Huckabee opposes health insurance for people with pre existing conditions...

[RobsanX]

At least the heartless bastard admits to it. Isn't this man supposed to be a Christian minister? What kind of gospel does he believe in?

When Republicans attack health care reform, Democrats like to counter by accusing Republicans of wanting to repeal a law that requires insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions. According to Republican Presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee, that's exactly right. People with pre-existing conditions, he explains are like houses that have already burned down.

"It sounds so good, and it's such a warm message to say we're not gonna deny anyone from a preexisting condition," Huckabee explained at the Value Voters Summit today. "Look, I think that sounds terrific, but I want to ask you something from a common sense perspective. Suppose we applied that principle [to] our property insurance. And you can call your insurance agent and say, "I'd like to buy some insurance for my house." He'd say, "Tell me about your house." "Well sir, it burned down yesterday, but I'd like to insure it today." And he'll say "I'm sorry, but we can't insure it after it's already burned." Well, no preexisting conditions."

A moment of candor from the evangelical former Arkansas governor. Hard to say how that comports with voting on values, though.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...conditions.php

[sgreger1]

At least the heartless bastard admits to it. Isn't this man supposed to be a Christian minister? What kind of gospel does he believe in?



http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...conditions.php

He is actually 100% correct. I personally think we need to find a way for everyone to be able to recieve affordable healthcare, but that comes with some big hurdles, like for example paying for people who are already sick, yet not charging them more. It's just hard to do. You are asking for more, yet wanting to pay less. It's contrary to how industries work, and this HC industry was brought up around the idea of making money and having the best most expensive medicine. To come in this far down the line and force insurance companies to give expensive care to everyone at a low price is unreasonable and impossible for that matter. People scream about how insurance companies made 200 million $ last year or whatever, but 200 million $ would dry up in 5 minutes if we gave superior care to every single person regardless of how much they pay or what their condition is. HC costs america trillions of dollars a year, and even if insurance companies ran as non-profits, we still could not afford it with the current cost of medical services. Until Dr's start working for free, it ain't gonna happen.

His analogy is correct, it is exactly like burning down your house and then trying to get insurance afterwards, it's not fiscally sustainable. Please try and see that he is not being some heartless republican bastard, he is stating a simple truth. Everyone getting expensive shit for cheap sounds great, and is a great campaign promise, but it is impossible in the current system, and that is just a fact that both sides have to come to terms with.


Single payer would work better. We could solve a lot of these problems via a single payer system. Guys, it's the only thing that we know works halfway decent, covers the most people, and keeps costs relitavely low compared to those of the US. It's not about communism or anything else like that, it's about what works. Like communism vs. capitalism, I choose capitalism because even though it's flawed, it works the best between the two. Same with single payer, it's not perfect, but it's better than what we have.

[Randall]

His analogy is correct? A human being is comparable to a house!?! lol

[sgreger1]

His analogy is correct? A human being is comparable to a house!?! lol

Sigh. Cummon man, let's take off our emotional blinders here for a second. It's not about comparing a person to a house, it's about whether or not this concept makes economic sense. He is saying that is is not sustainable, nor possible in the long term, to purchase insurance on something that has already destroyed. Do you see what i'm saying? No one is saying that a human being is comparable to a house, nor is anyone saying that sick people should not get treatment. Not by a long shot. Luckily, no one can be denied treatment under the current system as it is. Under the current system, you have to pay out of pocket for it if you don't have insurance. This sucks, but saving people's lives is not cheap. Insurance is willing to offer you a product that spreads out the cost, to the profit of all parties involved, but the concept of insurance will not work if everyone can get insurance after they have already damaged the goods.

It's like if 20% of Americans already had houses that were burned down, and then the government mandated that everyone buy fire insurance, even if they don't own a house, so that we could afford to rebuild those people's houses. It's just a wierd way of doing things imo, and not financially responsible or sustainable.

There is a better way. Look to Canada or Europe.

[Randall]

I don't really give a shit, sgreger. I'm poor and I have no insurance. Can't afford it, either. Insurance talk is for the elite to discuss. Carry on.

[CoderGuy]

Sigh. Cummon man, let's take off our emotional blinders here for a second. It's not about comparing a person to a house, it's about whether or not this concept makes economic sense. He is saying that is is not sustainable, nor possible in the long term, to purchase insurance on something that has already destroyed. Do you see what i'm saying? No one is saying that a human being is comparable to a house, nor is anyone saying that sick people should not get treatment. Not by a long shot. Luckily, no one can be denied treatment under the current system as it is. Under the current system, you have to pay out of pocket for it if you don't have insurance. This sucks, but saving people's lives is not cheap. Insurance is willing to offer you a product that spreads out the cost, to the profit of all parties involved, but the concept of insurance will not work if everyone can get insurance after they have already damaged the goods.

