PDA

View Full Version : Should insurance companies be required to accept those with pre-existing conditions?



Wei Wu Wei
01-18-2010, 04:58 PM
Or do you think Big Government should get out of regulating the free market industry with Washington Bureaucrats?

Nubs
01-18-2010, 07:13 PM
If you do not let your health insurance lapse, you do not have pre existing conditions.

Why not allow me to buy flood insurance after my house floods?

Better yet, in blackjack, let me see my hand and the dealers hand, then I will decide if and how much I want to bet.

Constitutionally Speaking
01-18-2010, 07:34 PM
Or do you think Big Government should get out of regulating the free market industry with Washington Bureaucrats?


The government has no business here.

PoliCon
01-18-2010, 07:35 PM
If you do not let your health insurance lapse, you do not have pre existing conditions.

Why not allow me to buy flood insurance after my house floods?

Better yet, in blackjack, let me see my hand and the dealers hand, then I will decide if and how much I want to bet.

I've never understood why a home owners policy will cover if your wife backs the car through your living-room - but not if you get flooded. They should cover acts of God not acts of stupidity!

Wei Wu Wei
01-18-2010, 08:10 PM
If you do not let your health insurance lapse, you do not have pre existing conditions.

Why not allow me to buy flood insurance after my house floods?

Better yet, in blackjack, let me see my hand and the dealers hand, then I will decide if and how much I want to bet.

Things like acne and conditions that the patient didn't even know they have are counted as pre-existing conditions.



So we should not require insurance companies to offer coverage to those people?

Constitutionally Speaking
01-18-2010, 09:39 PM
Things like acne and conditions that the patient didn't even know they have are counted as pre-existing conditions.



So we should not require insurance companies to offer coverage to those people?


Those are very rare exceptions and can be dealt with via the court system. Why should we destroy something that nearly 80% of the people like and instead trade it for something that less than 40% want???

Rockntractor
01-18-2010, 09:50 PM
Things like acne and conditions that the patient didn't even know they have are counted as pre-existing conditions.



So we should not require insurance companies to offer coverage to those people?

WASHINGTON - One of President Barack Obama's health care "horror stories" is about a woman who, he says, lost her health insurance on the verge of breast cancer surgery because she didn't disclose a case of acne to the insurer. That's not what happened.
read more>http://www.startribune.com/62672512.html?elr=KArks7PYDiaK7DUvDE7aL_V_BD77:Dii Ueyc+D3aUUr

swirling_vortex
01-18-2010, 10:06 PM
The root of the problem comes from how we treat insurance. For instance, when I go to get my car inspected, do I immediately contact my car insurance company and have them pay for it? No. If something needs to be repaired on the house, do I get money from my home owner's insurance? No. The problem though is that leftists over the years have decided that health insurance should be instead treated as a free handout, so as a result we end up having all of these regulations and restrictions put in place. Then, when the modified systems stifles competition and raises prices, we see what our system has involved to. Adding more regulation won't fix the issue. Insurance should be treated for catastrophic things that would cost a lot of money, not for the routine checkup.

lacarnut
01-18-2010, 10:14 PM
read more>http://www.startribune.com/62672512.html?elr=KArks7PYDiaK7DUvDE7aL_V_BD77:Dii Ueyc+D3aUUr

You mean to tell me that Obama lies. Sweet jumping shit Jehovah. Maybe WE WE can come up another story that will register higher on the bong meter.

Rockntractor
01-18-2010, 10:17 PM
You mean to tell me that Obama lies. Sweet jumping shit Jehovah. Maybe WE WE can come up another story that will register higher on the bong meter.

I know what you mean, I was shocked too!:D

lacarnut
01-18-2010, 10:22 PM
I know what you mean, I was shocked too!:D

The Magic Negro's lies pale compared to most politicians. This POS reminds me of my ex BIL who would rather lie than tell the truth even when the truth sounded better.

Articulate_Ape
01-19-2010, 02:11 AM
Insurance companies should be required to accept you regardless of pre-existing conditions, but they should also be allowed to charge you accordingly, just like any insurance that has to calculate risk.

AmPat
01-19-2010, 11:13 AM
Should insurance companies be required to accept those with pre-existing conditions? NO!This is one of the DUmbest of the hundreds of stupid things to come out of the O Blah Blah's mouth. What if you owned a car insurance business and were forced to accept anyone who just wrecked their car? Would you be in business long with the same premiums? NO. Either you would go out of business or raise you prices to make up for the losses. Those cost are picked up by TAXPAYERS. I'm not responsible for insuring my neighbors car and I sure don't want to insure half of downtown Denver.

AmPat
01-19-2010, 11:16 AM
Insurance companies should be required to accept you regardless of pre-existing conditions, but they should also be allowed to charge you accordingly, just like any insurance that has to calculate risk.

I disagree. If you are uninsurable in the auto world by mainline insurers, you have to go to high risk insurers and pay higher prices. Let the market decide and the market will respond. Private companies should not be strong armed by the gov't into doing what is against their interests. Look how well it worked out in the housing industry.

lacarnut
01-19-2010, 11:28 AM
I disagree. If you are uninsurable in the auto world by mainline insurers, you have to go to high risk insurers and pay higher prices. Let the market decide and the market will respond. Private companies should not be strong armed by the gov't into doing what is against their interests. Look how well it worked out in the housing industry.

True. However, there should be some mechanism that high risk individuals could buy catastrophic care health insurance. The government forcing insurance companies to insure them is a bad idea. This notion that health care is a right is a crock of horse shit.

