On Nov 7, 12:39 am, Jim Brown <jimbrown...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 7, 2:21 am, lein <jan.leine.we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > One of you Democrats need to fill me in on this tidbit from the House > > bill
> > "ban insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the > > basis of pre-existing medical conditions"
> > How does that work? Can I go without insurance, then sign up for > > coverage while being transported in the Ambulance?
> I agree that your example would be a flaw in the system, but you are > trying to present a false choice. Perhaps there might be some middle > ground.
Okay, I have no insurance, I have constant headaches. Go to Doctor on my dime, he thinks I have a brain tumor. Can I then buy insurance?
> On Nov 7, 12:39 am, Jim Brown <jimbrown...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 2:21 am, lein <jan.leine.we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > One of you Democrats need to fill me in on this tidbit from the House > > > bill
> > > "ban insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the > > > basis of pre-existing medical conditions"
> > > How does that work? Can I go without insurance, then sign up for > > > coverage while being transported in the Ambulance?
> > I agree that your example would be a flaw in the system, but you are > > trying to present a false choice. Perhaps there might be some middle > > ground.
> Okay, I have no insurance, I have constant headaches. Go to Doctor on > my dime, he thinks I have a brain tumor. Can I then buy insurance?
Yes. Instead of you/your family getting a double whammy -- you being ill _and_ going bankrupt, you can focus on the illness without the added financial burden. To me, that's a moral issue.
It is paid for because, you and others would have been required to get healthcare coverage, or pay a 2.5 percent tax penalty.
> On Nov 7, 12:39 am, Jim Brown <jimbrown...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 2:21 am, lein <jan.leine.we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > One of you Democrats need to fill me in on this tidbit from the House > > > bill
> > > "ban insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the > > > basis of pre-existing medical conditions"
> > > How does that work? Can I go without insurance, then sign up for > > > coverage while being transported in the Ambulance?
> > I agree that your example would be a flaw in the system, but you are > > trying to present a false choice. Perhaps there might be some middle > > ground.
> Okay, I have no insurance, I have constant headaches. Go to Doctor on > my dime, he thinks I have a brain tumor. Can I then buy insurance?
The type of abuse that you described will happen frequently. As soon as insurers are required to cover pre-existing conditions, they will have to raise their rates to accommodate the increase in risk. I'm guessing that the actuaries have already done their work, and are ready to plug in the new rates. In and of itself, this isn't unfair to the insurance companies, as they'll be happy to handle the increased cash flow. I assume that the requirement would apply to all insurers, so none would have a competitive advantage over the other. The real issue: who pays for the whopper of an increase in premiums? Answer: succeeding generations of suckered American taxpayers.
That sound you're about to hear is a herd of diseased illegal aliens getting ready to stampede across the border for some hope and change, and some medical care. Don't be concerned. Their diversity will enrich our country.
shiite wrote: > On Nov 7, 4:10 am, lein <jan.leine.we...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Nov 7, 12:39 am, Jim Brown <jimbrown...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 7, 2:21 am, lein <jan.leine.we...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> One of you Democrats need to fill me in on this tidbit from the >>>> House bill
>>>> "ban insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the >>>> basis of pre-existing medical conditions"
>>>> How does that work? Can I go without insurance, then sign up for >>>> coverage while being transported in the Ambulance?
>>> I agree that your example would be a flaw in the system, but you are >>> trying to present a false choice. Perhaps there might be some middle >>> ground.
>> Okay, I have no insurance, I have constant headaches. Go to Doctor on >> my dime, he thinks I have a brain tumor. Can I then buy insurance?
> The type of abuse that you described will happen frequently. As soon > as insurers are required to cover pre-existing conditions, they will > have to raise their rates to accommodate the increase in risk. I'm > guessing that the actuaries have already done their work, and are > ready to plug in the new rates. In and of itself, this isn't unfair > to the insurance companies, as they'll be happy to handle the > increased cash flow. I assume that the requirement would apply to all > insurers, so none would have a competitive advantage over the other. > The real issue: who pays for the whopper of an increase in premiums? > Answer: succeeding generations of suckered American taxpayers.
