Rand Paul disagrees with mandating insurance companies cover preexisting conditions

Rand Paul was asked about Romney’s comments yesterday on keeping parts of Obamcare:

Romney: “Of course, there are a number of things that I like in health care reform that I’m going to put in place. One is to make sure that those with pre-existing conditions can get coverage.”

Now it isn’t clear exactly how Romney will ensure this but if it is to mandate that insurance companies cover per-existing conditions, then he’s at odds with Rand Paul who says that insurance mandates simply cause prices to go up and cost is one of the biggest problems in healthcare.

There’s more, including how Rand Paul feels we should embrace more libertarians:

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.
  • GetWhatYouPayFor

    Hey! There are lot’s of dangerous drivers who would love to pay the same rate for auto insurance that the safe drivers do. Let somebody else pay. What a Country.

    “You can either have freedom or free stuff. You can’t have both”.

    Sarah Palin

    • sDee

      This is far far worse that that analogy. What Romney proposes is the equivalent that any driver, good or bad, would simply have to wait until they wrecked their car or blew up to motor. Then go buy a collision policy or extended warranty policy.

      • CBDenver

        You’re right. I often hear the example of the poor child with a chronic illness who exceeds his lifetime insurance policy spending limit and then can’t get a new policy due to preexisting condition. But the truth is someone in that case can either get a new policy after a waiting period or will be eligible for government funded care.

        But the case you describe of the able-bodied person who waits until a medical emergency arises before purchasing insurance is never mentioned by the supporters of removing preexisting condition limitations. They are driving up costs in MA because the fines of not purchasing mandated insurance are less than the insurance. People are just making an economic decision — at the expense of the system as a whole.

  • You parse his political response and it’s clear he disagrees with Romney’s stance.

    On another note, I hope to hear more about that multi-year contract idea he mentioned. I hope there are provisions in there to break out of a bad contract with a provider who gives bad service. If you handle it wrong it could end up putting us back in the same situation we’re in now where the upper hand is given to the companies and not the patients. Look at where we are with the cellphone companies and their contracts. They find ways like locking your phone and high cancellation fees to dissuade you from leaving them. Imagine what could be done with your health.

    I think the best step that could be done is to allow simple things like a la carte coverage buying, the ability to universally purchase service across state lines, and privately formed buying pools.

    • MiketheMarine

      Not possible. The a la carte idea would drive up the staffing requirements for the insurance companies and raise premiums even higher.

      • FutureOnePercent

        How about just using a high deductible plan and the a la carte medical care would be between the doctor and the patient instead of the insurance company?

        • MiketheMarine

          Your doctor is already buried with handling the billing for his patients and most people slow pay doctors. If you look in the paper under help wanted you will find tons of articles looking for people to do medical billing at home. If your doctor were to get into this he wouldn’t have time to see any patients.

          • FutureOnePercent

            I might over-simplifying this, but why would it be hard to have set prices for different things? You want an office visit, that’s 20 bucks. You need an MRI, okay that’ll cost you $50.

            I’m already pulling out my debit card when I get to the doctors office, why would it be so much different to just start charging me for what I’m using?

            • CalCoolidge

              Well, maybe the phrase “a la carte” makes it sound more complex that it has to be. Small, medium and large might be a better metaphor.

              • MiketheMarine

                In that example, it does exist. You can choose different copays and deductibles. The higher your deductible the lower your premium. Lower deductible, higher premium.

            • MiketheMarine

              Because your doctor wants to cover his butt from a lawsuit so you have the flu but he wants you to get an MRI on your chest and a cat scan on your brain plus, while your at it, you should have a colonoscopy because there are issues down there that could give you flu like symptoms.

              Besides, how much would a barium contrast test cost or how about chemo? Insurance is a way of sharing reasonable risk and costs with a large number of people. It is the only way to make it reasonable.