Wei Wu Wei
01-20-2010, 12:48 AM
So you guys all believe that there should be no insurance reform? No requiring companies to insure those with pre-existing conditions, reducing regulations so that they can charge whatever they like in whatever way maximizes their profits?

No health care reform?

Wei Wu Wei
01-20-2010, 12:49 AM
I always hear about "the majority of Americans want health care reform, they want pre-existing conditions to not be a denial factor, ect. ect. BUT THEY DON'T WANT BIG GOVERNMENT GTTING IN THE WAY".

It doesn't make sense to me, but if you guys are being consistent enough then I understand if you disagree with the idea of insurance reform at all.

Rockntractor
01-20-2010, 12:58 AM
Stopping frivolous litigation would be a good place to start! That costs everyone money that uses the health care system.

Jfor
01-20-2010, 01:04 AM
So you guys all believe that there should be no insurance reform? No requiring companies to insure those with pre-existing conditions, reducing regulations so that they can charge whatever they like in whatever way maximizes their profits?

No health care reform?

Not real sure why you are wanting preexisting conditions forced upon insurance companies. If somebody has degenerative heart disease and they cancel their say, United Health Insurance to go to Blue Cross Blue Shield, why should BCBS be forced to accept them? If they do accept them, not only will they pay higher costs for health insurance and bitch about it, but any illness that is remotely connected to degenerative heart failure will be denied coverage. If BCBS is forced to accept somebody like that, MY rates will go up because that one person is a greater risk for the insurance company.

Wei Wu Wei
01-20-2010, 01:35 AM
I don't think forcing preexisting conditions is necessary or even good. If they just offered a good robust public option which allowed for pre-existing conditions then they could let the private companies do whatever they like. No need to force anything out of them.

AlmostThere
01-20-2010, 01:47 AM
Things like acne and conditions that the patient didn't even know they have are counted as pre-existing conditions.



So we should not require insurance companies to offer coverage to those people?

Of course. We should also require grocery stores and car dealers, hell, every retailer, to only charge whatever the customer wants to pay. Just because they're in business doesn't give them the right to treat it like they're in business. Right? :rolleyes:

Insurances companies aren't our mama's. They are people in business to make a profit for their shareholders. They aren't charitable organizations, they are businesses. If your goal is to destroy private health insurance, by all means require them to cover any and everything.

Wei Wu Wei
01-20-2010, 01:52 AM
So they are a business, and thier primary goal as a business is to make profits for their shareholders.

That's fair enough.

Do you think though, that the richest country in the world should offer a non-profit system who's primary goal is to provide health insurance and/or healthcare to people?

After all, we have police and fire stations and postal services that do those things.

Let the businesses run their business, let public service organizations provide public service, yes?

Or should we only follow strictly private industry, and perhaps privatize the police and fire stations as well?

lacarnut
01-20-2010, 01:57 AM
I don't think forcing preexisting conditions is necessary or even good. If they just offered a good robust public option which allowed for pre-existing conditions then they could let the private companies do whatever they like. No need to force anything out of them.

You can move your ass to Canada or to the EU and get the public option; the majority of Americans like what they have and do not want the public option. FYI, a government run public option would eventually run private companies out of business because the competitive edge of the government would know no bounds with the infusion of money/regulations and controls . If you are too stupid to realize that, I can not help you. Marcia Coakley just got the piss stomped out her cause she supported this abomination of a health care bill.

Health care needs to be reformed but government take over will wind up increasing the cost and lowering the quality of care. This is a FACT. READ THE BILL.

Wei Wu Wei
01-20-2010, 01:59 AM
If you believe that private industry cannot compete with a government run public option how do you explain private postal services that compete just fine against USPS?

How do you explain private mercenary organizations that compete against the US Military?

Jfor
01-20-2010, 02:04 AM
If you believe that private industry cannot compete with a government run public option how do you explain private postal services that compete just fine against USPS?

How do you explain private mercenary organizations that compete against the US Military?

Answer to first question- The postal service is bankrupt. Fedex and UPS are not. FedEx and UPS are not allowed to deliver first class mail to mailboxes. if they did, then the USPS would be non-existant. If you want to make that comparison then go ahead, but you will have already conceded that a public healthcare option is doomed to fail no matter how much money you throw at it.

Answer to second question - PMC's (Private Military Contractor) do NOT compete against the US military. You are very stupid to even think that they do. So your second question is also without merit.

lacarnut
01-20-2010, 02:13 AM
If you believe that private industry cannot compete with a government run public option how do you explain private postal services that compete just fine against USPS?

How do you explain private mercenary organizations that compete against the US Military?

First of all, lets stick with health care instead of jumping from one thing to another. You provide us with an article that is bogus about someone being denied care on the basis of acne. Are you with me so far? So that was an outright LIE.

I will play your little game this one time. The postal service raises rates every year because the government is inefficient. In other words, they could not run a whore house and make a profit. A private company goes out of business if they can not make a profit. I assume you have never taken a course in governmental accounting. In fact, the IRS would prosecute a private corporation for not using GAAP.

Jfor
01-20-2010, 02:26 AM
First of all, lets stick with health care instead of jumping from one thing to another. You provide us with an article that is bogus about someone being denied care on the basis of acne. Are you with me so far? So that was an outright LIE.

I will play your little game this one time. The postal service raises rates every year because the government is inefficient. In other words, they could not run a whore house and make a profit. A private company goes out of business if they can not make a profit. I assume you have never taken a course in governmental accounting. In fact, the IRS would prosecute a private corporation for not using GAAP.

