Compassionate Conservatism

Comments (16)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

1. cassandra_m says:

   September 25, 2009 at 7:54 pm

   A perfect specimen of the “I Got Mine, You Fuck Off” attitude of the Southern Repub party.

2. Rhymes With Right says:

   September 25, 2009 at 8:33 pm

   And you are a perfect example of the “No freedom of choice for anything but abortion” attitude of the Democrat Party.

3. Republican David says:

   September 25, 2009 at 8:57 pm

   Point counter point. New point. We should be careful of loading mandates on all insurance policies. There should be a place for catastrophic care plans especially when combined with medical savings accounts or a self funded corporate plan. If a company is marketing general health insurance, it should cover normal foreseeable life events such as maternity.Most plans do. It is usually a rider that you choose to add on. Right now you have a choice to have it when you need it and drop it when you don’t. Her statistic was misleading. I know people here have no problem with Washington usurping everything including individual adjustments as their life goes through stages.

   Frankly, if that was the biggest issue I would be ecstatic. I have no problem with people having babies and no problem making sure they have no worries about the bills. My only problem is paying for killing babies. I just do not want mandates that could in the long run harm us by inadvertently being too broad.

4. cassandra_m says:

   September 25, 2009 at 9:04 pm

   And you are a perfect example of the “No freedom of choice for anything but abortion” attitude of the Democrat Party.

   And the No Nothing Cialis Whisperer shows up again.

   You haven’t any idea about what I’d consider freedom of choice, which doesn’t matter much since you are only in this to do your juvenile “I Know You Are But What Am I” schitck. It is ignorant, boring and — guess what?– off topic. Ground your claims in something concrete or STFU.

5. Progressive Mom says:

   September 25, 2009 at 9:11 pm

   We should be careful of loading bullshit into the discussion. There should be a place for catastrophic health plans that only kick in when people are reduced to bankruptcy through $20,000 per family member per year deductibles. If you didn’t put $20,000 of your own money into in your medical savings account this year to cover your deductible, well, that’s too bad.

   Most companies do not offer mental health, maternity or any other riders in the individual or small group markets. Most insurance companies would laugh heartily at the suggestion. It’s a loser, because people drop it when they don’t need it and add it when they do. It’s called “adverse selection.” Insurance companies avoid the adverse.

   Most insurers would fight against covering “normal foreseeable life events”. You should pay for your own foreseeable costs. That’s not the job of your health insurance. And, if you wait until you are in a “stage” of life where you need coverage, you waited too long. You are ineligible, because there’s no money to be made on you now.

   And there are charities if you need care. And emergency rooms.

   At $2400 per month for a family of four in my county, with no mental health, maternity or drug benefit, health insurance is currently available for all.

   Welcome to the United States, David.

   (and, honestly, if you think that insurance companies allow you to “have a choice to have it (selective coverage) when you need it and drop it when you don’t”, you are either still on daddy’s insurance policy or you are a CEO who has fully paid premier coverage. There’s no such thing.)

6. Rhymes With Right says:

   September 25, 2009 at 9:42 pm

   STFU — the ultimate in liberal arguments.

   Sounds like your man needs some cialis to get you out of that nasty mood, cassie. Or you need some batteries.

7. Unstable Isotope says:

   September 25, 2009 at 10:18 pm

   I’ll never get prostate cancer. I don’t think it should be covered.

8. Rhymes With Right says:

   September 26, 2009 at 3:47 am

   I don’t think that he is saying that maternity care should not be covered. I think he is saying that he should not be mandated to buy coverage for it.

   And if you don;’t want to buy insurance that covers cancer, UI, that should be your choice — and you should then expect to bear the burdens of that choice. . .

9. Republican David says:

   September 26, 2009 at 7:48 am

   I can get you some a lot cheaper. You don’t shop too well.

10. pandora says:

    September 26, 2009 at 8:43 am

    David, correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t you getting your health insurance through a government run program for the military? I seem to remember you writing about this.

11. cassandra_m says:

    September 26, 2009 at 9:46 am

    RWR –responding to a fair demand for something more concrete than your usual made up BS (and made up BS about a real person here) with misogynistic BS only digs your hole deeper. You can be here with facts and information or take your act on the road to someplace where they’ll actually buy that crap as the sine qua non of intellectualism. Count this as your second warning.

12. Geezer says:

    September 26, 2009 at 10:16 am

    “And if you don;’t want to buy insurance that covers cancer, UI, that should be your choice — and you should then expect to bear the burdens of that choice.”

    That sounds like a fine idea for the mythical land of your dreams that you keep typing about. Here in America, we’re going to do things the other way. Good luck with that mythical country of yours, though.

13. Unstable Isotope says:

    September 26, 2009 at 10:22 am

    I’m trying to imagine this world of a la cart health insurance plans. It seems to be against the point of having everyone covered doesn’t it? The older and sicker will be herded into high cost plans while the young and healthy go into different plans. Then when tragedy strikes the young and/or healthy, they’ll still go bankrupt because insurance didn’t cover them.

14. cassandra_m says:

    September 26, 2009 at 10:37 am

    Which is pretty much the deal with “cheaper” insurance. The minute you actually need it is when it vanishes on you. Even faster than the name brand stuff. It is the only way it is “cheaper”.

15. Progressive Mom says:

    September 26, 2009 at 11:44 am

    UI –this “a la carte” insurance is a thing of the long past. In about the 1970’s insurers began to do away with the options of selecting or not selecting maternity and mental health/drug/alcohol, which were really the only a la carte options. The reason is perfectly clear: you only bought maternity when you needed it.

    By the mid-1970’s, most insurers, led by the Blues who were still not for profit, began to offer one-benefit-set only policies — except for mental health/drug/alcohol — with rates set by age and gender category, to allow for higher costs with child-bearing age women and people over 45.

    Rates got completely crazy and, as more young women began to work and defer having children, rates were completely unfair. Businesses who were paying 100% screamed, and most companies went to a one-rate system (allowing for individuals vs. couples vs. families) for large businesses.

    Mental health coverage is still an a la carte thing in a few states for large group coverage, but in general it’s not offered because it’s not affordable as a stand-alone offering.

    The multi-tiered rates that use gender and age still exist in some states in small group and individual plans. And, yes, women of child-bearing age pay much larger premiums than men.

    (And, yes, I know w-a-a-y too much about this crap. If only I didn’t have a brain, I could just type “STFU” or “you don’t shop too well” and offer no facts.)

16. anon says:

    September 26, 2009 at 12:54 pm

    I can get you some a lot cheaper. You don’t shop too well.

    I love cheap junk insurance!

    I’ll pay you with my check on the Sawtooth National Bank. They know me there.