So, I’m hearing…wait until the November elections kinda talk going on. What for? It’s funny, when the Republicans had the majorities they did nothing on health care. I don’t think they even brought the subject up. Now, for the past year or so when the Democrats were full steam ahead on the subject, the Republicans introduce some plans, ideas and so forth. Where were they way back when??? I bet now they wish they would have done something sooner.
This sounds like the Civil War all over again. If these states don’t want federal mandates, and better yet, since they apparently don’t care about the residents who live in their state, stop accepting all the Federal Subsidies they receive today. Let’s see how well that works being on their own.
Since everyone wants to compare health insurance to auto, let’s overhaul the auto insurance while we’re at it. Auto insurance is clearly too expensive and many drive without it, so federal government intervention must be the answer. Here we go…
Everyone will now be required to purchase full coverage auto insurance, or else be subject to a $25 annual fine. Demonstration of financial responsibility is no longer acceptable.
Companies cannot exclude coverage for pre-existing conditions – wrecked cars, maimed pedestrians, etc.
Drivers of Cadillacs will have to pay 40% extra, unless they are union members.
This plan will obviously drive down insurance costs, but the evil auto insurers will hire evil lobbyists in a coldhearted attempt to preserve the status quo.
I would say “spare me” from the government forcing me to buy something I don’t want – What’s next, forcing me to buy an American car or “healthy” food at the supermarket or anything else? I hope this goes to the Supreme Court and the Supremes squash this horrible law like a bug.
Every state with unfunded liabilities directed under this program should file suit. Many are already technically bankrupt. The federal government has enumerated constitutional powers, unlike the all-powerful government liberals seems to have in mind.
Governor “up for reelection” Perry is (surprise) grandstanding via the attorney general. Texas wins under the bill and he knows it. For every $1 added Medicaid expenditure Texas gets $9. It also closes our huge uninsured gap (one of the biggest if not the biggest nationwide). The constitutional challenge has no merit (and they’re squaring off with a constitutional law expert in the process); Perry knows this but isn’t letting that fact get in the way of his scoring cheap political points with his super blue blood constituents.
I also love how the attorneys general claim that “politics have nothing to do with it,” except for the fact that all 12 attorneys general cited are Republicans fighting against legislation which passed without a single GOP yea vote.
Take politics completely out of it Matt. Government cannot and should not force you to buy anything. They own GM…what’s next? A tax penalty of $3,000 if you choose not to buy a GM car?
We should take politics out of it Mr. Solvent. The Federal Gov’t. should also stop mandating you contribute to Social Security and Medicare and you can then be on your own at retirement.
Last time I checked it was illegal to drive without car insurance in every state in the U.S. I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to say everyone who wants healthcare should have health insurance?
The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT does not mandate that you have auto insurance. Each state has its own financial responsibility law and requirements, and believe me, they differ greatly state to state.
On the same note, no state (or the FED for that matter) actually REQUIRES you to own a car. That is a voluntary purchase, one which subjects you to the STATE requirement to obtain insurance for that vehicle. You can CHOOSE to not own a car and not subject yourself to those laws. Simple.
This horrendous monstrosity of a bill dictates that you HAVE NO CHOICE and is clearly a violation of the Constitution, unlike the auto insurance requirements which are only subject to those who voluntarily drive.
What if the bill was changed to something like: if you want professional healthcare you must have health insurance. You could then choose to not have professional healthcare and opt out of health insurance. It just seems to me like people are splitting hairs.
“It seems like the issue is more about people not wanting to be told what to do and using the label of a constitutional violation.”
Isn’t this sort of the reason we had the Revolutionary War way back when? We didn’t want the king telling us what to do; we wanted to be free and independent. Now we have King Obama and his cohorts in Congress telling us what to do, in a more overreaching and forceful way than the government has ever done in all our history. And we’re not supposed to object to this?
I believe the issue was taxation without representation. Most people don’t like being told what to do, but that doesn’t make something unconstitutional.
IN TEXAS, YOU ARE BY LAW TO CARRY MINIMUM LIMITS OF LIABIITY. GUESS WHAT????? 20% IN OUR COUNTY ALONE DO NOT INSURE THEIR VEHCILES. PENALTY? THAT’S LAUGHABLE!
Mr. TX agent. So, you want us to believe TX has never recieved a dollar for highway subsidies, allowed it’s citizens to purchase flood insurance through the federal flood insurance program, allowed the government (FEMA) access after a major hurricane, etc. I have heard various TX political nut jobs threaten to succeed. Well, succeed already. Leave! But, don’t go away mad. Just go away.
bottom line, the government cannot tell you what to buy. If you think differently then quote the Section of the Constitution where is says so. This isn’t splitting hairs – the last time I checked this was supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave. This bill is completely unacceptable – all King Obama cares about is his legacy, even if he doesnt get re-elected.
Our founding fathers are rolling over in their graves right now because of this bill. The jokers in Congress completely disregarded the people’s will.
I read a comment on another website where an astute observer pointed out: if there is no cap on medical spending, and there is no excluding pre-existing conditions, is there a cap on premiums? NO!!! Check the legislation…so the fact that the thieves in Congress tout this to be a cost saving measure for health insurance is an outright lie.
Hmm, Your at the heart of the issue, however still misguided. States can’t require individuals to purchase a commodity. You are required to purchase a driver’s license, but only if you have a car. If you “get in the game” then it comes with rules and requirements. However if you do not own a car, then these state laws do not directly apply.
This is the beginning of the end of our freedoms. It is also the exact reason our founding fathers limited the rule of the Federal Govt. and deferred all power not specifically listed in the constitution to the states.
To touch your last point, the free market realized a niche in developing auto insurance to help drivers and make a profit.
This bill costs $950 billion with 6 years of benefits, but lowers the deficit (lol) This deficit reduction is increased taxes coming out of your pocket. There is no benefit to you or the other 85% that are currently insured.
Since they’re taking $500 billion from medicare, then do that without imposing on everyone else. Then use the $500 billion to insure those that want, but can’t afford insurance.
There are plenty of laws in place that require you to purchase things. If not, I’ve been paying for city stickers for no reason. While that’s on a lower level then the the federal government, it’s the same premise.
I’m not arguing that the bill is good. All I’m pointing out is the parallel between the states requiring you to have auto insurance and the federal government requiring to have health insurance. Like I said, if you could opt out of professional healthcare and in turn opt out of health insurance, under your premise there should be no problem.
With the penalties written into the tax code I think this challange is dead in the water. Pay for insurance or your taxes increase – just like you pay more taxes if you didn’t finance your home, you get a tax credit for buying “green” windows and furnaces and those that don’t subsidize those that do. I don’t see it as any different than any tax credit or debit designed to change your behavior. I’m not in favor of all the measures in this bill but I don’t see this suit as a way to get it defeated. They won’t haul you into court to get you to pay the penalty they’ll haul you into court because you didn’t pay your taxes.
John, as I stated, if you could hypothetically opt out of professional healthcare and in turn opt out of health insurance, under your premise there should be no problem? You wouldn’t be required to purchase anything unless you got in the game.
Just to be clear, I’m not saying this bill is good. All I’m pointing out is it’s the same states requiring you to have auto insurance that are going against the federal government requiring people to have health insurance when the premise is the same.
Dear Insurance Geek. By your comment, I can appreciate your supposed comfortable benefits situation. But, Obama’s legacy is secondary. This is about getting access to healhcare for the working class of society. For example, Independent contractors who’s wives have to go back to work right after having a kid so they can keep the benefits. (Family values, anyone??) It’s rediculous that in this country many have to choose between paying the mortgage and staying well. Don’t tell me the Republicans were shut out of this debate. They had their chance when they were in the majority (house, senate, white house) and the subject of healthcare for the average Joe never came up. Medicare part d. did come up, but we all know the idiots who built that legislation are the same one’s acusing Obama of wrecking the country. The country was wrecked when he got here. Don’t tell me the Republicans are fiscally concerned when the last Republican administrations each ran deficits higher than the last and they were responsible for the largest government expansion of healthcare. That expansion (Part D.)was 100% unfunded and onerous on the people it was intended to help (i.e. donut hole). The Republicans don’t give a rats @ss about being fiscally sound, helping anyone, or you or me. They care about one thing: Staying in power.
If it wasn’t for legacy, why was it passed with a majority of Americans opposed? Again, I’m not going to put politics into it, but when MSNBC and Fox News polls show the same thing, it stands to reason that the American People don’t want it.
you still dont get it – IF you DON’T buy a car, you ARE NOT required to buy car insurance. AND – THE CAR INSURANCE YOU ARE REQUIRED TO BUY IS LIABILITY COVERAGE. So, if you hurt SOMEONE ELSE, e.g. COMMIT A TORT, the INNOCENT third party that was wronged has recourse. IF YOU ARE REQUIRED TO BUY PHYSICAL DAMAGE, ITS BECAUSE SOMEONE LOANED YOU THE MONEY TO BUY THAT CAR, AGAIN, YOU ARE PROTECTING THE INTEREST OF A THIRD PARTY.
Health insurance is a FIRST PARTY COVERAGE, NOT THIRD PARTY LIKE AUTO LIABILITY INSURANCE. THERE IS NO SIMILARITY. When the USA was free, on 3/22/2010, you were NOT required to buy health insurance. YOU ARE NOW, WHETHER YOU WANT TO OR NOT.
Humm, you are comparing APPLES and ORANGES. Read this post several times until you understand the concept.
The key its not the same. Car insurance is only required if you drive a car. This new health care is required or you are fined.