I got another one for ya. Amtrak. Has never been profitable. Yet the .gov keeps giving it more and more money. Instead of closing down routes that make NO money. They leave them open because the few people who ride them would be SOL.

Jfor
01-20-2010, 02:28 AM
Come on Wee Wee, you're still online. Why don't you come back to your threads? Or are you asking your parents how you should respond? One day, when you grow up and get out in the real world, you will learn that nothing is free and everything that is free comes with a price tag.

NJCardFan
01-20-2010, 10:05 AM
I always hear about "the majority of Americans want health care reform, they want pre-existing conditions to not be a denial factor, ect. ect. BUT THEY DON'T WANT BIG GOVERNMENT GTTING IN THE WAY".

It doesn't make sense to me, but if you guys are being consistent enough then I understand if you disagree with the idea of insurance reform at all.
Let me flip this around to you. You own an insurance agency. You're forte is auto insurance. Mr. Jones comes in and wants to purchase a policy. You give him one and collect whatever it cost, say $2000 for everything(liability/comp&collision). He smiles, shakes your hand, then tells you that he just totaled his $30,000 Porsche and wants to collect on the insurance. How happy are you going to be.


If you believe that private industry cannot compete with a government run public option how do you explain private postal services that compete just fine against USPS?

How do you explain private mercenary organizations that compete against the US Military?

Holy crap, how old are you? Also, there are no private postal services. I don't have an option as to who delivers my mail. I do, however, have an option as to who delivers my packages and wanna know what? The better more reliable service costs more. If I need something that absolutely positively has to be there overnight, I call Fed Ex. If I just need something delivered for a few bucks, I go USPS. It's that simple.

Wei Wu Wei
01-21-2010, 07:28 PM
Answer to first question- The postal service is bankrupt. Fedex and UPS are not. FedEx and UPS are not allowed to deliver first class mail to mailboxes. if they did, then the USPS would be non-existant. If you want to make that comparison then go ahead, but you will have already conceded that a public healthcare option is doomed to fail no matter how much money you throw at it.

Answer to second question - PMC's (Private Military Contractor) do NOT compete against the US military. You are very stupid to even think that they do. So your second question is also without merit.

The postal service still does it's job, it still works for us. Also just because it is a government service doesn't make it the inherent reality of all potential government services.

The military is a government service. So are police and fire departments and so on.

Does your devotion to fundamentalist free market theory conclude that we should privatize those services?

There's no such thing as a real free market, no one is naive enough to believe that. The question isn't whether the government should intervene within the "sphere of the free market", it's what kind of government intervention would work best.

So why wouldn't a system that works as efficiently as a european system, at a fraction of the cost that our current system is, and that provides completely affordable health care to everyone be a good idea? Other than violating idealistic capitalist principals of course.

Wei Wu Wei
01-21-2010, 07:34 PM
Let me flip this around to you. You own an insurance agency. You're forte is auto insurance. Mr. Jones comes in and wants to purchase a policy. You give him one and collect whatever it cost, say $2000 for everything(liability/comp&collision). He smiles, shakes your hand, then tells you that he just totaled his $30,000 Porsche and wants to collect on the insurance. How happy are you going to be.

Yes I'm aware that insurance companies want to maximize their profits, that's the whole point. They will do their best to reduce the amount of payouts to increase their profits.

While I understand that it is perfectly legitimate to let them do that within the philosophy of capitalism, we also need to realize it's perfectly legitimate to sell drugs, child porn, or offer your own "private police service" or "sex service" under capitalist philosophy.

Our society has decided it's best that those things are not to be left to freely thrive in the free market (where demand exists for them all) for various reasons.

Do you believe that those should be freely left alone in the free market? Or do you believe that our society allows us to (through government regulation) restrict the boundaries of the free market for the benefit of the people?

If those things are not in the realm of the free market, why does the Right insist that health care should be?

coach
01-21-2010, 07:42 PM
So they are a business, and thier primary goal as a business is to make profits for their shareholders.

That's fair enough.

Do you think though, that the richest country in the world should offer a non-profit system who's primary goal is to provide health insurance and/or healthcare to people?

After all, we have police and fire stations and postal services that do those things.

Let the businesses run their business, let public service organizations provide public service, yes?

Or should we only follow strictly private industry, and perhaps privatize the police and fire stations as well?


No, the country has no constitutional authority to be in the healthcare business.
Medical care is not a public service, its a business.

lacarnut
01-21-2010, 07:44 PM
The postal service still does it's job, it still works for us. Also just because it is a government service doesn't make it the inherent reality of all potential government services.

The military is a government service. So are police and fire departments and so on.

Does your devotion to fundamentalist free market theory conclude that we should privatize those services?

There's no such thing as a real free market, no one is naive enough to believe that. The question isn't whether the government should intervene within the "sphere of the free market", it's what kind of government intervention would work best.

So why wouldn't a system that works as efficiently as a european system, at a fraction of the cost that our current system is, and that provides completely affordable health care to everyone be a good idea? Other than violating idealistic capitalist principals of course.

Why don't you move to EU and let us know how it works for you.

My insurance plan is a free market system plan. I can call up any doctor and get an appointment within a couple of days. I can schedule an operation at any hospitial in the US within a week. Can EU system compete with my plan? Not no but hell NO. BTW, taxes in those EU countries are much higher in order to pay for that so called free medical service. So, it ain't free and I do not want the government to take 70% of my income. Like I said, the government can not run a whore house efficiently. Once you understand that fact, then you can comprehend that governmental health care will be more expensive, care will be rationed, will result in fewer doctors and will result in longer waits to get health care.