> That sound you're about to hear is a herd of diseased illegal aliens > getting ready to stampede across the border for some hope and change, > and some medical care. Don't be concerned. Their diversity will > enrich our country.
And the new inventions, like the square bottom taco!
rastafarians2...@yahoo.com wrote: > On Nov 7, 1:10 am, lein <jan.leine.we...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Nov 7, 12:39 am, Jim Brown <jimbrown...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 7, 2:21 am, lein <jan.leine.we...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> One of you Democrats need to fill me in on this tidbit from the House >>>> bill >>>> "ban insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the >>>> basis of pre-existing medical conditions" >>>> How does that work? Can I go without insurance, then sign up for >>>> coverage while being transported in the Ambulance? >>> I agree that your example would be a flaw in the system, but you are >>> trying to present a false choice. Perhaps there might be some middle >>> ground. >> Okay, I have no insurance, I have constant headaches. Go to Doctor on >> my dime, he thinks I have a brain tumor. Can I then buy insurance?
> Yes. Instead of you/your family getting a double whammy -- you being > ill _and_ going bankrupt, you can focus on the illness without the > added financial burden. To me, that's a moral issue.
> It is paid for because, you and others would have been required to get > healthcare coverage, or pay a 2.5 percent tax penalty.
so what the insurance mandate amounts to is compelling others to pay for your moral inability to deny treatment to someone who is sick or wounded?
-- What is liberalism, generally speaking, but an attack on the existing order of things?
> On Nov 7, 1:10 am, lein <jan.leine.we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 12:39 am, Jim Brown <jimbrown...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 7, 2:21 am, lein <jan.leine.we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > One of you Democrats need to fill me in on this tidbit from the House > > > > bill
> > > > "ban insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the > > > > basis of pre-existing medical conditions"
> > > > How does that work? Can I go without insurance, then sign up for > > > > coverage while being transported in the Ambulance?
> > > I agree that your example would be a flaw in the system, but you are > > > trying to present a false choice. Perhaps there might be some middle > > > ground.
> > Okay, I have no insurance, I have constant headaches. Go to Doctor on > > my dime, he thinks I have a brain tumor. Can I then buy insurance?
> Yes. Instead of you/your family getting a double whammy -- you being > ill _and_ going bankrupt, you can focus on the illness without the > added financial burden. To me, that's a moral issue.
I'd rather have beer than insurance. Refusing to buy my own coverage, I'm charged a 2.5% tax penalty. Based on a $10,000 monthly income, that's $250 per month penalty, instead of the minimum $600 per month for insurance premium. That means an additional $350 per month for my beer budget, all because you imposed your morals on my neighbors, requiring THEM to pay 58% of MY obligation for MY health care, while I sit on my porch and drink my beer.
About half of my neighbors are loons. This will make them easier to love.
> On Nov 7, 1:10 am, lein <jan.leine.we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 12:39 am, Jim Brown <jimbrown...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 7, 2:21 am, lein <jan.leine.we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > One of you Democrats need to fill me in on this tidbit from the House > > > > bill
> > > > "ban insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the > > > > basis of pre-existing medical conditions"
> > > > How does that work? Can I go without insurance, then sign up for > > > > coverage while being transported in the Ambulance?
> > > I agree that your example would be a flaw in the system, but you are > > > trying to present a false choice. Perhaps there might be some middle > > > ground.
> > Okay, I have no insurance, I have constant headaches. Go to Doctor on > > my dime, he thinks I have a brain tumor. Can I then buy insurance?
> Yes. Instead of you/your family getting a double whammy -- you being > ill _and_ going bankrupt, you can focus on the illness without the > added financial burden. To me, that's a moral issue.
It's not a moral issue that he wasn't bothering to protect his family and now wants other people to do it for him?
> It is paid for because, you and others would have been required to get > healthcare coverage, or pay a 2.5 percent tax penalty.