Currently I can get any operation without regard to insurance. I may have to pay for it, but I can get it.
With the new healthcare plan, I have to have insurance, then I have to be approved for to get the operation. If the govt decides I’m to old then I get end of life counseling.
Another method that will be used for decreasing the deficit.
That doesn’t make any sense to claim the GOP wasn’t blocked out because they were in power in previous years. Pelosi and Reid held intra-party negotiations (read: arm twisting) behind closed doors, without consulting the GOP on anything. That’s why there are saying they were blocked out. They didn’t need any GOP votes to pass it, ergo they didn’t bother to invite any of them to plan it. They had carte blanche. Obama in the last 14 months has spent 4x as much as Bush did in 8 years (he’s also golfed more times last year that Bush did in 8).
Gimme a break about family values: the party that supports planned parenthood, abortion clinics, and same-sex marriage is not the party that supports family values. Please.
Here is a question. What is the correct outcome in the following situation in your preferred world where government stays out of health care? An uninsured twenty something learns they have a treatable form of cancer but the treatments, including surgery, chemotherapy, etc will cost well over a hundred thousand dollars and our uninsured twenty something doesn’t have anything close to that kind of money. Is the correct answer:
a. Too bad, you die.
b. Force doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutal companies to provide long term care and medications to treat the cancer with no hope of being paid.
c. Have the taxpayers pay for the treatment(medicaid or medicare but this brings the government into the picture, doesn’t it). or
d. Another option I haven’t thought of.
You’ve all accepted one of the points as fact and it is not. Auto insurance is not required in every state. In those states were it is compulsory, state law made it so. Other states use financial responsibility. That is the point – states should decide what works best for them without government mandate.
It is a red herring to compare auto insurance to this health insurance bill. 1. Auto insurance PROTECTS others (third parties) from your negligence. Coverage for the auto itself it NOT required unless you have a loan – then coverage on the auto is a CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION.
2. Auto insurance DOES NOT pay for the owner/operaters medical EXCEPT for med pay while alighting to/from a vehicle or being in the vehicle.
3. The health insurance requirement is to provide coverage to the individual and there are NOT THIRD PARTIES that get protection from this.
This is insane and I am hopeful that democrats lose the arses this November. Remember – get out and vote.
So it’s ok to be forced buy third party insurance, but it’s not ok to be forced buy first party insurance? Why is that?
I would make the case that no one should opt out of professional healthcare, and that’s really the issue here. Not whether or not the government makes you buy something, because all forms of government make you buy things. What Obama did is take something that everyone does (uses professional healthcare) and made everyone have insurance for it. It just so happens that everyone uses professional healthcare and you can choose to have an auto or not. In the end it’s the same thing.
Amazing how you listed all these individuals that should pay for the chemotherapy, except one, THE PATIENT. 100,000 treatment on a 15 year loan at 4.5% or what ever terms the hospital sets up.
curiously Just Curious, you left out two other options:
1. the twentysomething is insured on their parents policy
2. the twentysomething has a job with benefits
either way the twentysomething gets coverage. I am not saying that the chronically poor or those with pre-existing conditions shouldnt have their insurance issues addressed. But there is a better way to go about it – this bill isnt it though.
So it’s ok to be forced buy third party insurance, but it’s not ok to be forced buy first party insurance? Why is that? BECAUSE YOU ARE INJURING ANOTHER PERSON OR THEIR PROPERTY AND THEY ARE AN INNOCENT BYSTANDER WHEN YOU HAVE A CAR ACCIDENT. GET IT YET???????
Texas Reaction: Yeah and this whole mess was created by the Democrats and Democrats only – no Republican input. God
forbid 12 Republican governors try to stop something that 70+% of Americans don’t want! I hope Obama and Pelosi are squashed like bugs.
Your response seems to be that the hospital, doctors and drug companies should all loan the money to the uninsured patient who will be needing long term care and who has little if any money.
What if they don’t want to get into the banking business? After all, they’re doctors, hospital and drug companies. Would you force them?
And what if they think this is a bad loan to make? Would you require they make the loan?
You keep making the point and missing it at the same time. “Everyone uses professional health care” could be argued, but I’ll give you that even if sometimes that is a choice. Some people opt to pay for it on their own instead of being forced by the government to buy insurance on themselves.
On auto, the idea of mandating third party coverage is to protect others. Again, not all states require this. States get to decide what system (compulsory or financial responsibility) works for them and individuals in financial responsibility states can then decide whether to purchase the policy.
First party auto insurance is subject to consumer choice. If a lender requires, it is a contractual obligation and not a mandate. Individuals again can decide whether to buy the car, take out a loan, or not drive altogther. Even better, they can shop for insurance in a competitive, privatized system.
The appropriate auto/health insurance analogy would be more like requiring everyone in the country to buy auto insurance including those that have no license and no car.
No no, I understand the difference between the two. I’m asking why you can enforce a law that forces third party insurance coverage, but not first party. Forcing insuring for negligence is ok because there is an innocent bystander? So when you don’t have an innocent bystander that makes it unconstitutional to require people to carry insurance? Why?
Seems to me it’s Federal versus State’s rights. There is no federal law on auto insurance. It is all determined by the states. While most have adopted compulsory third party coverage, not all have nor are they required to.
Prior to the Health Care bill, states had the same option for Health Care – see Massachusetts and their adoption of a mandatory plan. Now states do not have that right which is why the AGs are challenging.
If only the Founding Fathers could see this… they would be so angry they’d whip their slaves harder than usual.
I love how the “founding fathers” are cited as examples of all that is freedom and democracy — unless of course you happened to be not white or a woman.
Okay, Okay, I’ll stop… I know I’m making Glenn Beck cry his crocodile tears. Didn’t Rush say he’s moving out of the US since healthcare passed? (Kind of like how Hannity offered to be waterboarded for charity [we’re still waiting, Sean!]).
The Founding Fathers aren’t cited for their personal morality, but for their genius in designing our government, one that has not changed in 234 years. Read a book: pre-Civil war saw virtually every judicial/legislative contest be about what the federal government can and can’t do. It’s easy to decry their taciturnity on slavery, but look at the system they’ve designed and its longevity. Lemme ask you something: how many constitutions has France had since 1789?
Do you mean the first,second or third republic or the first or second empire? Quite a few I imagine. Too bad ours seems to be a piece of toilet paper now. I don’t really hold out much hope for the SCOTUS ruling against this travesty.
By my count, France has had 14 constitutions. That should illustrate how ingenious ours is: that fact that that incredibly brief document has ruled our country for as long as it has. This health care bill flies in the face of state/federal power. Obama does not care about any of that; he is a pure elitist ideologue who thinks that he knows best for the millions who are against this.
Your reply:
“What if they don’t want to get into the banking business? After all, they’re doctors, hospital and drug companies. Would you force them?
And what if they think this is a bad loan to make? Would you require they make the loan?”
So your answer is to make it the taxpayers problem?
1) Are realators, car dealerships, appliance stores etal in the banking business?
2) Many hospitals have bad debts in the past, and may have them in the future.
If I get a serious illness tomorrow, who is responsible for payment?
If I purchase any item or service, who is responsible for payment?
My answer to above is ME.
Your answer is everyone else?
How about asking any agent that’s delivered a life insurance check to help a family in their time of need, or sold one of the policies to the 5 in 6 that are covered by health insurance about what’s important. They can tell you.
While you are at it, ask all those people that own “flakey (sic) agencies” that employee people that provide for their families, and pay taxes, and contribute to their communities the same question. They can tell you too.
If that doesn’t work for you, maybe you can enlighten us all what is important, other than stereotyping on a message board.
I agree Vlad. That’s what this is fundamentally about: Who is ultimately responsible. I have a tax-free HSA. The IRS now is going to consider that income earned, and tax me on it. So, if this year I decided to put $1000 into it, I’m getting financially penalized because that is all getting taxed to hell. Instead, under this plan, I could just not do anything, keep my $1000, pay the nonsensical $750 no-buy fee, and by the gov. ins. when I get sick. In this scenario, I went from taking responsible care of my health ins. to putting the onus onto all of you reading this. That’s not right.
Texas Geek, finally someone has gotten it right-the requirement of Auto Liability is a 3rd party issue NOT 1st party. When people spout off about comparing required auto insurance to this bill I realize just how un-educated they are. These people want something for nothing and are willing to have the rest of us pay for their freebies.
Hide and watch next will be the Cap N Trade and REALLY high taxes – Just keep these folks in power and this country will be gone for good.
Are we really talking about health care reform? Our health care sytem isn’t broken. Daniel Williams, Primer of New Foundland Canada, and from one of the countrys that the liberals hold up as a shinning example of state run health care, came to this country for open heart surgery in January. Of course the sock puppets in the state run media faild to mention that. What we witnessed on Sunday was an expantion of the welfare system. After the bill was passed all the sock puppets were grinning ear to ear proclaiming “finally affordable health care.” What in this bill is going to make insurance affordable? Is forcing people to buy health insurance really going to lower the cost? If I have a DUI and two at fault accidents in the last year and am presently uninsured is forcing me to buy insurance going to make my premiums more affordable? Of course not. Gov. of Pennsylvania Edward Rendell was on MSNBC yesterday and was going on about the good things in the health care bill and he slipped and said “we can all be proud that 30 million uninsured Americans can finally get free health care.” That my friends cuts through the fog. What people that support this bill really want is health care paid by someone else. What the Dems really want is more people dependant on big government so that they will always have a vote come election time. At one point in our history people use to shy away from taking “charity” unless there was no other choice. To make “charity” more palatable to a once proud people they started calling charity entitlements. To expand big government they do so under the guise of Health care reform. If you want to discuss reform than lets talk reform, but lets quit calling what happen Sunday reform when all it really is an expantion of the entitlement mantality.