Wei Wu Wei
01-21-2010, 07:44 PM
Come on Wee Wee, you're still online. Why don't you come back to your threads? Or are you asking your parents how you should respond? One day, when you grow up and get out in the real world, you will learn that nothing is free and everything that is free comes with a price tag.

I can't post all day because I have a job.

Rockntractor
01-21-2010, 07:45 PM
Yes I'm aware that insurance companies want to maximize their profits, that's the whole point. They will do their best to reduce the amount of payouts to increase their profits.

While I understand that it is perfectly legitimate to let them do that within the philosophy of capitalism, we also need to realize it's perfectly legitimate to sell drugs, child porn, or offer your own "private police service" or "sex service" under capitalist philosophy.

Our society has decided it's best that those things are not to be left to freely thrive in the free market (where demand exists for them all) for various reasons.

Do you believe that those should be freely left alone in the free market? Or do you believe that our society allows us to (through government regulation) restrict the boundaries of the free market for the benefit of the people?

If those things are not in the realm of the free market, why does the Right insist that health care should be?

You did not address the question New jersey put to you , try again!:rolleyes:

Big Guy
01-21-2010, 07:45 PM
So they are a business, and thier primary goal as a business is to make profits for their shareholders.

That's fair enough.

Do you think though, that the richest country in the world should offer a non-profit system who's primary goal is to provide health insurance and/or healthcare to people?

After all, we have police and fire stations and postal services that do those things.

Let the businesses run their business, let public service organizations provide public service, yes?

Or should we only follow strictly private industry, and perhaps privatize the police and fire stations as well?

Not the most original argument I have ever heard.

You and your kind take health care reform to the extereme. Health care reform is needed, I don't believe there is anyone her that would not agree to help those who CAN NOT help them selves. They DO however have an issue with just giving out hand outs to the deadbeats.

The Constitution calls for a Postal Service, so it can not be privatized.

Some things should not be privatized, Police, Fire and EMERGENCY medical services included.

You DUmbasses need to stop playing the friggin word game, grow up and get friggin real.

Wei Wu Wei
01-21-2010, 07:50 PM
No, the country has no constitutional authority to be in the healthcare business.
Medical care is not a public service, its a business.

You're simply stating what I said except without all of the substance.

Yes medical care is a business, that was what I started with.

The question is "why?"

Obviously we have rules which restrict the domain of business (which is why you cannot sell heroin or child porn or police service or sex).

You're simply stating the current state of things as if you were stating some sort of abstract yet absolute "rule".

If the government can restrict the free market, and the government is representative of the people, why shouldn't the people be able to use the government to restrict the free market from health care?

Wei Wu Wei
01-21-2010, 07:53 PM
No, the country has no constitutional authority to be in the healthcare business.
Medical care is not a public service, its a business.

Show me where in the constitution it says that corporations have the authority to be in the healthcare business (remember, if we are accepting the "non-living" constitution you cannot assume the supreme court ruling that corporations are "people", as that was after the constitution was written)

Rockntractor
01-21-2010, 07:54 PM
You're simply stating what I said except without all of the substance.

Yes medical care is a business, that was what I started with.

The question is "why?"

Obviously we have rules which restrict the domain of business (which is why you cannot sell heroin or child porn or police service or sex).

You're simply stating the current state of things as if you were stating some sort of abstract yet absolute "rule".

If the government can restrict the free market, and the government is representative of the people, why shouldn't the people be able to use the government to restrict the free market from health care?

Slow down son you are looking like a fool. You can't compare health care to selling child porn and heroin. Put the bong down and think before you post!

Rockntractor
01-21-2010, 07:56 PM
Show me where in the constitution it says that corporations have the authority to be in the healthcare business (remember, if we are accepting the "non-living" constitution you cannot assume the supreme court ruling that corporations are "people", as that was after the constitution was written)
Your not making any sense! What is the matter?

Wei Wu Wei
01-21-2010, 07:56 PM
Some things should not be privatized, Police, Fire and EMERGENCY medical services included.

Why? Authentic capitalism should be unrestricted. If you think these things shouldn't be privatized, then you allow for an exception and restriction of the "complete free market".

If we allow for some restriction for the good of society, why shouldn't health care be considered?

Rockntractor
01-21-2010, 08:00 PM
Police and fire by their very nature are government! Should we privatise the mayor and city council too? Your babbling like an idiot, You weren't doing that when you first joined.

Wei Wu Wei
01-21-2010, 08:00 PM
Slow down son you are looking like a fool. You can't compare health care to selling child porn and heroin. Put the bong down and think before you post!

You're using "compare" in this post as if it were the word "equate", in which case I was not.

Forget the health care for a moment, why are child porn and heroin illegal to sell? Do you not believe in the totally free market? Do you believe that *some* restriction on the free market is necessary for our society?

If you believe that, you cannot use fundamentalist capitalism arguments against government-run health care.

We can, through the government, restrict the free market for society's benefit. Why is health care not an option in that regard?

Wei Wu Wei
01-21-2010, 08:04 PM
Police and fire by their very nature are government! Should we privatise the mayor and city council too? Your babbling like an idiot, You weren't doing that when you first joined.

No they are not. This is exactly how ideology works. It gets you to accept the current state of things as "natural".

