why not strip out everything from the House medical insurance corp. giveaway bill

[branders seine]

except the requirements that companies not deny coverage for preexisting conditions or raise rates because of claims?


They've botched the concept of "public option" so badly that it should just be eliminated.

[cali]

1. I tend to agree with you. My Senator does not. I have a lot of trust in his

expertise and judgment.

[Oregone]

2. Image that...passing a couple pages worth of just beneficial tinkering

Id prefer that to this convoluted debacle

[wroberts189]

3. ...or just cancel your insurance if you get to sick. "Recission" ...

or lifetime caps of money they will pay.


knr

[Warpy]

4. The worst part is that they can go on killing us for the next 5 years

before any of this stuff takes effect.

[geek tragedy]

5. Because then no one would buy insurance.

Instead, they'd just wait until they got sick and then buy health insurance. So, health insurance would thus become even more hideously expensive, which would mean more people would only buy when they got really sick, and then the cost would become even more hideously expensive .. . .

End result would be health insurance costs going up much faster than they are now, with fewer and fewer people insured, and fewer and fewer people getting preventive care and treatment for conditions like asthma or getting breast cancer exams, etc.

[yodoobo]

7. No, they wouldn't be allowed to raise rates.

[geek tragedy]

8. Then every insurance company would cease to exist after

going bankrupt.

Which means you would need to simultaneously enact single payer.

So, we're back to square one.

[yodoobo]

12. Sounds like a plan!

[depakid]

9. With what's on the table now- it's going to continue to be hideously expensive!

As it stands- you're all getting punked with this ridiculous legislation.

[geek tragedy]

10. It would get much worse. And I'll trust Alan Grayson

and Barbara Lee and Raul Grijalva and the other 96% of the CPC over the Party of No flame warriors at DU.

[depakid]

11. It could get worse, no doubt

One thing many of us are pretty damn sure of though- this bill in its present form won't contain costs- nor will it provide much of any political benefit to the Dems in 2010.

Is it better than nothing? Perhaps. Are Americans still getting punked by insurers and their representatives in Congress. No doubt.

Few people- least of all me, expected Congress or the administration to deal seriously with the underlying problems, but what's been done thus far is insulting- and the final bill may be even more so, when all is said and done.

[Hello_Kitty]

16. And Bart Stupak and every other DINO corporate shill and C Streeter.

[Hello_Kitty]

15. We don't have a mandate now.

And yet, oddly enough, the majority of Americans (around 85%) have some type of coverage. Are they all sick?

[Brigid]

6. They botched it because . . .

they really should have gone for single-payer.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

13. Because it would be the equivalent of allowing people to buy car insurance after a crash.

You can't make it so that insurance companies must cover all preexisting conditions without mandating that people buy insurance. It just doesn't work. You'd have a large number of people who would only purchase insurance when they knew they were sick, and then drop it when they were better. It is literally the equivalent of allowing someone to buy auto insurance after they've already crashed their car. It doesn't make any sense.

[branders seine]

14. the only legitimate answer is single payer.

thank you for proving that.