This has to be the most arrogant administration in the history of our great nation. They just do not care that the Constitution is not a living breathing document you can change at will or interperet as you wish. If you want to know what it means get your glasses out and read it with websters dictionary. That is all you need.
By the way liberals if a woman has the right to do what she wants with her body dont I have the right not to buy insurance on mine?
This has to be the most arrogant administration in the history of our great nation. They just do not care that the Constitution is not a living breathing document you can change at will or interperet as you wish. If you want to know what it means get your glasses out and read it with websters dictionary. That is all you need.
By the way liberals if a woman has the right to do what she wants with her body dont I have the right not to buy insurance on mine?
I would think most people on here know the difference between first and third party insurance. As was pointed out to me, the party does not matter as there are states that mandate a first party health plan currently.
You can always count on a comment from a Tea Party Patriot to provide a laugh. The constitution is pretty clear on the supremacy of federal law versus states.
Supremacy is not the point. The point is 1) it is an unnecessary measure to interfere in state goings-on when it has been demonstrated that they can do it themselves. and
2) the federal government, irrespective of the supremacy clause (which is between state and federal laws), can not make a private citizen purchase anything. That is the crux of the argument.
And remember auto insurance is only mandatory if you elect to drive a car (a privilege, not a right, might I add). The comparison is inane on many levels, but primarily because it’s elective, not mandated.
I would have to disagree with you that our system isnt broken. For fear of sounding like someone that is for this bill (which I am not, I am ademently against this health care bill), people shouldn’t have to file bankruptcy just because they get really sick and have huge hospital bills. Now, what were are arguing about is HOW to go about fixing the system. I for one think that tort reform and illegal immigration reform need to be the primary focus on fixing the health care system.
I’m just pointing out the fallacy of thinking you can have a plan that doesn’t require everyone to have health insurance without running directly into the problem I posed.
It is unavoidable. If someone doesn’t have health insurance and then becomes really, really sick, there is no reasonable option for dealing with their health care costs. The options I brought up are all there is and all of them are unacceptable. So no, I am not in favor of the taxpayer paying for it.
Unless you can come up with a better answer for dealing with the uninsured, then mandatory insurance is the only option.
I gave you the answer. Just because you don’t like it does not make it the wrong answer.
Thousands declare bankruptcy for reasons other than medical.
If you choose to not carry health insurance and become sick, say good bye to your current lifestyle. No more cable TV, cell phone, flat screen TV, dinners out every Friday and Saturday, etc.
I don’t think Vlad is suggesting the providers should do it for free. I think the message is that if bankruptcy for medical should be unacceptable, then why not bankruptcy for any other number of reasons? Where does it end? What if I’m an alcoholic who loses my business, my house, my car, etc and has to declare bankruptcy: should everyone in American have to pay for my irresponsibility? Are we entitled to that?
I’m not suggesting that the taxpayers pay for this. I’m simply pointing out the problem you run into when people do not have health insurance. If an uninsured person gets sick, what do you do? There are only the 3 options I mentioned earlier. When pressed, Vlad picked one. That’s fine.
My point is still – Health insurance needs to be mandatory, If it isn’t, some people won’t have it. Most of them will be poor. If they get really sick, we either let them die, force providers to do it for free or make the taxpayers pay. There are no other options.
1) I think if you want helath insurance you should have the option to pay for it. To Curious: People need to be forced including poor people to pay. Thus you are for increasing taxes on poor people.
2) Medicaid will be doubled under the bill passed. Last year payments to states was 250,294,000,000. States currently are paying the other 40% bringing the total to about 350,000,000,000, therefore the expenditures can be expected to double to 700,000,000,000. So to curious what tax rate would you set to have the poor pay?
42,000,000 people are on medicaid. If it doubles, thats 82,000,000. So how much are they going to pay?
Let me clarify. A) I’m not for the fiscal part of the bill. I like what the bill does as far as policy rescinding, pre-existing condtions, insurance exchanges etc. etc. But we could do without the taxes and how it’s paid for.
B) Yes, againts side deals.
C) The Bush family knowingly has business ties with the Saudi’s and the Binladin’s. You don’t think Bush/Cheney went into Iraq for a few “oil deals”? C’mon. It wasn’t for America. It was for their business deals. And they’ve done VERY well.
The rest of your paragraph I couldn’t understand. “Tax cuts reimburse those who pay taxes/” Huh?
You mentioned you lived in Scotland and said the few who have lived there said that the NHS works well. Aside from being huge entitlement and bankrupting the nation, the acutual nuts and bolts of the system work? Sounds just like our Medicare system.
Just saw a video of a rattler biting a woman. She went to the hospital and got 20 vials of antivenom. They asked a British couple to guess the out of pocket cost… The British man says “… American health care? I dunno, a lot, three thousand dollars?” The British woman says “no, way more, $10,000?”. The real out of pocket was actually $140,000.
People in other countries are laughing at us and feel sorry for us.
If the state legislator(s) of 2/3rd of the states call for a constitutional convention congress must convene one. Then the entire matter or states rights and supremacy could be revisited. Since at least that many are filing lawsuits I would think this is the logical next step.
And in your constitutional convention where you create your free society where people have the option as to whether to purchase health insurance or not, what do you do with the people who don’t, get really sick, perhaps even needing a heart transplant or something and have no reasonable possibility of paying the costs of their health care? Still only the same three options.
1) Taxpayers pay.
2) Medical providers have to provide the service but have no hope of being paid.
3) Too bad, so sad, you die!
Cute little story, which seems to imply that our health care costs are 14-70 times higher than the UK, based on some British subjects guess. But Matt, like too many people, has reached a conclusion based on insufficient information:
Was the anti-venom serum some extremely rare and costly commodity? Maybe had to be flown in on an emergency flight from Australia or some other far-off place? How many nurses and doctors were needed? Was she in ICU? For how long? Who provided the $140,000 figure? If this had occurred in some other country would she have died, even if she had been willing to pay millions?
And while on the subject of logical thinking Matt, your statements regarding our founding fathers are equally off-base, implying that our nations founders were slave-whipping woman haters: How many owned slaves? How many whipped slaves, or anyone else for that matter? Should history be viewed in an entirely different context from the one in which we live? What were the societal norms at that time? How many women from that time wrote nasty things, or nice things, about their husbands and sons?
What was the state of civilization at that time in other parts of the world?
I don’t know the answers to all of the above, but I do know that my ancestors came over on the Mayflower to escape persecution. And I also know that not one, before or since, has ever owned a slave or condoned slavery – they were all fiercely anti-slavery, not just in this country, but anywhere in the world!
Using revisionist history and incomplete anecdotes to make a political point seems illogical, and is probably dishonest as well. So, let’s just stick to the point at hand: what’s right and what’s wrong with our current health insurance, what’s right and what’s wrong with our current health care delivery, and what solutions can be reasonably and legally implemented. In my opinion, said solutions should be as little as possible: you shouldn’t use a sledge hammer to drive a tack into a bulletin board……unless your real intention is to destroy the bulletin board!
Right on, JB. Also: of your 3 options, JB, you seem to favor #2. Do you work in insurance? Making a company do something, anything, especially pro bono, is exactly what happens in socialist countries and command economies. Who has the right to enforce that? I know you’ll say “then whats the solution?” I don’t know what it is, but it’s not FORCING someone or some company to do it. Would you feel equally sorry for those shareholders who lose their livelihood because the company went under because of these asinine measures?
Just Curious, your question has been answered already. People should be responsible for their own health care, either through the purchase of insurance or by paying for it themselves.
Hospitals are (and should be) required to provide emergency medical care. Patients who can’t pay will normally be offered extremely flexible payment plans because the alternative is to not collect at all. In this case, the patient will suffer a hit to their credit rating, as well they should. The hospital will write off the loss and move on. Many businesses suffer unrecoverable debts, and the costs are built into their pricing structure.
The poor and elderly are currently insured through government insurers, which isn’t ideal. It would be more efficient to offer tax subsidies so the poor can purchase private insurance.
Pre-existing conditions are excluded from all types of insurance, because they are prohibitively expensive to insure. State-sponsored pools could be established to handle this situation, similar to FAIR Plans and Wind Pools, with tax subsidies or assessments on private health insurers making up the shortfall in collected premiums.
For the rest of us, efficiencies can be gained by allowing insurers to write across state lines and addressing the costs of medicare insurance one way or another. I would certainly be willing to sign away my right to potential windfall punitive damages if my medical costs were cut significantly as a result. I’d guess that others would be as well. I’m sure this would be fought by trial lawyers (greedy insurance companies aren’t the only ones who hire lobbyists). We also need to get over the idea that insurance is needed for routine health care. The catastrophic plan (with HSA) I have does well in that it encourages me to consider the costs involved.
I recently switched from Nasonex ($100 per month) to Flonase ($3 per month) thanks to information provide by my evil health insurer. Prior to that, my health care decision was made between me and my doctor, who provided me with only the information she wanted to provide. Either because she wanted to promote even more expensive allergy shots or because she gets kickbacks for Nasonex, she neglected to ever mention the Flonase option. My evil insurance company just saved me $1164 a year, with only a slight possibility of benefit to them.