The LAW is government, we are a nation of LAWS, not a nation of police. The police are just enforcers of law, they work with it, but this doesn't mean they are inherently government. Attorneys and even some prisons are private even though they work under the law.

Why can we not have privatized police who enforce the (neutral) law? That's perfectly legitimate in capitalism and a nation of laws.

Big Guy
01-21-2010, 08:04 PM
Why? Authentic capitalism should be unrestricted. If you think these things shouldn't be privatized, then you allow for an exception and restriction of the "complete free market".

If we allow for some restriction for the good of society, why shouldn't health care be considered?

Idiot's argue for the sake of arguement.

BadCat
01-21-2010, 08:04 PM
You're using "compare" in this post as if it were the word "equate", in which case I was not.

Forget the health care for a moment, why are child porn and heroin illegal to sell? Do you not believe in the totally free market? Do you believe that *some* restriction on the free market is necessary for our society?

If you believe that, you cannot use fundamentalist capitalism arguments against government-run health care.

We can, through the government, restrict the free market for society's benefit. Why is health care not an option in that regard?

Because I don't care if you live or die, are sick or well. So I don't want to PAY for YOUR health care.
You want health care? BUY IT YOURSELF.

Rockntractor
01-21-2010, 08:05 PM
You're using "compare" in this post as if it were the word "equate", in which case I was not.

Forget the health care for a moment, why are child porn and heroin illegal to sell? Do you not believe in the totally free market? Do you believe that *some* restriction on the free market is necessary for our society?

If you believe that, you cannot use fundamentalist capitalism arguments against government-run health care.

We can, through the government, restrict the free market for society's benefit. Why is health care not an option in that regard?
Son your not comparing apples to apples and your argument as you have put it is unanswerable gibberish. Slow down and think about what your saying here. Your not a troll, your just a liberal kid and this is a good place to learn slow down and read and think.

Wei Wu Wei
01-21-2010, 08:06 PM
Because I don't care if you live or die, are sick or well. So I don't want to PAY for YOUR health care.
You want health care? BUY IT YOURSELF.

Yeah well I don't want to PAY for YOUR fire service so if your house catches fire BETTER HAVE YOUR CREDIT CARD HANDY!

Constitutionally Speaking
01-21-2010, 08:09 PM
If you believe that private industry cannot compete with a government run public option how do you explain private postal services that compete just fine against USPS?

How do you explain private mercenary organizations that compete against the US Military?


They DON'T compete directly and this is NOT the situation that health care will be set up like.

The Healthcare bill will literally require the health insurance companies to PAY for the government option.

Think of it as if you owned a fruit stand. You must pay full price for your fruit and then charge your customers accordingly. In addition you must provide the fruit to your new competitor (the government)!!! The government does not have to pay for their fruit - because they effectively stole it from you. Because they have much lower costs (you paid for their inventory after all), they can undercut your price.

THAT is what this health care plan (with a govt. option) would do.

Wei Wu Wei
01-21-2010, 08:09 PM
Son your not comparing apples to apples and your argument as you have put it is unanswerable gibberish. Slow down and think about what your saying here. Your not a troll, your just a liberal kid and this is a good place to learn slow down and read and think.

I'm understanding, re-articulating, and responding to your arguments just well. You see my arguments as "unanswerable gibberish" and I'm the one who needs to slow down and think?

The mind rejects the limits of the ideology which sustains it as "evil, stupid, boring, or simply meaningless".

Constitutionally Speaking
01-21-2010, 08:13 PM
Show me where in the constitution it says that corporations have the authority to be in the healthcare business (remember, if we are accepting the "non-living" constitution you cannot assume the supreme court ruling that corporations are "people", as that was after the constitution was written)


Read the tenth amendment.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. "



You also GROSSLY misread the purpose of the Constitution. It was intended to define and LIMIT the power of the FEDERAL government. The fact you think it limits corporations is laughable - IF it were not so indicative of a dangerous lack of education on our country's founding document.


The supreme court merely confirmed the existing default in the ruling you cite. Corporations are nothing except groups of people. The "legal entity" ruling you cite is actually irrelevant and allows them to be taxed and sued in a court of law.

Wei Wu Wei
01-21-2010, 08:21 PM
Read the tenth amendment.

The supreme court merely confirmed the existing default in the ruling you cite. Corporations are nothing except groups of people. The "legal entity" ruling you cite is actually irrelevant and allows them to be taxed and sued in a court of law.

Yes this is why I specified this in my post:


(remember, if we are accepting the "non-living" constitution you cannot assume the supreme court ruling that corporations are "people", as that was after the constitution was written)

If you, like the majority of the political Right, do not believe in active "living" interpretation of the constitution, then you cannot count a corporation as a "person", as that ruling came far later. The founders intended for the rights to be in the hands of the actual people, not corporate entities. So corporations actually have no authority given directly by the constitution.

Humans do, though. One of our rights as the people is to suggest new laws, including new government services and regulations (like the people who check to make sure your food is clean to eat).

The government doesn't automatically have the right to regulate health care, but we the people can give it that authority just like we gave it the authority to regulate drugs, airspace, ect.

Gingersnap
01-21-2010, 08:27 PM
So you guys all believe that there should be no insurance reform? No requiring companies to insure those with pre-existing conditions, reducing regulations so that they can charge whatever they like in whatever way maximizes their profits?

No health care reform?

We're actually all about health care reform; just not the type of reform presented by progressive Democrats.

I can't speak for all conservatives but I'd like to see this:

Abolish the interstate commerce restrictions on insurance companies. If some company in Rhode Island has a deal that appeals to me, they don't need to kow tow to my state legislature to offer it to me.