              Imagine if you couldn’t buy homeowners insurance, which works the same way? You end up with a fire froma lightning bolt so now you have to pay Wells Fargo the $300,000. you still owe them PLUS you need to pay a contractor another $375,000. to rebuild. Just not fiscally reasonable.

              • FutureOnePercent

                If tort reform were also in place, it sounds like that should take care of the first issue, right? I understand a doctor having to watch his backside, but with tort reform shouldn’t that cut down on this sort of thing? And as far as him just throwing a gamete of tests at you, what’s stopping him from doing that now? He knows the insurance company will pay up? I would think that tying a direct cost to it would actually reduce this type of thing?

                It’s the same thing with an auto-mechanic. They build a reputation of either being honest, or get labeled a scam artist who is telling you that you have a small unicorn in your gas tank that keeps poking holes in it and it will be another $1500 to repair that as well.

                Right now, I couldn’t tell you how much a barium contrast test costs, and that’s part of the problem! Ask me about any other goods or service besides health care, and I can tell you! It costs about $30 to get your oil changed on your car. A gallon of milk costs about $2.50. Going to a Dodgers game costs about 25 bucks for the cheap seats. We can do that with EVERYTHING but health care, and I just don’t understand why this ONE issue, common sense wouldn’t apply?

                EDIT: I also forgot to clarify I’m not advocating for ONLY an “a la carte” type of service. I really think that comprehensive health insurance would be the way to go, but why not have “a la carte” pricing as well? Is it written in law somewhere that we can’t be creative with our market solutions?

            • librtifirst

              Are you suggesting price fixing? If the set price is less than the market price, then the business falls apart. Price fixing by government is the last step before simply putting the doctors on government payroll, then killing the medical industry altogether, because nobody will want to become a doctor.

              Socialized medicine always fails. Competition is the key, because without government intervention, the industry competes for business rather than being guaranteed the business. If one provider wants to compete, they have to lower their price low enough to get customers. Government dictates every aspect of the doctors office, and the hospital.

              Romney is a socialist who will not do anything to solve our economic or health care woes.

              Real solutions exist outside of main stream medicine, and that is why government stomps it out wherever it can.

              • FutureOnePercent

                I am absolutely NOT suggesting fixed pricing! I should have been more clear, my apologies! I am suggesting that we have the ability to see competing doctors prices for services. For example: Doctor A charges $50 an office visit and Doctor B charges $75, but has better service.

      • Yeah, that’s a load of B.S. You say that as if Insurance companies are still working in the 1980s with pen and paper. If they are then they deserve to go out of business. For everyone else, the age of computers and electronic records keeping and management is here to help.

        Besides, I’m not saying we should mandate (force) a la carte, I’m saying it should be an option. Competition will sort out the rest. We should not be telling companies what services they should or shouldn’t offer. We should allow them to offer whatever they can with the resources they have and just like the tech industry, we’ll have private industries growing out of the wood work to fill in the gaps. Provided you take my entire last paragraph’s ideas as a whole and not in parts.

        More competition (across state lines), more flexibility for companies to serve as they see best, and overall less mandates and regulations that while well meaning usually end up just making things more expensive and less available to the masses.

        • MiketheMarine

          Hey, pinwheel. I WORK for one of the largest insurance companies in the country and what I say is true. I pay for staffing and ignorance, as you’ve displayed, is why this administration hasn’t a clue.

  • sDee

    This is a poison pill for the private healthcare industry. Businessman Romney must surely know this. Leftist propagandist Charlie Rose certainly does.

    Mandating automatic acceptance under an insurance plan for pre-exisiting conditions will collapse the private healthcare insurance industry. No insurance system can accommodate pre-exisiting condition acceptance except a full blown government PROVIDER system – not just a federal Payer system. In effect Government Provided Healthcare!

    Imagine if the home insurance industry was forced by the Feds to pay claims to new customers regardless of pre-exisiting damage to their homes. People would wait until the flood, hurricane of fire to go buy insurance.

