean.

 

[Integral]

If you're going to insist on insurance-based healthcare, then you can't expect insurers to cover pre-existing conditions. That's the whole point of insurance - to insure people against future events. Romney is right: insurance doesn't work if people can rock up to an insurer after their house has blown down, pay $10, then claim for $250,000 of hurricane damage.

Mise posts so I don't have to.

 

[kochman]

Before anybody jumps down my throat here, let me give the full context of the quote:

Now, the typical retort to that is that folks have trouble buying insurance when they are "young and healthy", especially if they find themselves underemployed....or if they never have the chance to be young and healthy. This was one of the principle reasons for ObamaCare.

Do you think this is an appropriate stance? If you can't be arsed to buy insurance before you get sick, don't cry to anybody if you can't afford it after you get sick? Short of universal health care (which is a political impossibility), are there other acceptable options?

This is an unfortunate view point he has taken, and definitely makes me not like him.
However...

Make health insurance mandatory and you don't have that problem.

Unconstitutional...
So, someone said... "universal healthcare", which is not unconstitutional...

Our country cannot afford it.

An unfortunate reality...
To which someone said...

What are you, Botswana ?

Yeah. We are racking up over $1T/year in debt... so, let's tack on this before we make any other changes... good idea.
And then someone said...

We easily could. Raise taxes. Cut military spending. Etc

We are already doing that... and guess what, we can't "easily" afford it, because we are looking at a yearly deficit around $1.4T...
If we cut ALL military spending, guess what, we wouldn't have enough.
How much tax raising do you think it would take?
And, who's going to pay it? Under the current system, the middle class, disproportionately. Let's fix the tax code FIRST because we just say... more taxes.

What does it exactly take to amend the constitution or to make extensive changes ?

2/3 of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the states, I believe...

I mean you can't really keep a two hhundred year old document keep you back like that. the founders should have had more foresight to take technological and cultural changes into account.

It has worked for us so far...
There are other solutions than an individual mandate, we have a system like this, which makes it tough to become PERMANENT law, like the Constitution makes things, precisely so we can't flip a switch every couple of minutes...
When issues are big enough, to enough people, they get that change.

The bottom line is, most Americans are currently happy with their HC... and it sucks that people with pre-existing conditions get screwed.
This clearly needs to change, with about 10000000 other items in our system.

It sucks, but blame the politicians... if we weren't earmarking corn subsidies, etc, that could help... but people get re-elected with handouts to their district.
Try getting elected by being the guy that says, I won't get anything extra for our district, that's for those other districts...

 

[El_Machinae]

My post-Mise comment is that we could create an affordable treatment or cure for the condition. This isn't really an outrageous idea, since that's the way science and medicine works. The insurance burden of smallpox has been eliminated. The insurance burden of 'a headache' has been severely eliminated. The burden of high dentist prices plummeted with the advent of toothbrushes.

Help make it easier to fix the pre-existing condition.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

If cardiovascular disease is killing a huge percentage of the population, it's hard to deny that it's something we can collectively fight.

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

What does it exactly take to amend the constitution or to make extensive changes ?
I mean you can't really keep a two hhundred year old document keep you back like that.

Yeah, stupid outdated document.

Casey Anthony is guilty as sin, but we can't retry her because some stupid slaveowners decided double jeopardy is wrong. In fact, that case should never have gone to a jury in the first place. She should have been hanged in the public square upon arrest because it was so obvious. But thanks to a bunch of backwards people, we have that stupid Fourth Amendment.

And look at all the mean things people say about Obama. It should be a crime to criticize the President. Sadly, that law can't happen because we're tied to a backwards document that has freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

the founders should have had more foresight to take technological and cultural changes into account.

OK, you do have a point here. If the Founders had any sense, they would have realized that the world would change in the long run, and they would have implemented a process for amending the Constitution.

 

[peter grimes]

One of the biggest sources of the rise in health costs is that Medicare (the largest single buyer of health services) is NOT ALLOWED to negotiate prices.

Switching to a single payer system brings the cost to government down.

Plus, healthier people - people who are getting preventative care, rather than responsive care - are more productive. They miss work a lot less, which means they are paying more taxes.

Removing the burden of double digit increases in health insurance premiums from businesses allows them to pay a higher wage - and still be more profitable. More money in people's pockets means more demand on Main Street for services and goods - it means economic growth.

 

[Mark1031]

It is not at all that we can't afford it. What we can;t afford is not to have rationally delivered (yes rationed as well) universal health care w/o middlemen and profit motive. WHat is an impossibility is to achieve this in a corrupt corporate oligarichy. It is just politically impossible to do anything, no matter how much it is in the countries interest, that will hurt any industry of sufficient size and this is because of the legalized bribery on which our current system is based.

 

[BvBPL]

Interestingly, Kavanaugh, the lead litigant for the repel of the Affordable Care Act, admitted to Sotomayor in oral arguments yesterday that having a system wherein health care would be provided to all citizens, instead of requiring all citizens to purchase health insurance, would be superior to the current system.

 

[Zelig]

Now, the typical retort to that is that folks have trouble buying insurance when they are "young and healthy", especially if they find themselves underemployed....or if they never have the chance to be young and healthy. This was one of the principle reasons for ObamaCare.

