re: Rep. Mo Brooks: People who live 'good lives' should pay less for health insurance

Does anyone remember all that whining from the right when it came out Obamacare allowed a surcharge for smokers?

Of course not.

www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/politics/the-smoking-tax-in-obamacare/42873547

quote:

---

If you price out the unhealthy from the insurance market we all will still get passed on the buck of the cost of their care when they go to the emergency room uninsured. Hospitals don't eat that cost they just raise the prices of everything else.

---

I think some of them do eat it and they wind up having to close down.

quote:

---

f you wreck more cars is your auto insurance higher?

If you eat fried food, fast food, pie and drink soda should you pay more for your insurance because you are a higher risk?

No one complains that life insurance is more costly for those with bad lifestyle choices.

---

In a free market I agree; however, the insurance industry has more regulations than Kim Jong Un's biographer.

For the record- I fully support the deregulation of the insurance marketplace. Free enterprise is a glorious thing ... on those rare occasions where we actually let it happen.

quote:

---

"My understanding is that (the new proposal) will allow insurance companies to require people who have higher health care costs to contribute more to the insurance pool," Brooks said. "That helps offset all these costs, thereby reducing the cost to those people who lead good lives, they're healthy, they've done the things to keep their bodies healthy. And right now, those are the people--who've done things the right way--that are seeing their costs skyrocketing."

Brooks, who said he's "seriously considering" a run for U.S. Senate, opposed the earlier healthcare plan endorsed by Republican leaders and President Donald Trump. He now says he will join with other House Freedom Caucus members in supporting an overhaul of the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, after a provision was added that would allow states to get waivers on some of the care mandates for those with pre-existing conditions.

Later in the CNN interview, Brooks acknowledged some people who maintain their health can still have pre-existing conditions.

"In fairness, a lot of these people with pre-existing conditions, they have those conditions through no fault of their own," he said. "And I think our society, under those circumstances, needs to help. The challenge though is that it's a tough balancing act between the higher cost of these mandates which denies people coverage because they can't afford their health insurance policies...and having enough coverage to help those people truly in need."

---

This is truly amazing that no one understands what excluding pre-existing conditions or even making those with them pay more for coverage...and then not having any basic level of coverage. So what happens is people either don't have coverage or they have a piece of paper and thats it and then when they show up for treatment they get treated because health care professionals ain't cruel and the rest of us pay anyway. How is this missed?

It sounds like a great idea....if you have a pre-existing condition you are going to cost more and therefore you are going to pay more....the reality is though that while it may sound logical it doesn't happen in the real world....many people with pre-existing conditions simply could not or would not buy insurance at the higher rates...but when they needed treatment they were treated anyway without the ability to pay because, again, providers aren't keen on turning away sick people when they need their help....but they have to pass those costs onto their paying customers.

It really is as simple as understanding that anyone whop buys a pair of Rustler jeans at Walmart is subsidizing the cost of the shoplifter stealing a pair of Rustler's at WalMart....I know it gives some of you warm fuzzies thinking that sick people should suffer....but it ain't gonna happen....you are going to foot the bill for them one way or another...you can either foot it up front of foot it and the lawyers and collection agency costs...it is up to you....you are going to pay...

quote:

---

Rustler jeans at Walmart is subsidizing the cost of the shoplifter stealing a pair of Rustler's at WalMart..

---

That's why Walmart has security in their stores...to limit shrinkage.

Are you for government intrusion in the lives of the folks that are non-compliant, lazy, fat asses that are your version of jean thieves?

If so, we may have some ground for compromise.

quote:

---

Sorry I don't want to live in a police state where everyone's food is monitored. I like freedom.

---

You don't need the government. Just let insurers charge a premium for self-imposed risk factors.

I'm a podiatrist. I average 4-5 surgeries a week on noncompliant diabetics and smokers.

Most of these cases are some form of amputation. These people are so noncompliant it's insane. The same folks come back to the hospital again, and again, and again.

Non-medical folks would probably faint if they really saw how much money, time, and resources are expended on this population.

Anyone who doesn't think these people should pay more for their healthcare is either ignorant or a fricking moron.

I have trouble reconciling a system that rewards people for making bad choices.

There's no easy answer but all these entitlements are making America worse in many ways.

quote:

---

So you would be good with a security force to limit the shrinkage the non-compliant create or at least limit their ability to steal in some other manner not including a security force?

How about they only get access to certain facilities and doctors? How about their food stamps are limited to healthy choices?

There has to a compromise somewhere. Or as usual, it's my liberal way or the highway? Because I think that's how most of you see it.

---

It has nothing to do with liberal or conservative....you can't legislate how a company charges its customers....so if they decide it is in their best interest to give their goods and services to some and collect the costs from their paying customers there is nothing the state can do about it...or there shouldn't be...I am certain that the state could step in and cap prices etc etc etc but that is a worse situation than simply providing those who can't or won't do so for themselves a basic insurance policy. Those of us who can or will pay for ourselves are fricked either way...the question is do we also want to be fricked by lawyers and collection agencies as well as the uninsured and the providers are do we simply want to be fricked by the uninsured and just pay for their damn insurance? There is no good answer...the best answer is to cut our losses and simply pay for a basic policy, period. \


Even then when that person with that basic policy needs a lung transplant or some similar expensive procedure the paying customer of ALL of the products and services of those providers are going to pay for the person who gets them at no or reduced cost....

There is not a good answer....the worst answer of all is to live with a situation where more and more people are uninsured and therefore being subsidized by the insured.....