    Many many people will wait until they need medical care to buy insurance. Hospitals will be forced to sign people up brought to the hospital in need of urgent or life saving care.

    It is the same poison pill included in Obamacare to collapse the private payer industry.

    • Now that he has the nomination wrapped up, Romney can be more comfortable in his own skin and his true self is showing… that is, the same Romney that claimed to be a moderate progressive in 2002.

      • MiketheMarine

        I don’t care if we had nominated King Tut’s mummified big toe. Anybody is better than the president who wants to take down America by redistributing our wealth and power to the rest of the world. Everything else is simply a detail to be hammered out later.

        • The problem is there is no purpose in electing a progressive to replace a progressive. They’ll both grow government – the only difference is you have 4 years of guaranteed progressivism with one and 8 years of guaranteed progressivism with the other – and at least with the 4 year option, you’ll have real conservatives uniting and rallying to stop it.

          • MiketheMarine

            Not even close. Reid, Pelosi and Maobama refuse to even pass a budget. That is congress’ primary duty. Control the purse strings. It isn’t even close. The two sides are miles apart. So was Bush. You’ve bought the MSM’s BS narrative. Here, read this and pass it around to your friends and family.

            Some people have short memories…..
            DO YOU REMEMBER JANUARY 3, 2007?

            I’ve been saying this for years, but this email probably explains it
            better and more clearly. This is NOT a political message, but rather
            a clarification to remind us all of the correct facts.

            Remember that on October 9, 2007, 11 months before our “economic
            crisis” occurred (that was actually created), the Dow hit its highest
            point ever, closing at 14,164.53 and reaching 14,198.10 intra-day
            level 2 days later. Unemployment was steady at 4.7%. But things were
            already being put in place to create the havoc
            we’ve all been experiencing since then. And it all started, as this email explains,
            on January 3, 2007. –LFL

            I’m sending this to each of you regardless of your party preferences
            because I believe it is something you may not have considered.

            This tells the story, why Bush was so “bad” at the end of his term.

            Don’t just skim over this, it’s not very long, read it slowly and let
            it sink in. If in doubt, check it out!!!

            The day the Democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was
            actually January 3rd 2007, which was the day the Democrats took over
            the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the
            110th Congress.

            The Democrat Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the
            first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.

            For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy
            that everything is “Bush’s Fault”, think about this: January 3rd, 2007
            was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress.

            At the time:
            The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
            The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
            The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
            George Bush’s Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB GROWTH

            Remember the day…
            January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House
            Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate
            Banking Committee. The economic meltdown that happened 15 months
            later was in what part of the economy? BANKING AND FINANCIAL

            Unemployment… to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping
            5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie
            Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!

            Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie – starting in
            2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy.

            And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie
            Mac? OBAMA And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie? OBAMA
            and the Democrat Congress.

            So when someone tries to blame Bush. REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007….

            Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and
            the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party.

            Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 &
            2009 as well as 2010 & 2011.

            In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused
            them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough
            on spending increases.

            For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush
            entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running
            until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a
            massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budgets.

            And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that
            very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he
            signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009.

            If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the
            last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five
            years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After
            that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that
            includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.

            If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself. In a
            nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted
            for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since
            January 20th.

            • The truth of the matter is, by January 3, 2007, it wouldn’t’ve mattered who was President or in charge of congress, the housing bubble was already well on course to pop. It was an artificial bubble created by a combination of loose legislation in the 90’s/early 2000’s.

              This type of thing is what happens whenever the government meddles in the market, and goes to show that government has no business in the housing market other than to destroy it… but Gov. Mitt “I support TARP” Romney doesn’t share that view, and therefore should not be President.

              • MiketheMarine

                Let’s not forget who is responsible for those regulations that caused the housing bubble. It was Chris Dodd and Barnie Frank. And if you think that Mitt Romney is as bad as Maobama, then you are a fool. Maobama promised to redistribute America’s wealth and power to the rest of the world. His is an enemy of this country. Don’t take my word for it. Just go back and listen to the hajji’s words out of his own mouth.

