The real pupose of the healthcare bill is to destroy the private insurance industry

for all of the public option healthcare haters....let's here what you have to say when you need to purchase your own insurance policy when you can't find a job with benefits.

you'll get a good lesson on what alot of people are paying even at a young age. if you happen to have had bronchitis as a kid and you were presecribed some asthma drug, good luck with that. even if you are a runner, you'll be dinged with the 'history of asthma' label and end up paying extra for that.

also, if you don't want a public healthcare option, make sure you don't go on medicare when you turn 60. just go ahead and pay those higher copays with your private insurance company.

Hugh Akston wrote:

The beaurocrats really want single-payer healthcare, but it's not politically feasible to create such a system as of yet. They have to destroy the private insurance industry first by forbiding companies from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions.

THAT is your biggest concern/fear....? That the evil "beaurocrats" will take away insurance companies ability to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions ?? (and of course they are willing able to label virtually ANY health problem pre-existing. Oh, and it's "bureaucrat" by the way).

If so, that's pretty silly, because even the insurance companies and Republicans have given up on that little screw-job. Every single insurance company rep who speaks on this subject says they are for doing away with "pre-existing condition" clauses. They KNOW that can't retain that because the public is so against it. And Republicans who are fighting hard against this bill also say that "of course" they are for eliminating pre-existing condition clauses (because they too know it is indefensible. If they COULD defend the right of the insurance companies to deny coverage for that reason, they'd be on their side, because they are always on the side of big business vs the little guy, until the little guy is really pissed)

So apparently no one but you is desperately afraid that eliminating such a clause (that you call discrimination) will irreprably harm the insurance industry. Find a new bogeyman to whine about that will at least get you some traction with more than the number of people that this one will get you.

carded wrote:

for all of the public option healthcare haters....let's here what you have to say when you need to purchase your own insurance policy when you can't find a job with benefits.

you'll get a good lesson on what alot of people are paying even at a young age. if you happen to have had bronchitis as a kid and you were presecribed some asthma drug, good luck with that. even if you are a runner, you'll be dinged with the 'history of asthma' label and end up paying extra for that.

also, if you don't want a public healthcare option, make sure you don't go on medicare when you turn 60. just go ahead and pay those higher copays with your private insurance company.

I suffer from a debilitating chronic rheumatic disease and don't have benefits. I oppose public healthcare because I know it's immoral and I know that simply needing something does not make one entitled to it. I would rather die without healthcare than forfeit my integrity by supporting something as rotten and malevolent as universal healthcare.

Sir Lance-alot wrote:

THAT is your biggest concern/fear....? That the evil "beaurocrats" will take away insurance companies ability to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions ?? (and of course they are willing able to label virtually ANY health problem pre-existing. Oh, and it's "bureaucrat" by the way).

.

You are the worst person out here. Forcing health insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions is like forcing life insurance companies to cover people who have already died, or foricing fire insurance companies to issue policies for houses that have already burned down. It is so irrational that any system based on this concept is destined to collapse utterly. Anyone who can't see that is just mentally defective.

Hugh Akston wrote:

Guys I have to apologize. I realize now that it is very bad internet form to intentionally change someone's words and put it in a quote as if they had actually said it. Even though I meant it as a joke, it would be easy for someone to think that the person actually said the words I made up for them. Again, I'm sorry, I was wrong, and I hope you will forgive me.

I apologize too.

Hugh Akston wrote:

You are the worst person out here. Forcing health insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions is like forcing life insurance companies to cover people who have already died, or foricing fire insurance companies to issue policies for houses that have already burned down. It is so irrational that any system based on this concept is destined to collapse utterly. Anyone who can't see that is just mentally defective.

forcing health insurance companies....how terrible that must be for them...who is mentally defective?

do away with health insurance companies period. they are unnecessary and wasteful.

and you are without morals.

Health insurance companies have a right to exist and accept or deny anyone they want, for any reason. Whether you like them is utterly irrelevant.

Hugh Akston wrote:

Health insurance companies have a right to exist and accept or deny anyone they want, for any reason. Whether you like them is utterly irrelevant.

I realize that you are just stating this kind of nonsense to incite argument but I can't help but respond. This isn't a question of rights, this is a question of the more effective way of handling the nation's healthcare. A comprehensive government health care system will raise the quality of the health care and lower the public cost. The current system of the competing profit seeking private insurers is just nonsense.

The utter hatred in this thead is both amusing and scary.

For those that want the government to be the sole provider of health care services... you'll get your wish - nice and hard. Unfortunately so will everyone else.

Hugh Akston wrote:Health insurance companies have a right to exist and accept or deny anyone they want, for any reason.

Why is this the case? And, how is that ethical? It seems to me that this would pre-suppose a system allowing arbitrary personal choices to trump things like a other's well being.