Institute real tort reform. While some malpractice cases are completely legitimate, most aren't. The people simply don't understand the limitations of medical science. These cases result in a huge amount of needless testing and they drive up the cost of doing business in specialty practices like obstetrics.

Make it easy to invest in HSAs without tax penalties and with yearly rollovers. Make these instruments attached to the person - not the job.

These things would be a good start. Truly indigent people are already covered by Medicaid if they would apply (many don't).

coach
01-21-2010, 08:34 PM
You're simply stating what I said except without all of the substance.

Yes medical care is a business, that was what I started with.

The question is "why?"

Obviously we have rules which restrict the domain of business (which is why you cannot sell heroin or child porn or police service or sex).

You're simply stating the current state of things as if you were stating some sort of abstract yet absolute "rule".

If the government can restrict the free market, and the government is representative of the people, why shouldn't the people be able to use the government to restrict the free market from health care?


You implied that medical care was a public service so I corrected you.

The government is not permitted via the Constitution enumerated powers to provide health care.

If the people so decided, they could see that it get amended so that it could.

Its a simple concept.

Constitutionally Speaking
01-21-2010, 08:38 PM
Yes this is why I specified this in my post:



If you, like the majority of the political Right, do not believe in active "living" interpretation of the constitution, then you cannot count a corporation as a "person", as that ruling came far later. The founders intended for the rights to be in the hands of the actual people, not corporate entities. So corporations actually have no authority given directly by the constitution.





NO YOU ARE WRONG


You GROSSLY misunderstand the purpose of the Constitution. It is to define and LIMIT THE GOVERNMENT powers and specifically the Federal government's powers. It has NOTHING to do with corporations. Simply not covered and irrelevant to the question.


Also, (even though it is not germane to the issue) you AGAIN, forget that corporations ARE people. I own a corporation and my employees are PART of that corporation. WE are people.

PoliCon
01-21-2010, 08:42 PM
NO YOU ARE WRONG


You GROSSLY misunderstand the purpose of the Constitution. It is to define and LIMIT THE GOVERNMENT powers and specifically the Federal government's powers. It has NOTHING to do with corporations. Simply not covered and irrelevant to the question.


Also, (even though it is not germane to the issue) you AGAIN, forget that corporations ARE people. I own a corporation and my employees are PART of that corporation. WE are people.

Like all on the left he sees the government as the dispenser of rights.

Constitutionally Speaking
01-21-2010, 08:44 PM
It is truly a scary day when our youth believes that our rights emanate from the government.

Wei Wu Wei
01-21-2010, 08:47 PM
You GROSSLY misunderstand the purpose of the Constitution. It is to define and LIMIT THE GOVERNMENT powers and specifically the Federal government's powers.

It defines the bare-minimum government and draws the lines that it may not cross (like banning a religion), but it allows for the people to expand and change the government (as the people have literally always done).

If you believe that the government should be limited to exactly only what the constitution directly grants it, do you believe we should abolish the food and drug administration and airspace regulations and whitehouse.gov?




Also, (even though it is not germane to the issue) you AGAIN, forget that corporations ARE people. I own a corporation and my employees are PART of that corporation. WE are people.

Government are people too. It doesn't run magically on it's own. Government is not only people, but it is representative of ALL the people.

By your own standard, the government is MORE people than any corporation.

Wei Wu Wei
01-21-2010, 08:47 PM
Like all on the left he sees the government as the dispenser of rights.

Please elaborate the logic you used to come to this conclusion.

BadCat
01-21-2010, 08:48 PM
Yeah well I don't want to PAY for YOUR fire service so if your house catches fire BETTER HAVE YOUR CREDIT CARD HANDY!

You don't pay for my fire "services", unless you live in the same town I live in.

You might pay for your own, but I doubt you pay taxes.

Constitutionally Speaking
01-21-2010, 08:53 PM
It defines the bare-minimum government and draws the lines that it may not cross (like banning a religion), but it allows for the people to expand and change the government (as the people have literally always done).

If you believe that the government should be limited to exactly only what the constitution directly grants it, do you believe we should abolish the food and drug administration and airspace regulations and whitehouse.gov?





Government are people too. It doesn't run magically on it's own. Government is not only people, but it is representative of ALL the people.

By your own standard, the government is MORE people than any corporation.


DEAR GOD!!! PLEASE READ THE CONSTITUTION AND THE FEDERALIST PAPERS!!

coach
01-21-2010, 09:00 PM
DEAR GOD!!! PLEASE READ THE CONSTITUTION AND THE FEDERALIST PAPERS!!


lets keep it simple, just the Constitution. Its the only one that actually counts.

Jfor
01-21-2010, 09:09 PM
It defines the bare-minimum government and draws the lines that it may not cross (like banning a religion), but it allows for the people to expand and change the government (as the people have literally always done).

If you believe that the government should be limited to exactly only what the constitution directly grants it, do you believe we should abolish the food and drug administration and airspace regulations and whitehouse.gov?





Government are people too. It doesn't run magically on it's own. Government is not only people, but it is representative of ALL the people.

By your own standard, the government is MORE people than any corporation.



10th Amendment - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Where in the 10th Amendment does it say that the FEDERAL government should create the food and drug administration? Where in the 10th Amendment does it allow the FEDERAL government to mandate health insurance? It doesn't, therefor, that power is left to the states. Wee Wee, notice the words that are in all caps? That is important. We were setup to have a Federal government that is to provide for the defense of our country and regulate interstate and foreign trade. Nothing more. Nothing less. Everything else was to be left to the states. When you can show me where in the Constitution it allows for healthcare, then your argument will have merit.