            • Perfectly said. I have been saying the same thing for years, why does no one in the media keep reiterating this. The maniacal spending started 2 years before Bush left when the dems took control of the house and senate. Same thing that happened when the gop took over when Clinton was in. But the gop put their foot down and Clinton had to go along and it worked great, good things were passed. So Clinton gets credit for it all, even though he turned down reform and spending caps 3 times first.

    • CalCoolidge

      Obamcare has a poison pill for everything. Since the authors’ goal is to transition to “single-payer” socialism, they are going to have to kill off everything else. That includes Medicare and Medicaid.

    • librtifirst

      A free market, with no government mandates, is the only way to make insurance and health care affordable for the average person. Everything else that they do is to purposely shut down this country, and keep people sick and dying.

  • MiketheMarine

    I work in the insurance industry and can tell you that it is IMPOSSIBLE to insure preexisting conditions. Let us say that you haven’t had insurance but get diagnosed with cancer or heart disease. You run right out and buy a policy. Your premium comes in around $15,000. per year. Here comes the problem. How much will your treatment cost for the remainder of your life? $2 million? $3 million?

    So, let’s say your treatment is working and you live another 15 years. Wonderful. Great news for you and your family. But, in 15 years you’ve paid a total of $225,000. in premiums and another $100,000. in copays or deductibles. Rounded up, you pay $500,000. but your insurance company has now paid an extra $1.5 million for your treatments. Where do you supposed that million and a half will come from? If you are healthy, should you also pay $15,000. per year? No.

    This is a non starter and anyone that knows elementary mathematics will understand.

    • johnos2112

      The way to fix it is to allow for competition across state lines AND people need to provide a physical. The notion that everyone should not have to pay for healthcare is BS. For those with pre existing conditions that is a tough one. What can be done about it Mike? Pre existing conditions that is?

      • MiketheMarine

        That is a great question. I don’t know but I will say that if you get your insurance through a group plan at work, there is no underwriting and non-terminal pre existing conditions are ordinarily paid for. But for the unemployed who don’t have COBRA, which is a limited term extension of their group plan they had while working, there is no good answer.

        Part of the argument against the prices doctors charge is pure tort. Fire some lawyers and prices WILL go down, but many doctors do a fair amount of pro bono work. Clients of theirs that lose their insurance frequently will find that their normal doctors will work with them on payment plans or other options in order to continue the treatment they need.

        So, the biggest threats to our healthcare and insurance are #1 Lawyers. We need to shut down law schools for a few decades and #2 is the government. God knows, I don’t want Maobama or Obiden anywhere near my healthcare professionals.

        • sDee

          More excellent points. Buying insurance to cover costs after the incident, is not insurance – it is putting a gun to the head of someone else to pay up.

          I believe the only one way to “fix” the pre-exisiting condition “problem” is to realize that it is a FALSE ARGUMENT designed by the very people who want to enslave us to the governmetn for our healthcare.

          We absolutely must return to the core principle that all insurance is based on – that responsibility for paying a healthcare provider for their services lies with the person who requests those services. Just like if I want my car repaired after a collision, I have to agree to pay the body shop. I may chose to put it on my VISA card and pay monthly, buy a new car, or buy insurance to mitigate that risk. But it still is MY RESPONSIBILITY.

          When I was a kid my mom would just hand the doctor $20 after a visit. She stopped at the drug store on the way home and paid for the prescription. They could not afford a dentist so my mom got dentures. My sister had bouts with pneumonia and my dad paid the hospital. That made him decide to buy a major medical program offered through his employer.

          So if someone chooses not to buy insurance, but cannot afford the services, they sign a promissory note at the hospital. Let the free market world of contracts take care of the rest!!!!

          • MiketheMarine

            Well said.