It's like if 20% of Americans already had houses that were burned down, and then the government mandated that everyone buy fire insurance, even if they don't own a house, so that we could afford to rebuild those people's houses. It's just a wierd way of doing things imo, and not financially responsible or sustainable.

There is a better way. Look to Canada or Europe.

We have had this argument at work before. The people that are without health problems are in favor of not covering pre-existing conditions and the people with health problems are not. Sort of like how non-smokers are in favor of banning tobacco but tobacco users are not.

In that same analogy I would not be opposed (being a person with health conditions) to paying more, not just being cut off. The problem with the pre-existing condition clause is there is no gray area, they either cover you or they don't, and in most cases don't. As it is right now I either have to remain at the same company for the rest of my life, or hope I die before I lose my job as anywhere new I went I would no longer have insurance coverage due to pre-existing conditions.

[Simplysnus]

sgreger, you seem to contradict yourself. Capitalism good, but you want single payer? There are a lot of variants of single payer as far as services, but they're all single payer from the govt. as far as I know, which isn't very capitalistic.

[Simplysnus]

We have had this argument at work before. The people that are without health problems are in favor of not covering pre-existing conditions and the people with health problems are not. Sort of like how non-smokers are in favor of banning tobacco but tobacco users are not.

In that same analogy I would not be opposed (being a person with health conditions) to paying more, not just being cut off. The problem with the pre-existing condition clause is there is no gray area, they either cover you or they don't, and in most cases don't. As it is right now I either have to remain at the same company for the rest of my life, or hope I die before I lose my job as anywhere new I went I would no longer have insurance coverage due to pre-existing conditions.

I'm in the same boat, however you can change jobs and every plan I've seen around here has no pre-existing condition with the new job. It's a problem when you need to get it outside of your job, ie if your job offers no health insurance, etc.

[CoderGuy]

I'm in the same boat, however you can change jobs and every plan I've seen around here has no pre-existing condition with the new job. It's a problem when you need to get it outside of your job, ie if your job offers no health insurance, etc.

Ah that would make sense; company covered vs personally bought. So the secret is to not ever become unemployed where you have to buy Cobra or one of those.

[Simplysnus]

Ah that would make sense; company covered vs personally bought. So the secret is to not ever become unemployed where you have to buy Cobra or one of those.

Pretty much, Cobra actually is just an extension of your company's plans so they have to accept you as well, for the 18 months anyways.

[sgreger1]

I don't really give a shit, sgreger. I'm poor and I have no insurance. Can't afford it, either. Insurance talk is for the elite to discuss. Carry on.

I am down for covering the uninsured. I am saying the only way to do it is through a single payer system. What is elite about that? Im 24 bro, and Im far from rich. Im just talking about how its nice to dream but to fix real problems we need real solutions.

[sgreger1]

sgreger, you seem to contradict yourself. Capitalism good, but you want single payer? There are a lot of variants of single payer as far as services, but they're all single payer from the govt. as far as I know, which isn't very capitalistic.

Is no one reading my full sentences? I said i support capitalism because its been proven to work better than communism. For the same reasons, i see single payer has been proven to work better than our current or proposed obama system.


Guys, quit purposely misreading my shit. Im saying that we dont have enough money to cover the uninsured and pre-existing conditions group in the current or proposed systems, which is why we need single payer. Im down for capitalism for most industries, but thats because it works. In regards to health care, it does not work, and we know what does: single payer. Not sure what part of this concept contradicts anything. I am for capitalism but i am also for the police dept and the military, does that mean im down for socialism? No, it means shit is not that black and white. We need a mixture of the two.

[sgreger1]

Pretty much, Cobra actually is just an extension of your company's plans so they have to accept you as well, for the 18 months anyways.

Cobra is such a shitty deal. Better to just cut your coverage and pay out of pocket, cobra for my company was like $500 a month when i was 19 with no health problems lol. Total ripoff.

[CoderGuy]

Cobra is such a shitty deal. Better to just cut your coverage and pay out of pocket, cobra for my company was like $500 a month when i was 19 with no health problems lol. Total ripoff.

Yes it's ridiculous how much they take advantage of the down trodden; "Let's take someone that is now out of work and charge them as much as rent". As far as I am aware Obamacare doesn't really address this. It mandates that everyone HAS to buy health insurance but doesn't set a cap on the amount companies like Cobra can charge for it.

[raptor]

I said i support capitalism because its been proven to work better than communism.

Pure capitalism is just as bad and unwieldy as pure communism. They are theoretical constructs which fail when the human element is added.