Wei Wu Wei
01-21-2010, 09:18 PM
DEAR GOD!!! PLEASE READ THE CONSTITUTION AND THE FEDERALIST PAPERS!!

I'm posting under the assumption that everyone here has read these.

Jfor
01-21-2010, 09:21 PM
I'm posting under the assumption that everyone here has read these.

obviously YOU haven't

Constitutionally Speaking
01-21-2010, 09:21 PM
I'm posting under the assumption that everyone here has read these.



Then by what reasoning do you think the Constitution has anything to do with a corporation???

Wei Wu Wei
01-21-2010, 09:29 PM
Then by what reasoning do you think the Constitution has anything to do with a corporation???

It doesn't. I was making a point.

swirling_vortex
01-21-2010, 10:30 PM
The postal service still does it's job, it still works for us. Also just because it is a government service doesn't make it the inherent reality of all potential government services.
If every business was run like the postal service, they would all be bankrupt on the first day. Simply because something is there that is mandated by law doesn't mean that it's efficient.

The military is a government service.
Defense is one of the things that our Constitution mandates that our government should do, protect the people. I don't think very many people are in favor of privatizing our military.

So are police and fire departments and so on.
But they are run by the states, which the 10th Amendment allows. We don't have a federal fire or police department and they work fine by not being federalized.

Does your devotion to fundamentalist free market theory conclude that we should privatize those services?
Depends. But state governments have to balance their budgets (unless you're CA or NJ), whereas the federal government has no incentive of following conventional economics.

There's no such thing as a real free market, no one is naive enough to believe that. The question isn't whether the government should intervene within the "sphere of the free market", it's what kind of government intervention would work best.
You've already employed a defeatist argument by saying the free market doesn't work, which is already false. Businesses have done far more for mankind than any government proclaimed utopia. The better question to ask is, "How can we get the government out of the way in order to ensure market flexibility and growth?"

So why wouldn't a system that works as efficiently as a european system, at a fraction of the cost that our current system is, and that provides completely affordable health care to everyone be a good idea? Other than violating idealistic capitalist principals of course.
It isn't a "fraction of the cost" as you believe. For instance, the UK has a debt to GDP ratio of over 400%, and many European countries are swimming in their own debt (Ireland is over the 1000% mark). Borrowing money doesn't make it any cheaper than a for-profit system.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/30308959?slide=1

AmPat
01-21-2010, 11:16 PM
Not the most original argument I have ever heard.

You and your kind take health care reform to the extereme. Health care reform is needed, I don't believe there is anyone her that would not agree to help those who CAN NOT help them selves. They DO however have an issue with just giving out hand outs to the deadbeats.

The Constitution calls for a Postal Service, so it can not be privatized.

Some things should not be privatized, Police, Fire and EMERGENCY medical services included.

You DUmbasses need to stop playing the friggin word game, grow up and get friggin real.

The morons usually throw in military in this specious argument. this particular moron didn't include it. i'm surprised.

AmPat
01-21-2010, 11:20 PM
Why? Authentic capitalism should be unrestricted. If you think these things shouldn't be privatized, then you allow for an exception and restriction of the "complete free market".

If we allow for some restriction for the good of society, why shouldn't health care be considered?

Have you ever had a civics and or American History class? Seriously, you're falling into the same pattern as most liberals here. You are making a huge horse's ass out of yourself. Educate yourself or leave while you still retain some self-perceived dignity.

The Constitution and the founding fathers recognized some legitimate functions of government. Read all about it. The purpose of the Constitution is to LIMIT federal government.

Rockntractor
01-21-2010, 11:39 PM
This little shit sounds like armyowalgreens!

Swampfox
01-21-2010, 11:58 PM
Should insurance companies be required to accept those with pre-existing conditions?

That would be akin to being required to accept a life insurance application on behalf of somebody who is already deceased. It's no longer insurance. If insurance companies were required to accept this and not charge more then I'd just stay uninsured until I get sick and then the insurance companies would be forced to pay my bills. Pretty sweet deal, except that when done by enough people it will either 1) drive up the cost for insurance to obscene levels much higher than we have now or 2) completely bankrupt private insurance.

Constitutionally Speaking
01-22-2010, 05:27 AM
It doesn't. I was making a point.


Your point is irrelevant.

RobJohnson
01-22-2010, 06:25 AM
It keeps a person from turning in thousands of dollars in claims, after writing a check for the first month's premium.

I've worked at places where insurance was easy to get in the past (after 30 or 90 days) and they had to change the policy as too many new hires stuck around just long enough to have expensive medical treatment, then never come back to work.

Most pre-exisiting conditions are covered after 12 months of continuous coverage.

Just last year, I had an HMO that had no exclusions for pre existing conditons, I must admit, that was a nice bonus.

Having been self employed, or working for a couple very small firms in the past, I have had to purchase my own health insurance and it's a major bitch. It gets worse as you get older, and it can be very difficult to find any type of affordable coverage (or even unaffordable) if you are honest on the application.

RobJohnson
01-22-2010, 06:26 AM
Things like acne and conditions that the patient didn't even know they have are counted as pre-existing conditions.



So we should not require insurance companies to offer coverage to those people?


Acne?

