September 17, 2010

Well Howdy, Value Voters Summit--I wonder what "values" you vote on?

At least one Republican (Mike Huckabee) believes that values means actually opposing insurance for those with pre-existing conditions. Yeah.

And it gets better. He compares a pre-existing condition to a property insurance company being asked to provide coverage for a house that already burned down.

I am beginning to think that Huckabee is a moron. Truly. And a heartless moron to boot. Is this really what Republicans believe?

That is monstrous, and monstrously stupid. I feel like finding the Billy Madison clip again, but I can't keep running that every time a national Republican speaks out. LB, I really feel for you. You are clearly a smart and capable and compassionate individual. It must hurt very much to be in the same party with these idiots.

11 comments:

Edith said...

Why don't you liberals provide health care for those who are already sick? Aren't there lots of you? Don't you have lots of money? Why do you keep insisting that EVERYONE help pay for what you want, and if they don't want to, they are "monsters"?

Streak said...

Edith, I have no idea what to say to you, and hope that you never end up with a chronic or dangerous disease or ailment with no health insurance. And I hope that sometime when you are communing with God, you discover compassion for those who are sick.

Edith said...

Streak,

Have you ever considered starting your own insurance company, with your fellow liberals? It could be a non-profit company. You could ask for donations from wealthy liberals to even further lower the costs of premiums. If the premiums were low enough, lots of people would probably cancel the insurance they now have and buy yours.

America does a great deal already for poor people, both through the government(welfare, medicaid, medicare, social security, food stamps, housing, education, etc.), and through charity. I personally know people who operate food banks, and help people in many ways.

There are some free clinics and reduced cost medical alternatives. Hospitals will often treat people who don't have insurance, and will work out payment plans with them. It isn't as if there is nothing being done for people who have little money. There is actually a great deal being done.

Streak said...

Actually, Edith, your comment reveals a certain ignorance. I am not asking that you, or any other conservative pay for my friend's pre-existing condition. I am asking that insurance companies not reject people who have defined medical needs. That includes people who are born with genetic and chronic disorders--that are not life threatening in all cases, but are expensive to treat. People with asthma, for example, who require treatment, but other that are good productive citizens.

This issue is not about the poor. You made it about the poor. This is about people who, out of no fault of their own, end up with a disease or illness and are not under insurance care. They are willing to pay for insurance, they are just denied it. And before you dismiss this, there are people who are denied coverage for all future illnesses or injuries based on one pre-existing condition. Hell, here in Oklahoma, insurance companies are allowed to deny coverage to a woman who has been beaten by her spouse or partner--in the logic that she is of higher risk to have future injuries.

As you note, there are places, like medicaid and clinics. But that isn't the issue here. This is about people who might otherwise be fully employed, but are not allowed to buy insurance.

Edith said...

You could solve that problem by starting an insurance company that would accept people with pre-existing conditions. There should be millions of people in America who would want such a company.

Streak said...

that makes absolutely no sense. You want to create a pool that is made up only of people with pre-existing conditions? And therefore would be the most expensive? I assume you really don't understand insurance.

Think about it. You get a disease, with insurance, that company pays for your disease (though not nearly as well as you probably think). But you are saying to someone who, by no fault of their own, got that same disease without insurance, that they should have to pay more?

And you justify this how? As a Christian? As a conservative? As a Republican? As someone who has never had a pre-existing condition that is not covered?

Gary said...

No, it wouldn't have to be a company that would have only people with pre-existing conditions. It could have all kinds of people. But if it accepted people with pre-existing conditions, wouldn't that help solve the problem?

Streak said...

But that is the point of insurance--you mix the high risk with the low risk. Why not simply require that existing companies take everyone, and further spread the cost? That is what Obama is trying to do, and what most health care experts say we need to do.

The bigger the pool, the better for everyone, unless you have decided that the only real insurable people are those who are healthy. If that is the Republican approach, then it is not terribly useful. And here is the thing: once Republicans have to deal with actual sickness outside of insurance, they will rethink this. Because, as I noted, healthcare costs are one of the most common causes of bankruptcy--and many of those have insurance.

This is something we can band together and minimize the cost for all of us. Or people can retreat within their gated/healthy communities and pretend that they are not heartless.

Smitty said...

Man, Streak. A magnet, I tell you. It's like the blog is flagged.

Anyway, Gary, intentionally or not, hit it. He just explained what insurance does...spread the risk...and what Obama wants to do, which is to include in that risk pool people with preexisting conditions!
It works! Hey! We're not saying to create a new plan; just to include them in existing ones.

And we DO pay for everyone's relative health. My premium in a month where I am not sick helps someone get covered who is.

Some arguments get dangerously close to "sick is a sin." I don't like that sentiment, even hinted at. Like somehow being born with bad kidneys or developing, say, GERD later in life is a *consequence* of something and thus unfit for the same treatment everyone else gets.

Bob said...

People much smarter than I have taught me a lot about insurance of late.

The thing is we already pay for those who don't have insurance, but only do it once there is an emergency.

When a person goes to the emergency room without insurance and the docs save this persons life, they end up charging people with insurance more. When the government shortchanges Medicaid or Medicare, the extra costs are baked into what the rest of us pay.

We might as well insure everyone (or make them buy insurance) so they get some preventative care. That could drop the rates of those of us who already have insurance.

What was done with insurance reform was take what amounted to a payment plan for health based on your predicted health costs and turn it back into actual insurance which spreads risk again.

Conservatives are too caught up in the hype to figure out that the health care bill will force markets to work again.

Streak said...

Thanks, Smitty and Bob. I think you did a better job of addressing the issue than I did. Health insurance, as you both said, is about us sharing risk. I am not sure why that is so hard to get at, or why those of us who want more people in the pool are considered socialist.

And I am really unsure why someone like Huckabee isn't booed off the stage.