So, bottom line, improve market efficiency, subsidize costs of the poor and those with pre-existing conditions, and actually eliminate government involvement in health care decisions? This is health insurance reform I can support.
Actually, I favor mandatory insurance. It avoids the question – everyone is insured. Not the Obama plan but having a limited trauma and major medical option for poor people thus keeping the cost as low as possible. Add major tort reform, eliminate PPO discounts so some patients don’t have to subsidize others and have an assigned risk plan of sorts and you’re moving in the right direction.
As I said yesterday, all 3 options are unacceptable. The taxpayer is overburdened already and you can’t ask medical providers to work for free. That leaves only let them die which is a place I won’t go.
Just Curious, seems to me the most likely outcome in your scenario is 2) the health care provider doesn’t get paid. Based on my own business experience as an insurance agent for many years and my limited knowledge of other businesses, having bad debts is a part of reality and is taken into account, much like any other expense. I’m sure even the IRS has money owed they will never collect. So, what may seem like a substantial amount of money to “write off” for most, may be (and I hope is) a very small percentage.
I assume this “write off” is passed on to those who pay, and if the percentage is small enough perhaps there would be no problem. I know retailers make similar allowances for theft, pilferage,damage, etc. and is included in the price we all pay. Finally, and I guess I’m just stating the obvious, sometimes option 3) is the only option. I must assume that if I were bitten by a deadly rattlesnake 900 miles from nowhere, or got really, really, really sick or injured 900 miles from nowhere option 3) will happen. Or it could happen 50 yards from a hospital in a country where advanced life-saving technology and/or highly trained doctors do not exist. Apparently everyone ever born will eventually be confronted with option 3)…too bad, so sad, but true…
As per my last post, the limited options only exist if health insurance isn’t mandatory. Thus, mandatory insurance is the better choice.
And since this along with my thoughts for the overall program (including tort reform, etc) invoke rage on both sides of the aisle, I understand that it can’t happen.
My only problem with this bill is it violates my freedom choice. I am 30 years old and I am healthy. I don’t need health insurance and don’t want it. I will be forced to purchase it. I can afford but I CHOOSE not to purchase it.
My wife is actually from Scotland. In the UK health Insurance is universal but they fund it very differently than in the US. They have a consumption tax (national Sales Tax) so everyone has skin in the game. Now a gallon of gas is about $8.50 a gallon, but everyone pays into the system. By the way that is precisley what is going to happen in this country (a national sales tax to pay for this health insurance bill) in the near future. What people in this country is counting on is for the rich or their employer to pay for their health insurance. I think people who are for what was sign on Sunday think they are going to get free health insurance because that is how this bill of goods was sold to them. Wait untill they figure out that is not the case.
A little side note we were talking to her sister in Edinburgh last weekend. She is a nurse. She was complaining about the sever nursing shortage in the UK, but they don’t have enough money to hire more nurses, so she is working twice the patient load she is use to. Say hello to our future.
In any case, while I agree with that part of the plan that passed, I feel we should have been able to do so much better. It’s just politically impossible.
Hopefully, the necessary cost reducing measures can be added once the Republicans are in office.
Unfortunately, I agree with you. Thus my desire for cost reduction measures which weren’t included in the bill.
At the same time, making health care more available financially to more people will put a strain on our resources and we need to plan for that. But keeping people out of the system solely because of money is a worse option. Doesn’t exactly live up to the preamble of the constitution, does it?
Republicans had the chance to do some sort of health care reform…even a small amount of reform and they never lifted a finger. They were more concerned with war, more oil, military commissions act, side deals and tax cuts for the rich. Although unfunded, they did pass Medicare part D which was a noble thing but, why not go all the way and do the things they proposed over the past year when the Democrats were going full steam ahead on this?
I bet they wished now they had done something back then.
So, Allan, based on your post, you’re a)for legislation that has funding (this bill does not)
b)against side deals (but obviously not the ones used to pass this bill) and
c) for drilling in the US (because you think we went to Iraq for oil).
Lemme ask you something: if we were there for oil, why has the cost been rising here? Why is the US hemorrhaging money while Iraq has an $8B surplus? That’s ignorant.
Tax cuts for the rich means tax cuts for people like you: people with jobs, consumers, people who make money. Tax cuts reimburse those who pay taxes. If the money didn’t, it would be called income redistribution, or taking money from you and giving it to the poor. You were probably against it on the grounds of “who are we to tell them how to live, us arrogant Americans.” Yet you believe the government should foist this monstrosity on us. Be consistent.
I agree with Tim. A flagrant violation of my rights to have to buy something I neither need nor want.
I used to live in Scotland. Few who have ever lived there (save for its citizens who speak out of patriotism) think the NHS works well. In fact, it’s not only a huge entitlement, but its BANKRUPTING the nation.
Just Curious, I do in fact understand your position. I’m simply of the opinion that if we were to include your 4th option along with your previous three my position would be unchanged. I obviously can’t speak for the other readers and posters, but I am always amenable to open and honest debate, and will always listen to, and perhaps be persuaded by, others who use open and honest debate. Civil discourse is a good thing, and it just seems to me wise to listen to all sides of an issue before passing judgment, and be willing to revise an opinion when additional information or facts come to light. However, there is a logical limit to consideration of another’s opinion if it is suspected that manipulation, trickery or dishonesty are being employed (as if they’re legitimate tools of persuasion-they’re not) I don’t believe you fall into this category. As I stated in a previous post, if someone (metaphorically speaking, of course) smashes the bulletin board with a sledge hammer and then claims they were only trying to drive in a thumbtack, they are in my opinion: a) lying b) allowed themselves to be manipulated into thinking it was a good idea c) foolish (see b) None of these things are good, and remove any credibility for their argument. And, a natural response to any who fit this category and persist in trying to influence others are: a) anger (perhaps rage, but not helpful) b) frustration c) disdain d) exasperation e) pity f) sympathy. I may have missed a few, but you get the idea. We need to keep the ideas coming from all honest people, and encourage a healthy debate, until we come up with solutions that make the most sense to the most people and that also reflect and respect the traditions of freedom and liberty of our nation. Not an easy task, I guess, but I’m an optimist. So, Just Curious, you can dream, and so can we all. I have great hopes for the future, so long as it’s the cooler heads using rational thought that prevail.
Knowingly has ties with Bin Laden? Can you show me some, any, evidence? I’m so tired of these inane claims against the Bush admin. It is simply nonsense to claim that a member of one of the richest, most powerful political dynasties in America orchestrated a war to pad his and his cronies pocket books. Do you know how much oil we get from the middle east? 25% of our imports. When we invaded and prices spiked, do you know who won? Russia, Venezuela, Canada, etc: the other world exporters. You telling me Bush, Putin, Chavez all were in cahoots? It is an unfounded claim, Michael Moore.
Yes, tax cuts go to those who pay the taxes, i.e. the rich. 5% of all income taxes accounts for 60% taxes collected. If you disdain tax cuts for the rich, by implication you’re for tax cuts for the poor, yes? In other words, the money me and you pay in taxes should not come back to us, but be given to the poor, i.e. income redistribution. Want more stats? 50% of the country pays 97% of the income tax. Those tax cuts go to those people. What are you complaining about?
Right on target, Tim. But there are many other troubling provisions in this bill as well, hence the heated debate. When we say no one has read the bill I believe it means no one has read the ENTIRE bill and interpreted the full impact on our citizens and their health care…unless a select few DO know and aren’t telling…trojan horse?
IF this bill will save money for the vast majority of citizens AND reduce the deficit THEN why an IMT tax? And reports of the IRS needing approx. 16,000 additional agents?
When Ms. Pelosi stated “Well, let’s vote for this bill SO WE CAN SEE WHAT’S IN IT” I was absolutely dumbfounded! I wouldn’t have believed it if I hadn’t seen it with my own eyes and heard it with my own ears! And I’ve heard there is some language buried somewhere in this bill making at least some parts of it un-repealable by any future Congress (Constitutional?) Using this logic an insurance agent/broker could say to a client “I can’t tell you what’s in the policy – you’ll have to buy it first and then see…and by the way I’m not sure what the total premium will be, and it’s un-cancelable”! Legal? I don’t think so. Reasonable? Definitely not. Remain in business? NO.
So, I’m hearing…wait until the November elections kinda talk going on. What for? It’s funny, when the Republicans had the majorities they did nothing on health care. I don’t think they even brought the subject up. Now, for the past year or so when the Democrats were full steam ahead on the subject, the Republicans introduce some plans, ideas and so forth. Where were they way back when??? I bet now they wish they would have done something sooner.
This sounds like the Civil War all over again. If these states don’t want federal mandates, and better yet, since they apparently don’t care about the residents who live in their state, stop accepting all the Federal Subsidies they receive today. Let’s see how well that works being on their own.
That’s fine and they should also stop paying federal taxes, right?
Since everyone wants to compare health insurance to auto, let’s overhaul the auto insurance while we’re at it. Auto insurance is clearly too expensive and many drive without it, so federal government intervention must be the answer. Here we go…
Everyone will now be required to purchase full coverage auto insurance, or else be subject to a $25 annual fine. Demonstration of financial responsibility is no longer acceptable.
Companies cannot exclude coverage for pre-existing conditions – wrecked cars, maimed pedestrians, etc.
Drivers of Cadillacs will have to pay 40% extra, unless they are union members.
This plan will obviously drive down insurance costs, but the evil auto insurers will hire evil lobbyists in a coldhearted attempt to preserve the status quo.
