While the idea of forcing insurance companies to cover "pre-existing conditions" sound compassionate, let's understand what it really means.
It's the equivalent of forcing auto insurance companies to pay for fixing the uninsured car you just wrecked, without charging you extra because of the "pre-existing condition" of the car, and telling the insurance company that they cannot use the condition of the car to refuse coverage.
Anyone that thinks that this will not lead to big increases in premiums for everyone else needs to take an Economics 101 class.
Originally posted by truejedi
While the idea of forcing insurance companies to cover "pre-existing conditions" sound compassionate, let's understand what it really means.It's the equivalent of forcing auto insurance companies to pay for fixing the uninsured car you just wrecked, without charging you extra because of the "pre-existing condition" of the car, and telling the insurance company that they cannot use the condition of the car to refuse coverage.
Anyone that thinks that this will not lead to big increases in premiums for everyone else needs to take an Economics 101 class.
If I am to understand this analogy correctly, you are relegating human life to having no more worth than that of a damaged car?
Originally posted by Autokrat
If I am to understand this analogy correctly, you are relegating human life to having no more worth than that of a damaged car?
from whence did you draw that conclusion? I merely, correctly, observed, that NO for-profit company can afford to pay for people with pre-existing medical conditions while still making a profit. This removes the reason for the existence of the company to exist.
So, what my analogy meant was: Be prepared for ridiculous premiums. You of course, tried to twist it into a discussion about the value of human life, but with many supporters of this health bill also supporting abortion, i'm having none of that.
Originally posted by truejedi
from whence did you draw that conclusion? I merely, correctly, observed, that NO for-profit company can afford to pay for people with preexisting medical conditions while still making a profit. This removes the reason for the existence of the company to exist.So, what my analogy meant was: Be prepared for ridiculous premiums. You of course, tried to twist it into a discussion about the value of human life, but with many supporters of this health bill also supporting abortion, i'm having none of that.
To be fair I'm divided on this issue. I believe in eugenics so realistically I shouldn't be concerned with people with preexisting conditions, especially if they are genetic. We covered this in Sociology in fact, on how ****ed up the gene pool is thanks to modern medicine keeping people alive that should have died.
Originally posted by Autokrat
Avatar was simply Dances with Wolves re imagined in sci-fi.
No offense, but that is an extremely simplistic view.
In my opinion, it was the most entertaining movie I've ever seen. The storyline wasn't great but it wasn't awful, it was just good and made better by the graphics and it actually moved me. I'm going to see it again tonight because I thought it was THAT good.
Originally posted by truejedi
While the idea of forcing insurance companies to cover "pre-existing conditions" sound compassionate, let's understand what it really means.It's the equivalent of forcing auto insurance companies to pay for fixing the uninsured car you just wrecked, without charging you extra because of the "pre-existing condition" of the car, and telling the insurance company that they cannot use the condition of the car to refuse coverage.
Anyone that thinks that this will not lead to big increases in premiums for everyone else needs to take an Economics 101 class.
Right on TJ, impressive. However, I would prefer this method to outright denying on the basis of healthcare conditions. That's pretty much the only reform I want. That is, if I forget that this plan costs another trillion dollars and Obama is putting us further into debt.