> On Nov 7, 1:10 am, lein <jan.leine.we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 12:39 am, Jim Brown <jimbrown...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 7, 2:21 am, lein <jan.leine.we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > One of you Democrats need to fill me in on this tidbit from the House > > > > bill
> > > > "ban insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the > > > > basis of pre-existing medical conditions"
> > > > How does that work? Can I go without insurance, then sign up for > > > > coverage while being transported in the Ambulance?
> > > I agree that your example would be a flaw in the system, but you are > > > trying to present a false choice. Perhaps there might be some middle > > > ground.
> > Okay, I have no insurance, I have constant headaches. Go to Doctor on > > my dime, he thinks I have a brain tumor. Can I then buy insurance?
> Yes. Instead of you/your family getting a double whammy -- you being > ill _and_ going bankrupt, you can focus on the illness without the > added financial burden. To me, that's a moral issue.
Well, accept that really won't happen. The Government will ration care, probably far more and arbitrary than the private sector, so I'll simply mortgage my future and get treated off shore.
> It is paid for because, you and others would have been required to get > healthcare coverage, or pay a 2.5 percent tax penalty.
There's the rub. You are now forcing people to involuntarily purchase goods and services. This is a camel you really don't want no part of, after all, you could easily be forced to purchase a new car every 4 years if the Government deems it necessary to prop up the economy.
> rastafarians2...@yahoo.com wrote: > > On Nov 7, 1:10 am, lein <jan.leine.we...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Nov 7, 12:39 am, Jim Brown <jimbrown...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> On Nov 7, 2:21 am, lein <jan.leine.we...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> One of you Democrats need to fill me in on this tidbit from the House > >>>> bill > >>>> "ban insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the > >>>> basis of pre-existing medical conditions" > >>>> How does that work? Can I go without insurance, then sign up for > >>>> coverage while being transported in the Ambulance? > >>> I agree that your example would be a flaw in the system, but you are > >>> trying to present a false choice. Perhaps there might be some middle > >>> ground. > >> Okay, I have no insurance, I have constant headaches. Go to Doctor on > >> my dime, he thinks I have a brain tumor. Can I then buy insurance?
> > Yes. Instead of you/your family getting a double whammy -- you being > > ill _and_ going bankrupt, you can focus on the illness without the > > added financial burden. To me, that's a moral issue.
> > It is paid for because, you and others would have been required to get > > healthcare coverage, or pay a 2.5 percent tax penalty.
> so what the insurance mandate amounts to is compelling others to pay for > your moral inability to deny treatment to someone who is sick or wounded?
What do you think group insurance does? It spreads the risk for _the insurance company_.
> On Nov 7, 6:19 am, rastafarians2...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 1:10 am, lein <jan.leine.we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 7, 12:39 am, Jim Brown <jimbrown...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 7, 2:21 am, lein <jan.leine.we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > One of you Democrats need to fill me in on this tidbit from the House > > > > > bill
> > > > > "ban insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the > > > > > basis of pre-existing medical conditions"
> > > > > How does that work? Can I go without insurance, then sign up for > > > > > coverage while being transported in the Ambulance?
> > > > I agree that your example would be a flaw in the system, but you are > > > > trying to present a false choice. Perhaps there might be some middle > > > > ground.
> > > Okay, I have no insurance, I have constant headaches. Go to Doctor on > > > my dime, he thinks I have a brain tumor. Can I then buy insurance?
> > Yes. Instead of you/your family getting a double whammy -- you being > > ill _and_ going bankrupt, you can focus on the illness without the > > added financial burden. To me, that's a moral issue.
> It's not a moral issue that he wasn't bothering to protect his family > and now wants other people to do it for him?
Stop forcing me to pay for the cops just because you can't defend your family you big pussy.
lein wrote: >One of you Democrats need to fill me in on this tidbit from the House >bill
>"ban insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the >basis of pre-existing medical conditions"
>How does that work? Can I go without insurance, then sign up for >coverage while being transported in the Ambulance?