            I want to add the Fluke angle. If you want to have profilactics to your insurance, fine for an additional charge BUT when Ms. Fluke is suing a man for paternity his attornies can subpoena those records to find out that she screws like a rabbit and has used 12000 condoms in the past year. Next court question?

            “Ms. Fluke, please list all of your sexual partners over the last year.”

      • Steven

        The solution

    • sDee

      Yup! Preexistence condition requirements, in any form, undermine the core principle on which insurance contracts are based.

      If the government forces it, the government is forcing insurance companies (payers) out of business. Hmmmmm…. now why would they want to do that?

    • FutureOnePercent

      I agree with you Mike, the very concept of “insuring” something that is already “broken” is absolutely impossible.

      Now if there weren’t so many restrictions, regulations, and mandates on starting an insurance company, I truly believe that since there is a market for it, entrepreneurs would find a way to fill that market gap.

    • NYGino

      Mike, I’m not in the insurance business and never was so what I’m going to say may seem simplistic. I defer to you, who is in the business and knows what they are talking about.

      It seems to me that, by definition, insurance is gambling. Insurance companies take a risk, based on actuarial tables, that something will or will not happen, exactly like casinos do. This is based on percentages of the unknown. If the outcome is known, or if the conditions are such that the probabilities are skewered one way or the other, it changes the risks, for better or for worse. In either case the odds have to be adjusted and taken into consideration via higher or lower premiums.

      When a casino finds that it is being over played one way or the other they lay off their bets to other casinos, just like insurance companies lay off their bets to re-insurance companies.

      Neither an insurance company or a casino can stay in business if they are forced to take on inordinate risks that are more than likely to end in a payout. Right?

      • MiketheMarine

        In essence, that is correct. Now, consider the last time your state got hammered by extreme weather and trees were down and homes were damaged and cars destroyed. Insurance companies do not surcharge folks for events out of their control. Normally, a catastrophe is not surchargable BUT everyone’s insurance goes up the following year.

        Examples, I live in Maryland and we had some extreme weather last year and my company spent $1.28 for every $1.00 we took in through premiums.

        Consider your insurance company is a giant bowl that you and your neighbors fill with money at an agreed upon level. As claims come up you and your neighbors take the money for repairs out of that bowl. Before long, that bowl is empty so everyone has to pony up again. Now, if you ran out of money in March, you all agree to pay up triple what you had before. If you didn’t have a claim, you may be upset but if you don’t pony up your neighbors kick you out of the group and when you have a claim you get to pay it without a trip to the community bowl.

        That’s very simplistic, but accurate.

  • stage9

    “Now it isn’t clear exactly how Romney will ensure this but if it is to mandate that insurance companies cover per-existing conditions…”

    I said it early on…if you want to know how someone will deal with the future, look to their past.


  • capelady

    In Massachusetts people with pre-existing conditions (like my brother who has been fighting cancer for 25 years and beat it five times) end up on Mass Health (Medicaid) along with everyone who cannot afford the rise in premiums since Romneycare went into effect!

    We have Medicaid – why not fix that program and make people with pre-existing conditions eligible for coverage there rather than crippling insurance providers and forcing everyone’s insurance premiums to go up???

    • sDee

      I believe the answer is that they do not want to fix the system, they want to collapse it.

      The goal is to first take over the existing private payer system (health insurance industry) by collapsing it with regulations like pre-exisiting conditions. Step two, once in control of the payment system, the statists will control all of the healthcare providers (doctors, hospitals, clinics, drug companies). The top tier providers will then take care of the elites and political class – the rest of us will be forced to vote for our healthcare.

      This is the Chinese model of state capitalism. Healthcare is the control point.

      I just cannot see why anyone would believe Romney will change this trajectory when he is the engineer of it.

      • GetWhatYouPayFor

        BINGO! We have a winner!

      • MiketheMarine

        I’d like to think that Romney understands the difference between a state law and a federal law. In fact, I think he’s said that very thing. Maobamacare wouldn’t be a violation of the Constitution IF it were only Illinois that had to obey. Don’t like Romeny care? Move out of Taxachusettes.