P.S. I already know where this is going. :)

The medical insurance industry deserves to be Jap slapped, put down, and jammed up the poop chute like a sailor boy on liberty. The medical insurance companies suck and have ruined America worst than Ford, GM, Chrysler have ruin the auto industry. Tough shit for all of them. They'll die, then new companies will be formed to succeed them. That's the free enterprise system that made America great.

I can't wait until the experience of going to the doctor is like going to the DMV.

Is there anything govt. gets involved in that isn't screwed up? And you want these people running health care? It's insane.

Hugh Akston wrote:

You are the worst person out here. Forcing health insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions is like forcing life insurance companies to cover people who have already died, or foricing fire insurance companies to issue policies for houses that have already burned down. It is so irrational that any system based on this concept is destined to collapse utterly. Anyone who can't see that is just mentally defective.

a) While I do think denying people coverage due to pre-existing conditions is wrong, the main purport of my post was to prove to you that even Republicans and the health-care industry havegiven up on defending that clause. You ignored that point. That clause is history no matter what happens to this bill. Wipe away your tears and deal with it.

b) You also ignored the fact that health insurance companies, to use your analogy, would, if in another industry, deny/drop auto insurance for their customers if they got into their first accident, because they would argue that the fact that person got in accident proved they had always been a reckless driver, which is a pre-existing condition.

c) you also ignore the fact that sometimes people get sick (like a child with cancer) through NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN.

d) You could have at least called me "worse than Hitler" if you wanted to be consistent with the rest of your hyperbolic nonsense

Hugh, I have to disagree that "reform" will destroy the insurance companies.

First, government mandates - such as coverage for treatment of drug addiction, psychiatric treatment, or in vitro fertilization - will allow them to jack up rates. Since most people will never need the extra coverage the additional premiums will be pure profit.

Second, healthy people who are currently uninsured will be forced to buy insurance. Healthy people consume very little healthcare. Once again their premiums will be almost pure profit.

Third, the government will be subsidizing the premiums for "lower" income people who make too much to qualify for Medicaid. Many of these people are currently uninsured or underinsured. Thus the insurance companies have another revenue stream.

Nothing is being done to increase competition, or actually address the wastefulness of the current system. This boondoggle will mean a huge windfall for the insurance companies.

Mtn Dew wrote:

The utter hatred in this thead is both amusing and scary.

For those that want the government to be the sole provider of health care services... you'll get your wish - nice and hard. Unfortunately so will everyone else.

The only one expressing hatred is Hugh, who I assume you agree with.

once again, you are on the wrong side of a big argument and history Mtn Dew.

And let me point out that the "bureaucrats" want things to stay the way they are. You don't think the people at Aetna are bureaucrats?

Conservatives hate government bureaucrats but seem to exempt corporate bureaucrats and their inefficiencies. Much the same wya they hate "trial lawyers" as being overly litigious but think corporate lawyers who sue people (for example Monsanto suing farmers for patent infringement when their seed accidentally takes root in fields or for saving seed) are just fine.

Sir Lance-alot wrote:

The only one expressing hatred is Hugh, who I assume you agree with.

once again, you are on the wrong side of a big argument and history Mtn Dew.

Really?

"Is your tinfoil hat on a little too tight today?"

"I feel like anyone who fights against the healthcare bill is either mildly retarded and really has no grasp on what's really going on OR they are making money on the current system."

"forcing health insurance companies....how terrible that must be for them...who is mentally defective?"

"you are without morals"

Those were directed at people who do not support government healthcare.

I can't say I agree with Hugh because I'm not entirely sure where he stands. I certainly am opposed to this awful bill, but my alternatives are probably different than his.

Brian wrote:

And let me point out that the "bureaucrats" want things to stay the way they are. You don't think the people at Aetna are bureaucrats?

Conservatives hate government bureaucrats but seem to exempt corporate bureaucrats and their inefficiencies. Much the same wya they hate "trial lawyers" as being overly litigious but think corporate lawyers who sue people (for example Monsanto suing farmers for patent infringement when their seed accidentally takes root in fields or for saving seed) are just fine.

You're right about that. We certainly do NOT have a free market in healthcare and the bureaucrats want to keep it that way.

Spot on about patent infringement.

Of course, there are actually people who don't exempt corporate bureaucracts or corporate lawyers from scrutiny.

You never hear conservative complaints, for example, when Monsanto sues a farmer for patent infringement simply for saving the seed from their corn crop (and Clarence Thomas, former Monsanto lawyer, wrote the majority opinion that allowed this broad definition of corporate rights). Conservatives can't find a right to abortion or gay marriage in the constitution, but they can sure find all sorts of rights for businesses.

When has an anti-lawyer screed from the right included corporate attorneys? It is always "trial lawyers".