"A qualified health benefits plan may not impose any preexisting condition exclusion (as defined in section 2701(b)(1)(A) of the Public Health Service Act) or otherwise impose any limit or condition on the coverage under the plan with respect to an individual or dependent based on any of the following: health status, medical condition, claims experience, receipt of health care, medical history, genetic information, evidence of insurability, disability, or source of injury (including conditions arising out of acts of domestic violence) or any similar factors."
Also, apparently insurance companies cannot charge more to smokers than to nonsmokers; the only modifications allowed to premiums allowed are (a) age (as long as the highest charge is not more than twice as much as the lowest), (b) location ("as permitted by State insurance regulators"), and (c) family discount. Somebody needs to remind Nancy Pelosi what happened in California when Proposition 103 made it illegal to discriminate auto insurance rates based on gender, and what happened to the insurance rates of every family with any teenage girls.
-- Don ___________________________________________________________
Because everybody needs insurance, but not everybody needs a lawyer - THAT'S why
> On Nov 7, 4:59 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
> > rastafarians2...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > On Nov 7, 1:10 am, lein <jan.leine.we...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> On Nov 7, 12:39 am, Jim Brown <jimbrown...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >>> On Nov 7, 2:21 am, lein <jan.leine.we...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>> One of you Democrats need to fill me in on this tidbit from the House > > >>>> bill > > >>>> "ban insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the > > >>>> basis of pre-existing medical conditions" > > >>>> How does that work? Can I go without insurance, then sign up for > > >>>> coverage while being transported in the Ambulance? > > >>> I agree that your example would be a flaw in the system, but you are > > >>> trying to present a false choice. Perhaps there might be some middle > > >>> ground. > > >> Okay, I have no insurance, I have constant headaches. Go to Doctor on > > >> my dime, he thinks I have a brain tumor. Can I then buy insurance?
> > > Yes. Instead of you/your family getting a double whammy -- you being > > > ill _and_ going bankrupt, you can focus on the illness without the > > > added financial burden. To me, that's a moral issue.
> > > It is paid for because, you and others would have been required to get > > > healthcare coverage, or pay a 2.5 percent tax penalty.
> > so what the insurance mandate amounts to is compelling others to pay for > > your moral inability to deny treatment to someone who is sick or wounded?
> What do you think group insurance does? It spreads the risk for _the > insurance company_.
As a group member, I prefer that we don't allow folks who know they're going to suck all the financial resources out of the group's pool to join at the last minute.
Your argument is silly.
There is NOTHING preventing you and all your friends from forming this group w/o the government forcing me to to do it for you.
You know why you don't do it? Because you don't want to pay for it either.
<jan.leine.we...@gmail.com> wrote: >One of you Democrats need to fill me in on this tidbit from the House >bill
>"ban insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the >basis of pre-existing medical conditions"
>How does that work? Can I go without insurance, then sign up for >coverage while being transported in the Ambulance?
I *think* the idea is if everyone is forced to have insurance, then switchng carriers if you are sick is a wash, as each insurance company should have roughly equal people coming and going.
These Democrats are just fucking stupid. The country doesn't want this and they feel they are committed after misinterpreting an electoral mistake for a mandate.
> rastafarians2...@yahoo.com wrote: >> On Nov 7, 1:10 am, lein <jan.leine.we...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Nov 7, 12:39 am, Jim Brown <jimbrown...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 7, 2:21 am, lein <jan.leine.we...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> One of you Democrats need to fill me in on this tidbit from the House >>>>> bill >>>>> "ban insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the >>>>> basis of pre-existing medical conditions" >>>>> How does that work? Can I go without insurance, then sign up for >>>>> coverage while being transported in the Ambulance? >>>> I agree that your example would be a flaw in the system, but you are >>>> trying to present a false choice. Perhaps there might be some middle >>>> ground. >>> Okay, I have no insurance, I have constant headaches. Go to Doctor on >>> my dime, he thinks I have a brain tumor. Can I then buy insurance?