Are you 14? :p

RobJohnson
01-22-2010, 06:33 AM
Yeah well I don't want to PAY for YOUR fire service so if your house catches fire BETTER HAVE YOUR CREDIT CARD HANDY!

Insurance companies won't insure your house in most cases if you don't have a local fire dept. :D

You don't want the fire at your neighbor's home spreading to your house do you? Sounds like fire service is a good idea to me.

swirling_vortex
01-22-2010, 09:37 AM
I've often wondered about all of these "pre-existing condition" horror stories. I've known people who have had to go to the hospital and I have yet to see an evil insurance company yank out their coverage from them. I wonder if all of those patients in Sicko signed up for policies the day before and then tried to get some medical work done.

AmPat
01-22-2010, 10:01 AM
I've yet to see or hear about the absense of health insurance killing a single person. Is there a single death certificate out there that lists this as a cause of death?:rolleyes:

Rebel Yell
01-22-2010, 11:25 AM
I work in insurance, and I'll tell you that forcing companies to cover pre existing conditions is basically suicide. Yes, those with illness can get coverage, but will they be able to afford it. Plus, those who are healthy will see their premiums skyrocket to the point where no one can afford insurance except those who don't need it.

If you want health care reform, the place to start would be tort reform. Right behind that would be restricting hospitals and doctors from sticking it to the insurance companies to "help out" those without coverage. My wife, who has insurance, had a pocedure done a couple months ago. The cost of the procedure was $600. Her step mother, who pays out of pocket, had the same procedure done a couple weeks ago. It cost her $400, because she doesn't have insurance. Years ago, before she had a job with insurance, she went to the doctor, and had some tests run. 6 months later she had to have the same tests run again, this time IT COST HER MORE OUT OF POCKET WITH INSURANCE THAN IT COST HER PAYING THE WHOLE THING HERSELF.This is what is driving the cost of insurance through the roof. If you have health insurance, I encourage you to not tell your health care provider, and just turn the bill in to your company yourself. It will save hundreds of dollars.

confused
01-22-2010, 03:15 PM
If you do not let your health insurance lapse, you do not have pre existing conditions.

Why not allow me to buy flood insurance after my house floods?

Better yet, in blackjack, let me see my hand and the dealers hand, then I will decide if and how much I want to bet.

Hi Im Confused.

So If you change jobs, or your company changes insurers then it is OK for them not to accept you because of a pre-existing condition? Don't we all have some pre-existing condition if you look deep enough? I used to get hemorrhoids, haven't had one in years, but you never know when one might flare up. Does this mean I can be denied because of a pre-existing condition? How about people who: have high blood pressure, have low blood pressure, are over weight, are under weight, have high cholesterol, have had acne, had a toe fungus, got restless leg syndrome, are impotent, are near sighted, far sighted, broke a limb, or have a cavity in one of their teeth?

I try to lead my life by honest reasoning, and as I think of this issue it appears to me that an insurance company can deny ANYONE they choose to because of a pre-existing condition. By this line of reasoning probably a huge percentage of our population are uninsurable because of a pre-existing condition.

Maybe you can clear this up for someone like me who is so Confused? :confused:

Jfor
01-22-2010, 03:48 PM
Hi Im Confused.

So If you change jobs, or your company changes insurers then it is OK for them not to accept you because of a pre-existing condition? Don't we all have some pre-existing condition if you look deep enough? I used to get hemorrhoids, haven't had one in years, but you never know when one might flare up. Does this mean I can be denied because of a pre-existing condition? How about people who: have high blood pressure, have low blood pressure, are over weight, are under weight, have high cholesterol, have had acne, had a toe fungus, got restless leg syndrome, are impotent, are near sighted, far sighted, broke a limb, or have a cavity in one of their teeth?

I try to lead my life by honest reasoning, and as I think of this issue it appears to me that an insurance company can deny ANYONE they choose to because of a pre-existing condition. By this line of reasoning probably a huge percentage of our population are uninsurable because of a pre-existing condition.

Maybe you can clear this up for someone like me who is so Confused? :confused:

Well, you see, when you work and you get insurance, they have what is called pre-existing conditions clauses. You will be insured, they just won't cover your pre-existing condition for x amount of time. In my case with my insurer it was 12 months. I have had knee surgery on my right knee before. So if I change jobs, then if I injure my right knee anytime in that 12 months and the injury was because of the earlier injury, guess what, I have to pay for it.

This whole pre-exisitng conditions crap would be a moot point if individuals could purchase their own health insurance with the same tax benefits that company's get when they get your insurance. You would be able to keep your insurance regardless of where you worked.

Rebel Yell
01-22-2010, 03:54 PM
Hi Im Confused.

So If you change jobs, or your company changes insurers then it is OK for them not to accept you because of a pre-existing condition? Don't we all have some pre-existing condition if you look deep enough? I used to get hemorrhoids, haven't had one in years, but you never know when one might flare up. Does this mean I can be denied because of a pre-existing condition? How about people who: have high blood pressure, have low blood pressure, are over weight, are under weight, have high cholesterol, have had acne, had a toe fungus, got restless leg syndrome, are impotent, are near sighted, far sighted, broke a limb, or have a cavity in one of their teeth?

I try to lead my life by honest reasoning, and as I think of this issue it appears to me that an insurance company can deny ANYONE they choose to because of a pre-existing condition. By this line of reasoning probably a huge percentage of our population are uninsurable because of a pre-existing condition.

Maybe you can clear this up for someone like me who is so Confused? :confused:

If you getting your insurance from your employer, under a group plan, they can't deny you coverage.