Would you have supported a smaller healthcare reform act, specifically one that

quote:

---

merely outlawed insurance companies from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions?

---

The whole point of insurance is determining risk....

I would have supported reform that didn't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Sorry the godless dem/lib conundrum strikes again as Darwin says "pre-existing conditions" are all part of the plan.

quote:

---

Rex

---

I can has cake?

Nah

quote:

---

merely outlawed insurance companies from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions?

---

I would have supported one that would have lowered health care cost by changing the pricing model WHICH would have had the effect of making pre-existing conditions a non-issue.

The IBFreeman health care plan would have taken all government provided health care to a voucher-based system that would have allowed recipients to keep any savings they were able to negotiate from providers. For example medicare people would get a $2000 a month voucher to subscribe to health care services or to buy health insurance. If they could but it for $1500 they would keep the difference.

The IBFreeman plan accomplishes a few very positive things for all of us.

First it makes shoppers out of millions of people. They will be much better shoppers than the government. They will be rewarded for buying lower cost plans while requiring the purchase of healthcare. This incentive will bring thousands of uninsured to the market.

Second it will end the direct purchasing of health care by the government which is filled with corruption and is the main reason health care cost have increased more than the rate of inflation.

Third it will encourage the creation of subscription-based health care eliminating the overhead insurance companies create. This will be the end of health insurance companies. They may morph into subscriber companies but the insurance unknowns will disappear.

Fourth this will allow providers to have predictable streams of income. The impact of pre-existing conditions will be much smaller. The cost in health care is too a large extent fixed. For example, Our Lady of the Lake has similar day to day cost if they do an open heart surgery on a day as they do on a day they do not. It really does not add to their cost to take on a pre-existing condition in a subscription-based pricing system.

Democrats should embrace such a plan because it incentivizes people to get insured and it makes universal coverage a reality.

Republicans should embrace it because it will change the pricing model and end the ever rising floor the direct purchase of health care by the government creates.

Preexisting conditions occur the majority of the time because of the lack of personal responsibility. I have paid for my own health insurance for 20 years to have only start needing it in the past 2 years.

I didn't wait till I was already diagnosed with an illness to prepare for how it will be paid for.

Charging people for known risks is part of ...well.. Insurance.


If someone waits until they're sick to get insurance, then you have ... well... Obamacare.

quote:

---

merely outlawed insurance companies from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions?

---

Would you do a business plan that knows in advance that your company would lose money? What's worse, you don't even know how much you will lose because you don't how much these pre-existing conditions might cost. What is exactly our business background?