>> Yes. Instead of you/your family getting a double whammy -- you being >> ill _and_ going bankrupt, you can focus on the illness without the >> added financial burden. To me, that's a moral issue.
>> It is paid for because, you and others would have been required to get >> healthcare coverage, or pay a 2.5 percent tax penalty.
> so what the insurance mandate amounts to is compelling others to pay for > your moral inability to deny treatment to someone who is sick or wounded?
Not *my* moral inability to deny treatment to someone who is sick or wounded - our collective societies self determined moral obligation to provide treatment to someone who is sick or wounded.
On Nov 7, 7:19 am, rastafarians2...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Nov 7, 1:10 am, lein <jan.leine.we...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Okay, I have no insurance, I have constant headaches. Go to Doctor on > > my dime, he thinks I have a brain tumor. Can I then buy insurance?
> Yes. Instead of you/your family getting a double whammy -- you being > ill _and_ going bankrupt, you can focus on the illness without the > added financial burden. To me, that's a moral issue.
> It is paid for because, you and others would have been required to get > healthcare coverage, or pay a 2.5 percent tax penalty.
Do know of anyone who went bankrupt because they couldn't pay for treatment for a brain tumor? I'm not saying it never has happened, but I bet it is extremely rare.
-Tom Enright
"We are on strike, we the men of the mind. We are on strike against self-immolation. We are on strike against the creed of unearned rewards and unrewarded duties." -John Galt
> stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote in news:YaeJm.7826$_b5.6148 > @newsfe22.iad:
> > rastafarians2...@yahoo.com wrote: > >> On Nov 7, 1:10 am, lein <jan.leine.we...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Nov 7, 12:39 am, Jim Brown <jimbrown...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Nov 7, 2:21 am, lein <jan.leine.we...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> One of you Democrats need to fill me in on this tidbit from the > House > >>>>> bill > >>>>> "ban insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the > >>>>> basis of pre-existing medical conditions" > >>>>> How does that work? Can I go without insurance, then sign up for > >>>>> coverage while being transported in the Ambulance? > >>>> I agree that your example would be a flaw in the system, but you are > >>>> trying to present a false choice. Perhaps there might be some > middle > >>>> ground. > >>> Okay, I have no insurance, I have constant headaches. Go to Doctor > on > >>> my dime, he thinks I have a brain tumor. Can I then buy insurance?
> >> Yes. Instead of you/your family getting a double whammy -- you being > >> ill _and_ going bankrupt, you can focus on the illness without the > >> added financial burden. To me, that's a moral issue.
> >> It is paid for because, you and others would have been required to get > >> healthcare coverage, or pay a 2.5 percent tax penalty.
> > so what the insurance mandate amounts to is compelling others to pay > for > > your moral inability to deny treatment to someone who is sick or > wounded?
> Not *my* moral inability to deny treatment to someone who is sick or > wounded - our collective societies self determined moral obligation to > provide treatment to someone who is sick or wounded.
Just our collective society's self-determined moral obligation to ban abortion.
<the_andrew_sm...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Nov 7, 10:59 am, rastafarians2...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 4:59 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
> > > rastafarians2...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > On Nov 7, 1:10 am, lein <jan.leine.we...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Nov 7, 12:39 am, Jim Brown <jimbrown...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >>> On Nov 7, 2:21 am, lein <jan.leine.we...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>>> One of you Democrats need to fill me in on this tidbit from the House > > > >>>> bill > > > >>>> "ban insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the > > > >>>> basis of pre-existing medical conditions" > > > >>>> How does that work? Can I go without insurance, then sign up for > > > >>>> coverage while being transported in the Ambulance? > > > >>> I agree that your example would be a flaw in the system, but you are > > > >>> trying to present a false choice. Perhaps there might be some middle > > > >>> ground. > > > >> Okay, I have no insurance, I have constant headaches. Go to Doctor on > > > >> my dime, he thinks I have a brain tumor. Can I then buy insurance?