        • sDee

          Oh he does, but it goes to what/who was behind the state law and for what reason.

          Myself, I believe RomenyCare was the trial balloon. It is having a chilling effect on the private sector, costs and quality of care across the board in Mass but that story is not being told.

          I do not buy his “states can do what they want” argument. Consider if Romney believes the mandate is simply outside the limited powers of the Constitution, or if a mandate is UnConstitutional. If Romney could defend the healthcare mandate on these grounds , then he could, for example, also defend a cloaked state-only gun control law that mandates every gun owner to purchase an $10,000,000 liability insurance policy or lose their carry permit.

          • keyesforpres

            Yeah, Romney is wrong with the “states can do whatever they want”. He says states are test kitchens in democracy.

            Um, no they are not…they are sovereign republics and they are most certainly NOT test kitchens in socialism.

            • librtifirst

              The states cannot infringe upon our bill of rights any more than the feds can, but from what I can tell, they have a lot more ability to regulate (constitutionally) than the feds do. I sure wish that the founders had focused more specifically on private property rights.

              • keyesforpres

                You are correct. States cannot do anything unconstitutional either. Too many folks think the 10th amendment gives state gov’ts unfettered power and that is not the case. In fact, the 10th amendment ends with TO THE PEOPLE. Which is where the ultimate power is supposed to lie.

                • librtifirst

                  Yep, and the states are pretty much bought off and controlled by the feds. I say that sheriff Mack has it right. It is now up to the sheriffs of the country to push back and hold their constitutional ground in protecting our liberties. A county sheriff can arrest an IRS agent who comes to take your property for not buying insurance.

                  A sheriff has the right to deputize, and form a posse that could resemble a local militia.

                • keyesforpres

                  Well, now I know who to call if the IRS comes to take my property if I don’t buy insurance. LUUUUVVV it!

      • librtifirst

        The best thing that anyone can do is to get off of the medical grid, and take care of themselves. Get off the poison food grid, and that will solve a lot of problems. Stay away from fluoridated water and vaccines. Supplement with vitamins and minerals, and eat organics, or grow your own food.

        There is no stopping this tyranny. It is too late, and the people of this country are too ignorant. They believe what the MSM and government tells them. Just recently they had a media campaign based on a government study that said organics were no better than anything else. Hello people! Can you say “infowar”. In other words, it is a war on the people, and we are losing badly.

        They will keep us sick, and then take over our health care. Then they will kill off a lot of people with that control. It is simple eugenics finally making some head way.

        • keyesforpres

          I hate to break it to you, but all the deaths in recent years from spinach, etc, has been organic.

          • librtifirst

            Organic farmers are not just being hit with SWAT teams by the federal government, they are being hit with false flag attacks as well. Monsanto has actually been caught spreading seed on a farmer’s field to infiltrate their non-GMO crops with GMO, then take them to court for patent infringement because their genes showed up in the crop, putting them out of business, or forcing them to buy their seed.

            E’ Coli can be introduced into a crop, and if anyone thinks this doesn’t happen, they should think again. There is a literal war on organics going on.

            I don’t call our government criminals for no reason. Whether government does it, or their corporate buddies, the fact is that this can only happen if government lets them get away with it, and they do.

            I grow my own greens, pick them out of the garden each day, and juice them night and morn. Organic, and no E’ Coli. Millions do this, with no problems. The same goes for raw milk.

            As a rule, I disregard government studies, and MSM news reports on the subject. (and many others) There are plenty of real scientists and medical professionals that have integrity in their reporting on these things, and they all say that you should know where your food comes from, what is in it, and how it is grown.

            Just imagine what the country would look like if we had small farmers producing organic food to feed local populations. Our populations would be healthier, and smarter. Instead, we have massive corporate food monopolies who produce poison that makes the population chronically ill. In a national emergency, we cannot feed our local populations.