I would say “spare me” from the government forcing me to buy something I don’t want – What’s next, forcing me to buy an American car or “healthy” food at the supermarket or anything else? I hope this goes to the Supreme Court and the Supremes squash this horrible law like a bug.
Every state with unfunded liabilities directed under this program should file suit. Many are already technically bankrupt. The federal government has enumerated constitutional powers, unlike the all-powerful government liberals seems to have in mind.
Governor “up for reelection” Perry is (surprise) grandstanding via the attorney general. Texas wins under the bill and he knows it. For every $1 added Medicaid expenditure Texas gets $9. It also closes our huge uninsured gap (one of the biggest if not the biggest nationwide). The constitutional challenge has no merit (and they’re squaring off with a constitutional law expert in the process); Perry knows this but isn’t letting that fact get in the way of his scoring cheap political points with his super blue blood constituents.
I also love how the attorneys general claim that “politics have nothing to do with it,” except for the fact that all 12 attorneys general cited are Republicans fighting against legislation which passed without a single GOP yea vote.
Take politics completely out of it Matt. Government cannot and should not force you to buy anything. They own GM…what’s next? A tax penalty of $3,000 if you choose not to buy a GM car?
We should take politics out of it Mr. Solvent. The Federal Gov’t. should also stop mandating you contribute to Social Security and Medicare and you can then be on your own at retirement.
You’re right, John, they should. I’d be very happy to be on my own at retirement, keeping the federal govt out of my pocket in the meantime.
I don’t agree with social security. Government shouldn’t force you to contribute.
That said, it’s not a product. This is government forcing you to purchase a product.
Last time I checked it was illegal to drive without car insurance in every state in the U.S. I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to say everyone who wants healthcare should have health insurance?
Dear Humm…
The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT does not mandate that you have auto insurance. Each state has its own financial responsibility law and requirements, and believe me, they differ greatly state to state.
On the same note, no state (or the FED for that matter) actually REQUIRES you to own a car. That is a voluntary purchase, one which subjects you to the STATE requirement to obtain insurance for that vehicle. You can CHOOSE to not own a car and not subject yourself to those laws. Simple.
This horrendous monstrosity of a bill dictates that you HAVE NO CHOICE and is clearly a violation of the Constitution, unlike the auto insurance requirements which are only subject to those who voluntarily drive.
Understood, however if it was the state that mandated every citizen carry health insurance that would be ok?
It seems like the issue is more about people not wanting to be told what to do and using the label of a constitutional violation.
No one ever died from not having auto insurance yet it is required if you drive an auto. I don’t see a problem with everyone having health insurance.
You’re not required to own a car Humm. If you don’t want to buy car insurance, don’t own a car.
Thanks Mr. Solvent. Took the words right out of my mouth.
Mr. Solvent,
What if the bill was changed to something like: if you want professional healthcare you must have health insurance. You could then choose to not have professional healthcare and opt out of health insurance. It just seems to me like people are splitting hairs.
“It seems like the issue is more about people not wanting to be told what to do and using the label of a constitutional violation.”
Isn’t this sort of the reason we had the Revolutionary War way back when? We didn’t want the king telling us what to do; we wanted to be free and independent. Now we have King Obama and his cohorts in Congress telling us what to do, in a more overreaching and forceful way than the government has ever done in all our history. And we’re not supposed to object to this?
I believe the issue was taxation without representation. Most people don’t like being told what to do, but that doesn’t make something unconstitutional.
DEAR SPARE ME:
TEXAS DID NOT TAKE ANY GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES AS THERE WERE TOO MANY STRINGS ATTACHED TO IT PER THE GOVERNOR OF TEXAS! FIGHT ON STATES!
IN TEXAS, YOU ARE BY LAW TO CARRY MINIMUM LIMITS OF LIABIITY. GUESS WHAT????? 20% IN OUR COUNTY ALONE DO NOT INSURE THEIR VEHCILES. PENALTY? THAT’S LAUGHABLE!
Mr. TX agent. So, you want us to believe TX has never recieved a dollar for highway subsidies, allowed it’s citizens to purchase flood insurance through the federal flood insurance program, allowed the government (FEMA) access after a major hurricane, etc. I have heard various TX political nut jobs threaten to succeed. Well, succeed already. Leave! But, don’t go away mad. Just go away.
bottom line, the government cannot tell you what to buy. If you think differently then quote the Section of the Constitution where is says so. This isn’t splitting hairs – the last time I checked this was supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave. This bill is completely unacceptable – all King Obama cares about is his legacy, even if he doesnt get re-elected.
Our founding fathers are rolling over in their graves right now because of this bill. The jokers in Congress completely disregarded the people’s will.
I read a comment on another website where an astute observer pointed out: if there is no cap on medical spending, and there is no excluding pre-existing conditions, is there a cap on premiums? NO!!! Check the legislation…so the fact that the thieves in Congress tout this to be a cost saving measure for health insurance is an outright lie.
Hmm, Your at the heart of the issue, however still misguided. States can’t require individuals to purchase a commodity. You are required to purchase a driver’s license, but only if you have a car. If you “get in the game” then it comes with rules and requirements. However if you do not own a car, then these state laws do not directly apply.
This is the beginning of the end of our freedoms. It is also the exact reason our founding fathers limited the rule of the Federal Govt. and deferred all power not specifically listed in the constitution to the states.
To touch your last point, the free market realized a niche in developing auto insurance to help drivers and make a profit.
This bill costs $950 billion with 6 years of benefits, but lowers the deficit (lol) This deficit reduction is increased taxes coming out of your pocket. There is no benefit to you or the other 85% that are currently insured.
Since they’re taking $500 billion from medicare, then do that without imposing on everyone else. Then use the $500 billion to insure those that want, but can’t afford insurance.
IG,
There are plenty of laws in place that require you to purchase things. If not, I’ve been paying for city stickers for no reason. While that’s on a lower level then the the federal government, it’s the same premise.
I’m not arguing that the bill is good. All I’m pointing out is the parallel between the states requiring you to have auto insurance and the federal government requiring to have health insurance. Like I said, if you could opt out of professional healthcare and in turn opt out of health insurance, under your premise there should be no problem.
With the penalties written into the tax code I think this challange is dead in the water. Pay for insurance or your taxes increase – just like you pay more taxes if you didn’t finance your home, you get a tax credit for buying “green” windows and furnaces and those that don’t subsidize those that do. I don’t see it as any different than any tax credit or debit designed to change your behavior. I’m not in favor of all the measures in this bill but I don’t see this suit as a way to get it defeated. They won’t haul you into court to get you to pay the penalty they’ll haul you into court because you didn’t pay your taxes.
John, as I stated, if you could hypothetically opt out of professional healthcare and in turn opt out of health insurance, under your premise there should be no problem? You wouldn’t be required to purchase anything unless you got in the game.
Just to be clear, I’m not saying this bill is good. All I’m pointing out is it’s the same states requiring you to have auto insurance that are going against the federal government requiring people to have health insurance when the premise is the same.
Dear Insurance Geek. By your comment, I can appreciate your supposed comfortable benefits situation. But, Obama’s legacy is secondary. This is about getting access to healhcare for the working class of society. For example, Independent contractors who’s wives have to go back to work right after having a kid so they can keep the benefits. (Family values, anyone??) It’s rediculous that in this country many have to choose between paying the mortgage and staying well. Don’t tell me the Republicans were shut out of this debate. They had their chance when they were in the majority (house, senate, white house) and the subject of healthcare for the average Joe never came up. Medicare part d. did come up, but we all know the idiots who built that legislation are the same one’s acusing Obama of wrecking the country. The country was wrecked when he got here. Don’t tell me the Republicans are fiscally concerned when the last Republican administrations each ran deficits higher than the last and they were responsible for the largest government expansion of healthcare. That expansion (Part D.)was 100% unfunded and onerous on the people it was intended to help (i.e. donut hole). The Republicans don’t give a rats @ss about being fiscally sound, helping anyone, or you or me. They care about one thing: Staying in power.
If it wasn’t for legacy, why was it passed with a majority of Americans opposed? Again, I’m not going to put politics into it, but when MSNBC and Fox News polls show the same thing, it stands to reason that the American People don’t want it.
you still dont get it – IF you DON’T buy a car, you ARE NOT required to buy car insurance. AND – THE CAR INSURANCE YOU ARE REQUIRED TO BUY IS LIABILITY COVERAGE. So, if you hurt SOMEONE ELSE, e.g. COMMIT A TORT, the INNOCENT third party that was wronged has recourse. IF YOU ARE REQUIRED TO BUY PHYSICAL DAMAGE, ITS BECAUSE SOMEONE LOANED YOU THE MONEY TO BUY THAT CAR, AGAIN, YOU ARE PROTECTING THE INTEREST OF A THIRD PARTY.
Health insurance is a FIRST PARTY COVERAGE, NOT THIRD PARTY LIKE AUTO LIABILITY INSURANCE. THERE IS NO SIMILARITY. When the USA was free, on 3/22/2010, you were NOT required to buy health insurance. YOU ARE NOW, WHETHER YOU WANT TO OR NOT.
Humm, you are comparing APPLES and ORANGES. Read this post several times until you understand the concept.
Humm,
The key its not the same. Car insurance is only required if you drive a car. This new health care is required or you are fined.
Currently I can get any operation without regard to insurance. I may have to pay for it, but I can get it.
With the new healthcare plan, I have to have insurance, then I have to be approved for to get the operation. If the govt decides I’m to old then I get end of life counseling.
