You can't actually believe that. Carriers and HMOs know very well that they can "reduce their risk" with impunity because the government will not allow people to die in the streets.
This is really irrelevant to the thing. Even were the government to allow folks to die in the streets, the carriers are under no obligation whatever to expose themselves to undue risk. They offer a product.
Meanwhile they have a high-powered lobbying program going to make sure the govt. doesn't force the risk back on them---or even hold them accountable.
They understand that the government has a tendency to create rights where none logically exist, and remove rights that exist by nature.
Huh? The "goods" are not even being offerred.
Very well then. If they are not being offered to a certain person, that person doesn’t have to buy. And if that person has a condition that makes him quite predisposed to a costly illness, the insurance companies are not by any means obligated to expose themselves to risk caused by that person’s condition. They are in fact obligated to avoid such risk.
I have to suggest again that you are seriously underinformed here.
I must suggest you are seriously unreasonable here. You are upset with insurance companies simply because they refuse to expose themselves to people who have a greater predisposition toward sicknesses. You are making no sense. If given five people three turn out to be less predisposed to sickness than two, then reason compels us to do business with the three and avoid the two, and there is no moral problem with this at all, UNLESS we are dealing with charity. I think all business should engage in charity, but the difference between you and I is that I think charity is by definition a voluntary effort. You want it codified into law. You are seriously misguided.
Here's a scenario: Mom has an auto-immune disorder. She has insurance and her kid is on the plan as well. Mom decides to do some checking on her kid and discovers to her shock that the kid, a ten year old girl, has a +ANA and also shows + for anti-cardiolipin antibody… If Mom changes jobs, the kid is screwed because the best she will get is limited coverage. And the carrier can claim practically anything short of an MVA is related to the pre-existing condition. So how is that a matter of choice?
The choices are legion. They may not be to your liking or even to that of the mother. But they exist and making them is NOT the obligation of insurance companies. Life happens. Some mothers must choose between staying on a job to keep insurance and switching jobs to get greater pay. Life is a matter of choices. Adults must make the best choices they can, working within the parameters they are given. They are not children, as you imply, with insurance companies for mothers. Insurance companies are just businesses – that’s all.
Fortunately there is competition in the health care world. Rather than simply grinding rates down for the sake of attracting customers, but at the same time limiting services. Some HMOs actually are raising rates and providing more coverage.
The wonderful world of free markets at work.
Try telling [the ten year-old in my scenario to live a healthier life] without looking like an arrogant elitist.
Well, I wouldn’t tell the ten-year-old, pal. But I would tell the mother and look every bit like a caring citizen instead of a dumb liberal who wants to corrupt the law so that folks can live like pigs and get their resultant sicknesses paid for from the government coffers.
You mean like the EPA, FCC, NIH, FDA, Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Housing and Energy?
Indeed, certainly like the FDA, EPA and NIH and also like the NEA.
Gimme a break. The fox is nearly in charge of the henhouse already.
That is my fear, and is why we should kill the dang government fox or at least put a short leash around its neck. |
