SS109 wrote: It only makes sense, if you eliminate maximums on coverage and allow "children" to be covered until they are 26, insurance costs will rise.
True, but if costs go up because of increased coverages, isn't it true that even though you are paying more, you are getting more?
Let's see. If I am paying more to the insurance company so that I don't have to pay as much to go see my family doctor, has the situation really changed at all? I am not getting more, the only thing that has changed is who I write the check to.
Caps on benefits? Yeah, I get more there, in theory at least. Guess whether I actually get more depends on how long I live and how sick I get. Seems like I should at least have a choice on whether or not I was willing to trade the higher cost for the higher cap, which is a freedom I used to have before the folks in DC decided they knew what was best for me.
I do agree with you that the DC government never should have gotten into advocating for companies providing health insurance as a way to raise compensation after freezing wages wages though. McCain's idea of giving the tax deduction to the individual instead of the businesses would have been a much better way of going about fixing that mistake of the DC government however. It would have preserved the incentive to have health insurance and fixed the problem the federal government itself created through their shortsightedness so many years ago. It would also have been the first step towards a return to health insurance being insurance instead of pre-paid medical coverage in that the return to an individual/family policy paradigm would have offered an opportunity for those who utilize their insurance less to realize lower premiums than those who utilize their insurance heavily.
I still think you ought to be able to purchase health insurance in a similar manner as you do life insurance. Fixed premium over an extended period of 10 or 20 years. That would offer a measure of protection from skyrocketing premiums if you did happen to become seriously ill for a few years at least as well as a measure of protection from cancellation of an annual policy. It would also allow some time for your risk to be averaged out before the next renewal. Of course, Democrats weren't interested in common sense solutions at the time, only in taking advantage of their majority to add to the list of things that ensure power and deficit spending at the federal level. Can't let such an opportunity pass by without molesting liberty and self government principles. They come so infrequently after all. 1930's, 1960's and the first decade of the new century. The good news is that such majorities are coming less frequently. The bad news is that they are still coming.
SS109 wrote: It only makes sense, if you eliminate maximums on coverage and allow "children" to be covered until they are 26, insurance costs will rise.
Part of the argument is adults aged 18 to 26 need LESS medical stuff than those who are older, but they will pay into the system when they ordinarily wouldn't be covered or be paying into a system, THEREFORE lowering the costs for everyone.
It's simple math. If 100% of the people covered use their benefits, it costs more than if 10% of the people covered pay but rarely use their benefits.
Covering people who rarely use the insurance doesn't raise the cost of insurance. They're paying for something they rarely use.
Something the Dog Said wrote: Just another Viking lie:
"However, those plans are being replaced by new products. The number of small employers offering or not offering employee health insurance is likely to change little over the next 12 months, according to the report."
Doesn't matter what it is replaced with. It is not nearly as good and will be MUCH more expensive. And 20% are already saying they will at the very least reduce the coverage they offer. THAT is not made up! But I understand how you guys hate discussing Obama's biggest failure.
How do you know the current offering will be replaced by something that is not as good and more expensive?
Viking, your disdain of Obama has clouded your judgement and your missing the obvious point this report is full of BS and half truths.
You're right Wayne, the only people paying more are the ones who rarely use what they are paying for, right? What a clever way to steal from someone, I'm surprised no one has thought of doing that up until now. After all, that healthy young person might have chosen to purchase a major medical plan with an astronomical deduction and a low cap on maximum benefits given that they were unlikely to use any of the benefits and we can't allow that to happen if we want to rob from the young to give to the old. It's much better to soak them for a pre-paid medical plan with no cap on benefits and a 100% insurance paid for annual checkup chocked full of policy inclusions that they would neither choose for themselves or are likely to need. Forget about the liberty others used to have of foregoing health insurance when the odds of you needing it are next to nil in order to start saving for your house, paying off your student loans, purchasing a retirement annuity, buy your first car, the government has decided they don't already have enough power, have chosen to expand their reach more and need to steal from the young to pay for the old in order to "Git 'er done"!
Oh yeah, that's exactly what they meant when they said securing the blessings of Liberty for the posterity.
WayneH wrote: Thank you for not telling us what the founding fathers thought about health insurance in your post.
And thank you for not attempting to defend the use of force by the goverment to steal from one group for the benefit of another; choosing instead to acknowledge the truth that this is what is being done by limiting your response to addressing me rather than the issue I raised. I do appreciate the silent recognition that ObamaCare is a departure from the fundamental purpose of the Constitution that your response contains.
I'm really not interested in your Constitution Party
, LawAndLiberty
, ReasonOfFreedom
, PoliticsOfLiberty
, TeaPartyPatriot
excursions into what you THINK the Constitution says, or should have said. The Supreme Court interprets, and has done so for a little over 230 years. Their interpretations of what it means are what is important, and not the libertarian nonsense of the radical right. The "general welfare" clause was not "invented", but obviously it has been interpreted to mean something you don't agree with.
I'm really not interested in your Constitution Party
, LawAndLiberty
, ReasonOfFreedom
, PoliticsOfLiberty
, TeaPartyPatriot
excursions into what you THINK the Constitution says, or should have said. The Supreme Court interprets, and has done so for a little over 230 years. Their interpretations of what it means are what is important, and not the libertarian nonsense of the radical right. The "general welfare" clause was not "invented", but obviously it has been interpreted to mean something you don't agree with.
Oh well....
rofllol Your overreaching on the general welfare clause is truly funny. If the founding fathers had truly believed in it, we would have had Social Security, Food Stamps, and Obamacare in 1783.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