Another method that will be used for decreasing the deficit.
To all you conservatives: I hope all your flakey insurance agencies fail and you get deathly sick … So you can remember what’s important in life
That doesn’t make any sense to claim the GOP wasn’t blocked out because they were in power in previous years. Pelosi and Reid held intra-party negotiations (read: arm twisting) behind closed doors, without consulting the GOP on anything. That’s why there are saying they were blocked out. They didn’t need any GOP votes to pass it, ergo they didn’t bother to invite any of them to plan it. They had carte blanche. Obama in the last 14 months has spent 4x as much as Bush did in 8 years (he’s also golfed more times last year that Bush did in 8).
Gimme a break about family values: the party that supports planned parenthood, abortion clinics, and same-sex marriage is not the party that supports family values. Please.
Insurance Geek:
Here is a question. What is the correct outcome in the following situation in your preferred world where government stays out of health care? An uninsured twenty something learns they have a treatable form of cancer but the treatments, including surgery, chemotherapy, etc will cost well over a hundred thousand dollars and our uninsured twenty something doesn’t have anything close to that kind of money. Is the correct answer:
a. Too bad, you die.
b. Force doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutal companies to provide long term care and medications to treat the cancer with no hope of being paid.
c. Have the taxpayers pay for the treatment(medicaid or medicare but this brings the government into the picture, doesn’t it). or
d. Another option I haven’t thought of.
Just Curious
You’ve all accepted one of the points as fact and it is not. Auto insurance is not required in every state. In those states were it is compulsory, state law made it so. Other states use financial responsibility. That is the point – states should decide what works best for them without government mandate.
It is a red herring to compare auto insurance to this health insurance bill. 1. Auto insurance PROTECTS others (third parties) from your negligence. Coverage for the auto itself it NOT required unless you have a loan – then coverage on the auto is a CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION.
2. Auto insurance DOES NOT pay for the owner/operaters medical EXCEPT for med pay while alighting to/from a vehicle or being in the vehicle.
3. The health insurance requirement is to provide coverage to the individual and there are NOT THIRD PARTIES that get protection from this.
This is insane and I am hopeful that democrats lose the arses this November. Remember – get out and vote.
So it’s ok to be forced buy third party insurance, but it’s not ok to be forced buy first party insurance? Why is that?
I would make the case that no one should opt out of professional healthcare, and that’s really the issue here. Not whether or not the government makes you buy something, because all forms of government make you buy things. What Obama did is take something that everyone does (uses professional healthcare) and made everyone have insurance for it. It just so happens that everyone uses professional healthcare and you can choose to have an auto or not. In the end it’s the same thing.
i didnt make the claims you are responding to – i think you mean someone else…
Amazing how you listed all these individuals that should pay for the chemotherapy, except one, THE PATIENT. 100,000 treatment on a 15 year loan at 4.5% or what ever terms the hospital sets up.
curiously Just Curious, you left out two other options:
1. the twentysomething is insured on their parents policy
2. the twentysomething has a job with benefits
either way the twentysomething gets coverage. I am not saying that the chronically poor or those with pre-existing conditions shouldnt have their insurance issues addressed. But there is a better way to go about it – this bill isnt it though.
So it’s ok to be forced buy third party insurance, but it’s not ok to be forced buy first party insurance? Why is that? BECAUSE YOU ARE INJURING ANOTHER PERSON OR THEIR PROPERTY AND THEY ARE AN INNOCENT BYSTANDER WHEN YOU HAVE A CAR ACCIDENT. GET IT YET???????
Texas Reaction: Yeah and this whole mess was created by the Democrats and Democrats only – no Republican input. God
forbid 12 Republican governors try to stop something that 70+% of Americans don’t want! I hope Obama and Pelosi are squashed like bugs.
Your response seems to be that the hospital, doctors and drug companies should all loan the money to the uninsured patient who will be needing long term care and who has little if any money.
What if they don’t want to get into the banking business? After all, they’re doctors, hospital and drug companies. Would you force them?
And what if they think this is a bad loan to make? Would you require they make the loan?
You keep making the point and missing it at the same time. “Everyone uses professional health care” could be argued, but I’ll give you that even if sometimes that is a choice. Some people opt to pay for it on their own instead of being forced by the government to buy insurance on themselves.
On auto, the idea of mandating third party coverage is to protect others. Again, not all states require this. States get to decide what system (compulsory or financial responsibility) works for them and individuals in financial responsibility states can then decide whether to purchase the policy.
First party auto insurance is subject to consumer choice. If a lender requires, it is a contractual obligation and not a mandate. Individuals again can decide whether to buy the car, take out a loan, or not drive altogther. Even better, they can shop for insurance in a competitive, privatized system.
The appropriate auto/health insurance analogy would be more like requiring everyone in the country to buy auto insurance including those that have no license and no car.
Actually, I said he was uninsured. In both of your possibilities, you added insurance so those don’t apply here.
Yes, but 5 out of 6 in this country fit Just Curious’s scenario. I happen to believe those 5 in 6 will end up with worse care uner this bill.
No no, I understand the difference between the two. I’m asking why you can enforce a law that forces third party insurance coverage, but not first party. Forcing insuring for negligence is ok because there is an innocent bystander? So when you don’t have an innocent bystander that makes it unconstitutional to require people to carry insurance? Why?
Also, caps do not help anyone.
Seems to me it’s Federal versus State’s rights. There is no federal law on auto insurance. It is all determined by the states. While most have adopted compulsory third party coverage, not all have nor are they required to.
Prior to the Health Care bill, states had the same option for Health Care – see Massachusetts and their adoption of a mandatory plan. Now states do not have that right which is why the AGs are challenging.
If only the Founding Fathers could see this… they would be so angry they’d whip their slaves harder than usual.
I love how the “founding fathers” are cited as examples of all that is freedom and democracy — unless of course you happened to be not white or a woman.
Okay, Okay, I’ll stop… I know I’m making Glenn Beck cry his crocodile tears. Didn’t Rush say he’s moving out of the US since healthcare passed? (Kind of like how Hannity offered to be waterboarded for charity [we’re still waiting, Sean!]).
The Founding Fathers aren’t cited for their personal morality, but for their genius in designing our government, one that has not changed in 234 years. Read a book: pre-Civil war saw virtually every judicial/legislative contest be about what the federal government can and can’t do. It’s easy to decry their taciturnity on slavery, but look at the system they’ve designed and its longevity. Lemme ask you something: how many constitutions has France had since 1789?
Do you mean the first,second or third republic or the first or second empire? Quite a few I imagine. Too bad ours seems to be a piece of toilet paper now. I don’t really hold out much hope for the SCOTUS ruling against this travesty.
By my count, France has had 14 constitutions. That should illustrate how ingenious ours is: that fact that that incredibly brief document has ruled our country for as long as it has. This health care bill flies in the face of state/federal power. Obama does not care about any of that; he is a pure elitist ideologue who thinks that he knows best for the millions who are against this.
Pat, wasn’t aware of MA’s mandated plan – thanks I’ll have to research.
Your reply:
“What if they don’t want to get into the banking business? After all, they’re doctors, hospital and drug companies. Would you force them?
And what if they think this is a bad loan to make? Would you require they make the loan?”
So your answer is to make it the taxpayers problem?
1) Are realators, car dealerships, appliance stores etal in the banking business?
2) Many hospitals have bad debts in the past, and may have them in the future.
If I get a serious illness tomorrow, who is responsible for payment?
If I purchase any item or service, who is responsible for payment?
My answer to above is ME.
Your answer is everyone else?
How about asking any agent that’s delivered a life insurance check to help a family in their time of need, or sold one of the policies to the 5 in 6 that are covered by health insurance about what’s important. They can tell you.
While you are at it, ask all those people that own “flakey (sic) agencies” that employee people that provide for their families, and pay taxes, and contribute to their communities the same question. They can tell you too.
If that doesn’t work for you, maybe you can enlighten us all what is important, other than stereotyping on a message board.
I agree Vlad. That’s what this is fundamentally about: Who is ultimately responsible. I have a tax-free HSA. The IRS now is going to consider that income earned, and tax me on it. So, if this year I decided to put $1000 into it, I’m getting financially penalized because that is all getting taxed to hell. Instead, under this plan, I could just not do anything, keep my $1000, pay the nonsensical $750 no-buy fee, and by the gov. ins. when I get sick. In this scenario, I went from taking responsible care of my health ins. to putting the onus onto all of you reading this. That’s not right.
…liberals were sore losers, but sore winners too?
Texas Geek, finally someone has gotten it right-the requirement of Auto Liability is a 3rd party issue NOT 1st party. When people spout off about comparing required auto insurance to this bill I realize just how un-educated they are. These people want something for nothing and are willing to have the rest of us pay for their freebies.
Hide and watch next will be the Cap N Trade and REALLY high taxes – Just keep these folks in power and this country will be gone for good.