> > > > Yes. Instead of you/your family getting a double whammy -- you being > > > > ill _and_ going bankrupt, you can focus on the illness without the > > > > added financial burden. To me, that's a moral issue.
> > > > It is paid for because, you and others would have been required to get > > > > healthcare coverage, or pay a 2.5 percent tax penalty.
> > > so what the insurance mandate amounts to is compelling others to pay for > > > your moral inability to deny treatment to someone who is sick or wounded?
> > What do you think group insurance does? It spreads the risk for _the > > insurance company_.
> As a group member, I prefer that we don't allow folks who know they're > going to suck all the financial resources out of the group's pool to > join at the last minute.
> Your argument is silly.
> There is NOTHING preventing you and all your friends from forming this > group w/o the government forcing me to to do it for you.
> You know why you don't do it? Because you don't want to pay for it > either.
<freddy_ha...@yahoo.com> wrote: >On Nov 7, 7:19 am, rastafarians2...@yahoo.com wrote: >> On Nov 7, 1:10 am, lein <jan.leine.we...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Okay, I have no insurance, I have constant headaches. Go to Doctor on >> > my dime, he thinks I have a brain tumor. Can I then buy insurance?
>> Yes. Instead of you/your family getting a double whammy -- you being >> ill _and_ going bankrupt, you can focus on the illness without the >> added financial burden. To me, that's a moral issue.
>> It is paid for because, you and others would have been required to get >> healthcare coverage, or pay a 2.5 percent tax penalty.
>Do know of anyone who went bankrupt because they couldn't pay for >treatment for a brain tumor? I'm not saying it never has happened, >but I bet it is extremely rare.
>-Tom Enright
Neorologic issues are the most expensive in medical bankruptcies:
> On Nov 7, 4:19 am, rastafarians2...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 1:10 am, lein <jan.leine.we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 7, 12:39 am, Jim Brown <jimbrown...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 7, 2:21 am, lein <jan.leine.we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > One of you Democrats need to fill me in on this tidbit from the House > > > > > bill
> > > > > "ban insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the > > > > > basis of pre-existing medical conditions"
> > > > > How does that work? Can I go without insurance, then sign up for > > > > > coverage while being transported in the Ambulance?
> > > > I agree that your example would be a flaw in the system, but you are > > > > trying to present a false choice. Perhaps there might be some middle > > > > ground.
> > > Okay, I have no insurance, I have constant headaches. Go to Doctor on > > > my dime, he thinks I have a brain tumor. Can I then buy insurance?
> > Yes. Instead of you/your family getting a double whammy -- you being > > ill _and_ going bankrupt, you can focus on the illness without the > > added financial burden. To me, that's a moral issue.
> Well, accept that really won't happen. The Government will ration > care, probably far more and arbitrary than the private sector, so I'll > simply mortgage my future and get treated off shore.
> > It is paid for because, you and others would have been required to get > > healthcare coverage, or pay a 2.5 percent tax penalty.
> There's the rub. You are now forcing people to involuntarily > purchase goods and services. This is a camel you really don't want > no part of, after all, you could easily be forced to purchase a new > car every 4 years if the Government deems it necessary to prop up the > economy.
Car insurance has been mandatory for decades, yet somehow we've managed to avoid this slippery slope you are trying to imply.
> On Nov 7, 7:19 am, rastafarians2...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 1:10 am, lein <jan.leine.we...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Okay, I have no insurance, I have constant headaches. Go to Doctor on > > > my dime, he thinks I have a brain tumor. Can I then buy insurance?
> > Yes. Instead of you/your family getting a double whammy -- you being > > ill _and_ going bankrupt, you can focus on the illness without the > > added financial burden. To me, that's a moral issue.
> > It is paid for because, you and others would have been required to get > > healthcare coverage, or pay a 2.5 percent tax penalty.
> Do know of anyone who went bankrupt because they couldn't pay for > treatment for a brain tumor? I'm not saying it never has happened, > but I bet it is extremely rare.
Not sure of what you're getting at here but a large % of bankrupcy claims are because of health care.
|