Do you think this is an appropriate stance? If you can't be arsed to buy insurance before you get sick, don't cry to anybody if you can't afford it after you get sick? Short of universal health care (which is a political impossibility), are there other acceptable options?

I feel like people aren't using terms correctly.

Why would an insurance company ever deny coverage to someone? They're really good an analyzing risk. For any medical condition, they should be able to assign a risk and cost appropriately so that they're not losing money.

Our country cannot afford it.

All the evidence points to UHC being cheaper than not providing it. It's a political problem, not an economic one.

If you're going to insist on insurance-based healthcare, then you can't expect insurers to cover pre-existing conditions. That's the whole point of insurance - to insure people against future events. Romney is right: insurance doesn't work if people can rock up to an insurer after their house has blown down, pay $10, then claim for $250,000 of hurricane damage.

Yeah, this is the point I was going to get to eventually.

Insurance is to pool known risk in order to cover unexpected events that you wouldn't be able to afford without pooled known risks. Using the term "insurance" for other purposes is wrong.

Letting people buy medical insurance after they're already ill is like letting people buy car insurance from their smartphone while they're in a collision.

 

[NetGear]

The constitution's due for a change, then.

Yes, I know this is a political impossibility.

Raising tax and providing free service is so much easier. If the politicians don't have the balls to do that then they won't have the balls to push reforms that are much harder

 

[Core Imposter]

I am not going to go out of my way to support Romneyfeller but the crux of the problem is the false belief that we have in America that the rich white government has a magic money tree somewhere that will provide a wonderful life for all if we can just find a way to get at it.

Its almost comic. Free ponies, free ponies, free ponies for all.

 

[Traitorfish]

Maybe if you end the embargo on Cuba they'll share whatever magic money tree that is presumably keeping their UHC system ticking over.

 

[kochman]

Maybe if you end the embargo on Cuba they'll share whatever magic money tree that is presumably keeping their UHC system ticking over.

Or, N Korea... they both seem to be doing so much better than us, and I think UHC is the reason.

 

[timtofly]

The problem is not (not) (having health insurance), the problem is not (having healthcare). As was pointed out insurance is a bet on future calamity. DO we want the government taking on the job of an insurance agency? How big do you think a government can be, before it implodes on itself, without causing drastic inflation?

I hate to say this, but many have relied on the government so long (handouts, subsidies, tax brakes, etc.) that personal responsibility is at an all time low. I am not saying that it does not exist, but it is low. Unless the government can figure out how to bring in money from a source outside of those who rely on the government for almost everything, adding the "gambling" debt of insurance much less it's needed, relative, healthcare itself, it is unconstitutional to put the burden on the taxpayer.

Has Mitt and everyone forgotten that the reason we have insurance, is because no one has the money to afford healthcare in their back pocket? Those who think Mitt is crazy, would you like to pay for the guy who waited too late (did not put away the money) or never did anything irresponsible other than he did not help pay for thousands of irresponsible people who did take more insurance money than they put in?

I think that every one should pay insurance money into the system, as long as they get it back, and no one else benefits from their hard work. The problem is no one has money to put into the system, or people do not trust the system to begin with.

 

[Zelig]

I think that every one should pay insurance money into the system, as long as they get it back, and no one else benefits from their hard work.

That's not what insurance is.

 

[BSmith1068]

I think that every one should pay insurance money into the system, as long as they get it back, and no one else benefits from their hard work. The problem is no one has money to put into the system, or people do not trust the system to begin with.

And right there is the major problem of our society today. We are a selfish lot too blind to see that helping our neighbor in their time of need is the right thing to do. From a moral stand point. From an economic standpoint. From a Christian standpoint. The list goes on.

 

[Traitorfish]

Or, N Korea... they both seem to be doing so much better than us, and I think UHC is the reason.

North Korea doesn't have a universal healthcare system.

 

[Core Imposter]

Maybe if you end the embargo on Cuba they'll share whatever magic money tree that is presumably keeping their UHC system ticking over.

Fish, we can't afford everything. The problem we have is that when people make comments like yours, politicians will just grease your axle.

And this has been going on for years and both parties have done it. Being unable to raise taxes enough to balance the books both parties have just borrowed money.

Now having bumped up to the point of never being able to get out of this huge hole Congress has punted to the Fed where they are keeping the ball in the air with some sort of stealth plan to tax by inflation, which they think they can control, but almost certainly can't.

Its pretty stupid to think that we can raise taxes enough to fix this problem, the inability to raise taxes is one of the reasons we got where we are.

When I say I oppose Obamacare or UHC what I am really saying is "stop the damn spending".

If and when we adopt a constitutional amendment to force the Congress to run a viable fiscal policy, then we can focus on what sort of subsides we can or cannot afford based on a real, sustainable, path forward. Until then, I oppose just about everything that costs anything on the grounds that we can't afford nothing.

And here I lay aside all the valid arguments that clearly show that a government run healthcare system will always be more inefficient that a private system and always be more arbitrary. I lay them aside because even if Obamacare is struck down, we can't afford to sustain Medicare and Medicaid either.

And I also lay aside the finger pointing. This is just a case of going broke. Conservatives are no less concerned about the health needs of the people than anyone else, we are just the one segment of the political spectrum that refuses to continue to fiddle while the fires rage.