Are we really talking about health care reform? Our health care sytem isn’t broken. Daniel Williams, Primer of New Foundland Canada, and from one of the countrys that the liberals hold up as a shinning example of state run health care, came to this country for open heart surgery in January. Of course the sock puppets in the state run media faild to mention that. What we witnessed on Sunday was an expantion of the welfare system. After the bill was passed all the sock puppets were grinning ear to ear proclaiming “finally affordable health care.” What in this bill is going to make insurance affordable? Is forcing people to buy health insurance really going to lower the cost? If I have a DUI and two at fault accidents in the last year and am presently uninsured is forcing me to buy insurance going to make my premiums more affordable? Of course not. Gov. of Pennsylvania Edward Rendell was on MSNBC yesterday and was going on about the good things in the health care bill and he slipped and said “we can all be proud that 30 million uninsured Americans can finally get free health care.” That my friends cuts through the fog. What people that support this bill really want is health care paid by someone else. What the Dems really want is more people dependant on big government so that they will always have a vote come election time. At one point in our history people use to shy away from taking “charity” unless there was no other choice. To make “charity” more palatable to a once proud people they started calling charity entitlements. To expand big government they do so under the guise of Health care reform. If you want to discuss reform than lets talk reform, but lets quit calling what happen Sunday reform when all it really is an expantion of the entitlement mantality.
This has to be the most arrogant administration in the history of our great nation. They just do not care that the Constitution is not a living breathing document you can change at will or interperet as you wish. If you want to know what it means get your glasses out and read it with websters dictionary. That is all you need.
By the way liberals if a woman has the right to do what she wants with her body dont I have the right not to buy insurance on mine?
This has to be the most arrogant administration in the history of our great nation. They just do not care that the Constitution is not a living breathing document you can change at will or interperet as you wish. If you want to know what it means get your glasses out and read it with websters dictionary. That is all you need.
By the way liberals if a woman has the right to do what she wants with her body dont I have the right not to buy insurance on mine?
To Dear TX Agent;
To SUCCEED is to do well at something.
To SECEDE is to break away from, such as Texas being able to secede from the nation.
Sarah
Two questions:
1) are you single
and
2) will you marry me?
Regulator,
I would think most people on here know the difference between first and third party insurance. As was pointed out to me, the party does not matter as there are states that mandate a first party health plan currently.
You can always count on a comment from a Tea Party Patriot to provide a laugh. The constitution is pretty clear on the supremacy of federal law versus states.
Supremacy is not the point. The point is 1) it is an unnecessary measure to interfere in state goings-on when it has been demonstrated that they can do it themselves. and
2) the federal government, irrespective of the supremacy clause (which is between state and federal laws), can not make a private citizen purchase anything. That is the crux of the argument.
And remember auto insurance is only mandatory if you elect to drive a car (a privilege, not a right, might I add). The comparison is inane on many levels, but primarily because it’s elective, not mandated.
I would have to disagree with you that our system isnt broken. For fear of sounding like someone that is for this bill (which I am not, I am ademently against this health care bill), people shouldn’t have to file bankruptcy just because they get really sick and have huge hospital bills. Now, what were are arguing about is HOW to go about fixing the system. I for one think that tort reform and illegal immigration reform need to be the primary focus on fixing the health care system.
I’m just pointing out the fallacy of thinking you can have a plan that doesn’t require everyone to have health insurance without running directly into the problem I posed.
It is unavoidable. If someone doesn’t have health insurance and then becomes really, really sick, there is no reasonable option for dealing with their health care costs. The options I brought up are all there is and all of them are unacceptable. So no, I am not in favor of the taxpayer paying for it.
Unless you can come up with a better answer for dealing with the uninsured, then mandatory insurance is the only option.
I gave you the answer. Just because you don’t like it does not make it the wrong answer.
Thousands declare bankruptcy for reasons other than medical.
If you choose to not carry health insurance and become sick, say good bye to your current lifestyle. No more cable TV, cell phone, flat screen TV, dinners out every Friday and Saturday, etc.
So, by declaring bankruptcy, we simply come back to my second option. The health care providers end up providing the coverage without getting paid.
That is, of course, one of the options. Let’s just be clear it’s the option you are choosing.
I think it’s unacceptable to force health care providers to provide care free of charge.
I don’t think Vlad is suggesting the providers should do it for free. I think the message is that if bankruptcy for medical should be unacceptable, then why not bankruptcy for any other number of reasons? Where does it end? What if I’m an alcoholic who loses my business, my house, my car, etc and has to declare bankruptcy: should everyone in American have to pay for my irresponsibility? Are we entitled to that?
I’m not suggesting that the taxpayers pay for this. I’m simply pointing out the problem you run into when people do not have health insurance. If an uninsured person gets sick, what do you do? There are only the 3 options I mentioned earlier. When pressed, Vlad picked one. That’s fine.
My point is still – Health insurance needs to be mandatory, If it isn’t, some people won’t have it. Most of them will be poor. If they get really sick, we either let them die, force providers to do it for free or make the taxpayers pay. There are no other options.
Which do you choose?
1) I think if you want helath insurance you should have the option to pay for it. To Curious: People need to be forced including poor people to pay. Thus you are for increasing taxes on poor people.
2) Medicaid will be doubled under the bill passed. Last year payments to states was 250,294,000,000. States currently are paying the other 40% bringing the total to about 350,000,000,000, therefore the expenditures can be expected to double to 700,000,000,000. So to curious what tax rate would you set to have the poor pay?
42,000,000 people are on medicaid. If it doubles, thats 82,000,000. So how much are they going to pay?
This can not and will not go on.
Let me clarify. A) I’m not for the fiscal part of the bill. I like what the bill does as far as policy rescinding, pre-existing condtions, insurance exchanges etc. etc. But we could do without the taxes and how it’s paid for.
B) Yes, againts side deals.
C) The Bush family knowingly has business ties with the Saudi’s and the Binladin’s. You don’t think Bush/Cheney went into Iraq for a few “oil deals”? C’mon. It wasn’t for America. It was for their business deals. And they’ve done VERY well.
The rest of your paragraph I couldn’t understand. “Tax cuts reimburse those who pay taxes/” Huh?
You mentioned you lived in Scotland and said the few who have lived there said that the NHS works well. Aside from being huge entitlement and bankrupting the nation, the acutual nuts and bolts of the system work? Sounds just like our Medicare system.
And while we’re at it, the word is “ridiculous,” not “rediculous.” (Sorry, that makes me grind my teeth!) Thank you!
Just saw a video of a rattler biting a woman. She went to the hospital and got 20 vials of antivenom. They asked a British couple to guess the out of pocket cost… The British man says “… American health care? I dunno, a lot, three thousand dollars?” The British woman says “no, way more, $10,000?”. The real out of pocket was actually $140,000.
People in other countries are laughing at us and feel sorry for us.
People in other countries are laughing at us and feel sorry for us…
until they need heart surgery.
If the state legislator(s) of 2/3rd of the states call for a constitutional convention congress must convene one. Then the entire matter or states rights and supremacy could be revisited. Since at least that many are filing lawsuits I would think this is the logical next step.
I agree wholeheartedly. That has never been done, and it would be amazing to see that stop this ruinous legislation.
And in your constitutional convention where you create your free society where people have the option as to whether to purchase health insurance or not, what do you do with the people who don’t, get really sick, perhaps even needing a heart transplant or something and have no reasonable possibility of paying the costs of their health care? Still only the same three options.
1) Taxpayers pay.
2) Medical providers have to provide the service but have no hope of being paid.
3) Too bad, so sad, you die!
I’m still Just Curious
Cute little story, which seems to imply that our health care costs are 14-70 times higher than the UK, based on some British subjects guess. But Matt, like too many people, has reached a conclusion based on insufficient information:
Was the anti-venom serum some extremely rare and costly commodity? Maybe had to be flown in on an emergency flight from Australia or some other far-off place? How many nurses and doctors were needed? Was she in ICU? For how long? Who provided the $140,000 figure? If this had occurred in some other country would she have died, even if she had been willing to pay millions?
And while on the subject of logical thinking Matt, your statements regarding our founding fathers are equally off-base, implying that our nations founders were slave-whipping woman haters: How many owned slaves? How many whipped slaves, or anyone else for that matter? Should history be viewed in an entirely different context from the one in which we live? What were the societal norms at that time? How many women from that time wrote nasty things, or nice things, about their husbands and sons?
What was the state of civilization at that time in other parts of the world?
I don’t know the answers to all of the above, but I do know that my ancestors came over on the Mayflower to escape persecution. And I also know that not one, before or since, has ever owned a slave or condoned slavery – they were all fiercely anti-slavery, not just in this country, but anywhere in the world!
Using revisionist history and incomplete anecdotes to make a political point seems illogical, and is probably dishonest as well. So, let’s just stick to the point at hand: what’s right and what’s wrong with our current health insurance, what’s right and what’s wrong with our current health care delivery, and what solutions can be reasonably and legally implemented. In my opinion, said solutions should be as little as possible: you shouldn’t use a sledge hammer to drive a tack into a bulletin board……unless your real intention is to destroy the bulletin board!
Right on, JB. Also: of your 3 options, JB, you seem to favor #2. Do you work in insurance? Making a company do something, anything, especially pro bono, is exactly what happens in socialist countries and command economies. Who has the right to enforce that? I know you’ll say “then whats the solution?” I don’t know what it is, but it’s not FORCING someone or some company to do it. Would you feel equally sorry for those shareholders who lose their livelihood because the company went under because of these asinine measures?
Forgive me. The second part is directed at Just Curious, not JB. I agree with JB.
Just Curious, your question has been answered already. People should be responsible for their own health care, either through the purchase of insurance or by paying for it themselves.
Hospitals are (and should be) required to provide emergency medical care. Patients who can’t pay will normally be offered extremely flexible payment plans because the alternative is to not collect at all. In this case, the patient will suffer a hit to their credit rating, as well they should. The hospital will write off the loss and move on. Many businesses suffer unrecoverable debts, and the costs are built into their pricing structure.
The poor and elderly are currently insured through government insurers, which isn’t ideal. It would be more efficient to offer tax subsidies so the poor can purchase private insurance.
Pre-existing conditions are excluded from all types of insurance, because they are prohibitively expensive to insure. State-sponsored pools could be established to handle this situation, similar to FAIR Plans and Wind Pools, with tax subsidies or assessments on private health insurers making up the shortfall in collected premiums.
For the rest of us, efficiencies can be gained by allowing insurers to write across state lines and addressing the costs of medicare insurance one way or another. I would certainly be willing to sign away my right to potential windfall punitive damages if my medical costs were cut significantly as a result. I’d guess that others would be as well. I’m sure this would be fought by trial lawyers (greedy insurance companies aren’t the only ones who hire lobbyists). We also need to get over the idea that insurance is needed for routine health care. The catastrophic plan (with HSA) I have does well in that it encourages me to consider the costs involved.
I recently switched from Nasonex ($100 per month) to Flonase ($3 per month) thanks to information provide by my evil health insurer. Prior to that, my health care decision was made between me and my doctor, who provided me with only the information she wanted to provide. Either because she wanted to promote even more expensive allergy shots or because she gets kickbacks for Nasonex, she neglected to ever mention the Flonase option. My evil insurance company just saved me $1164 a year, with only a slight possibility of benefit to them.
So, bottom line, improve market efficiency, subsidize costs of the poor and those with pre-existing conditions, and actually eliminate government involvement in health care decisions? This is health insurance reform I can support.
Actually, I favor mandatory insurance. It avoids the question – everyone is insured. Not the Obama plan but having a limited trauma and major medical option for poor people thus keeping the cost as low as possible. Add major tort reform, eliminate PPO discounts so some patients don’t have to subsidize others and have an assigned risk plan of sorts and you’re moving in the right direction.
As I said yesterday, all 3 options are unacceptable. The taxpayer is overburdened already and you can’t ask medical providers to work for free. That leaves only let them die which is a place I won’t go.
Just Curious, seems to me the most likely outcome in your scenario is 2) the health care provider doesn’t get paid. Based on my own business experience as an insurance agent for many years and my limited knowledge of other businesses, having bad debts is a part of reality and is taken into account, much like any other expense. I’m sure even the IRS has money owed they will never collect. So, what may seem like a substantial amount of money to “write off” for most, may be (and I hope is) a very small percentage.
I assume this “write off” is passed on to those who pay, and if the percentage is small enough perhaps there would be no problem. I know retailers make similar allowances for theft, pilferage,damage, etc. and is included in the price we all pay. Finally, and I guess I’m just stating the obvious, sometimes option 3) is the only option. I must assume that if I were bitten by a deadly rattlesnake 900 miles from nowhere, or got really, really, really sick or injured 900 miles from nowhere option 3) will happen. Or it could happen 50 yards from a hospital in a country where advanced life-saving technology and/or highly trained doctors do not exist. Apparently everyone ever born will eventually be confronted with option 3)…too bad, so sad, but true…
As per my last post, the limited options only exist if health insurance isn’t mandatory. Thus, mandatory insurance is the better choice.
And since this along with my thoughts for the overall program (including tort reform, etc) invoke rage on both sides of the aisle, I understand that it can’t happen.
But I can dream : )
My only problem with this bill is it violates my freedom choice. I am 30 years old and I am healthy. I don’t need health insurance and don’t want it. I will be forced to purchase it. I can afford but I CHOOSE not to purchase it.
My wife is actually from Scotland. In the UK health Insurance is universal but they fund it very differently than in the US. They have a consumption tax (national Sales Tax) so everyone has skin in the game. Now a gallon of gas is about $8.50 a gallon, but everyone pays into the system. By the way that is precisley what is going to happen in this country (a national sales tax to pay for this health insurance bill) in the near future. What people in this country is counting on is for the rich or their employer to pay for their health insurance. I think people who are for what was sign on Sunday think they are going to get free health insurance because that is how this bill of goods was sold to them. Wait untill they figure out that is not the case.
A little side note we were talking to her sister in Edinburgh last weekend. She is a nurse. She was complaining about the sever nursing shortage in the UK, but they don’t have enough money to hire more nurses, so she is working twice the patient load she is use to. Say hello to our future.
I understand and sympathize.
In any case, while I agree with that part of the plan that passed, I feel we should have been able to do so much better. It’s just politically impossible.
Hopefully, the necessary cost reducing measures can be added once the Republicans are in office.
Unfortunately, I agree with you. Thus my desire for cost reduction measures which weren’t included in the bill.
At the same time, making health care more available financially to more people will put a strain on our resources and we need to plan for that. But keeping people out of the system solely because of money is a worse option. Doesn’t exactly live up to the preamble of the constitution, does it?
Republicans had the chance to do some sort of health care reform…even a small amount of reform and they never lifted a finger. They were more concerned with war, more oil, military commissions act, side deals and tax cuts for the rich. Although unfunded, they did pass Medicare part D which was a noble thing but, why not go all the way and do the things they proposed over the past year when the Democrats were going full steam ahead on this?
I bet they wished now they had done something back then.
So, Allan, based on your post, you’re a)for legislation that has funding (this bill does not)
b)against side deals (but obviously not the ones used to pass this bill) and
c) for drilling in the US (because you think we went to Iraq for oil).
Lemme ask you something: if we were there for oil, why has the cost been rising here? Why is the US hemorrhaging money while Iraq has an $8B surplus? That’s ignorant.
Tax cuts for the rich means tax cuts for people like you: people with jobs, consumers, people who make money. Tax cuts reimburse those who pay taxes. If the money didn’t, it would be called income redistribution, or taking money from you and giving it to the poor. You were probably against it on the grounds of “who are we to tell them how to live, us arrogant Americans.” Yet you believe the government should foist this monstrosity on us. Be consistent.
I agree with Tim. A flagrant violation of my rights to have to buy something I neither need nor want.
I used to live in Scotland. Few who have ever lived there (save for its citizens who speak out of patriotism) think the NHS works well. In fact, it’s not only a huge entitlement, but its BANKRUPTING the nation.
Just Curious, I do in fact understand your position. I’m simply of the opinion that if we were to include your 4th option along with your previous three my position would be unchanged. I obviously can’t speak for the other readers and posters, but I am always amenable to open and honest debate, and will always listen to, and perhaps be persuaded by, others who use open and honest debate. Civil discourse is a good thing, and it just seems to me wise to listen to all sides of an issue before passing judgment, and be willing to revise an opinion when additional information or facts come to light. However, there is a logical limit to consideration of another’s opinion if it is suspected that manipulation, trickery or dishonesty are being employed (as if they’re legitimate tools of persuasion-they’re not) I don’t believe you fall into this category. As I stated in a previous post, if someone (metaphorically speaking, of course) smashes the bulletin board with a sledge hammer and then claims they were only trying to drive in a thumbtack, they are in my opinion: a) lying b) allowed themselves to be manipulated into thinking it was a good idea c) foolish (see b) None of these things are good, and remove any credibility for their argument. And, a natural response to any who fit this category and persist in trying to influence others are: a) anger (perhaps rage, but not helpful) b) frustration c) disdain d) exasperation e) pity f) sympathy. I may have missed a few, but you get the idea. We need to keep the ideas coming from all honest people, and encourage a healthy debate, until we come up with solutions that make the most sense to the most people and that also reflect and respect the traditions of freedom and liberty of our nation. Not an easy task, I guess, but I’m an optimist. So, Just Curious, you can dream, and so can we all. I have great hopes for the future, so long as it’s the cooler heads using rational thought that prevail.
Knowingly has ties with Bin Laden? Can you show me some, any, evidence? I’m so tired of these inane claims against the Bush admin. It is simply nonsense to claim that a member of one of the richest, most powerful political dynasties in America orchestrated a war to pad his and his cronies pocket books. Do you know how much oil we get from the middle east? 25% of our imports. When we invaded and prices spiked, do you know who won? Russia, Venezuela, Canada, etc: the other world exporters. You telling me Bush, Putin, Chavez all were in cahoots? It is an unfounded claim, Michael Moore.
Yes, tax cuts go to those who pay the taxes, i.e. the rich. 5% of all income taxes accounts for 60% taxes collected. If you disdain tax cuts for the rich, by implication you’re for tax cuts for the poor, yes? In other words, the money me and you pay in taxes should not come back to us, but be given to the poor, i.e. income redistribution. Want more stats? 50% of the country pays 97% of the income tax. Those tax cuts go to those people. What are you complaining about?
Right on target, Tim. But there are many other troubling provisions in this bill as well, hence the heated debate. When we say no one has read the bill I believe it means no one has read the ENTIRE bill and interpreted the full impact on our citizens and their health care…unless a select few DO know and aren’t telling…trojan horse?
IF this bill will save money for the vast majority of citizens AND reduce the deficit THEN why an IMT tax? And reports of the IRS needing approx. 16,000 additional agents?
When Ms. Pelosi stated “Well, let’s vote for this bill SO WE CAN SEE WHAT’S IN IT” I was absolutely dumbfounded! I wouldn’t have believed it if I hadn’t seen it with my own eyes and heard it with my own ears! And I’ve heard there is some language buried somewhere in this bill making at least some parts of it un-repealable by any future Congress (Constitutional?) Using this logic an insurance agent/broker could say to a client “I can’t tell you what’s in the policy – you’ll have to buy it first and then see…and by the way I’m not sure what the total premium will be, and it’s un-cancelable”! Legal? I don’t think so. Reasonable? Definitely not. Remain in business? NO.