    • FutureOnePercent

      I’m very sorry about your brother, but he sounds like a real fighter!

      I guess the concern with covering pre-existing conditions is, why would anyone ever get insurance if they could just wait until they have a reason to get covered?

      Even if we adapted Medicaid to accept pre-existing conditions, people would just wait until they need the coverage, and then sink Medicaid?

      The reason people don’t have coverage isn’t because they don’t have access to it, it’s usually because they can’t afford the coverage… I think the best thing we can do is to increase competition to lower the prices to the point where it’s no longer a choice between putting food on the table and having health insurance.

  • sDee

    This issue of healthcare is what separates the natural slave, from a free men. Man is a unique being in his fear of death. Throughout history, it is the threat of death that has allowed other men of power, to enslave those who fear it.

    As such slavery is both unproductive and illegal for modern tyrants, control our healthcare system is their hold over life and death. Yet we foolishly give them the ultimate power.

    No matter how nuanced a social program, what enters the psyche man when beholden to a central power for birth, life, and death?

    “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains or slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” – Patrick Henry

  • FutureOnePercent

    Have Americans and politicians completely forgot what the word “insurance” even means?! Health INSURANCE and health CARE are completely separate ideas…

    When I go to Vegas, I don’t get to buy insurance after the dealer shows he got a Blackjack.

    I don’t get to buy home insurance after my house has burned to the ground.

    I can’t wreck my car and then call up State Farm to get my policy to cover the accident.

    Here’s my solution.

    1. Offer health insurance like car insurance with multiple levels of insurance and things like “distaster” plans with high deductibles and low premiums.

    2. Allow tax free health savings accounts with no annual limits and that roll-over each year.

    3. Increase competition for doctors by offering direct payment for medical care.

    4. Allow for insurance to be sold across state lines

    5. Decrease insurance regulations and mandates to allow for customizable insurance plans.

    6. Allow private pooling to diversify the risk of insurance.

    7. Give buying health insurance as an individual the same tax incentives that employers have for offering it.

    Competition has been the most effective and efficient way to bring better services at a lower cost. Everything the government has done with regards to health care has LIMITED competition and led to oligopolies within the market place.

    Did I miss anything? Does anyone have any other ideas that I should consider?

    What other ways can we increase competition in the health care market?

    • RefudiateObama2012

      You left out tort reform. Most tests by a doctor are done for the purpose of insulating them against some stupid lawsuit. You can’t even go to the doctor for a minor ailment without him/her calling for a battery of tests.

      And governmental paperwork requirements need to be cut. Take a look at the staff of a doctor’s office. There’s more paper pushers than there are medical personnel.

      • MiketheMarine

        That’s right. The real corruptors of the insurance industry and healthcare are lawyers. That profession should be outlawed. You don’t even have to be a lawyer to sit on the Supreme Court. Just as Kagan.

      • FutureOnePercent

        Oh wow, I can’t believe I forgot that one! Thank you! Good catch…

    • MiketheMarine

      That’s good. Tort reform must be #1 though. Medical malpractice insurance is just a guaranteed paycheck for attornies.

      • sDee

        Mike we work in provider side of healthcare. The worst specialty that is victim is OB. The lawyers know that no matter what goes wrong to mother or child, whether accident, circumstances, fate, or error, that a jury will always pay huge sums to the mother or father or family.

        It does not matter if the obstetrician, hospital or nurse was at fault or not. It does not matter that the defense can prove they were not at fault. The jury awards millions. Worse yet along with the settlement, the doctor can lose their license or the ability to qualify for malpractice insurance. Needless to say it is most often the patients who cannot pay, who file suit.

        • MiketheMarine

          I agree. The criminals here are the attornies.

      • FutureOnePercent

        BTW I nominate you to become the official RS health care policy wonk.

        • MiketheMarine

          If my experience and knowledge helps anyone, then you’ve got it. No nomination required. Just ask…..


    • So long as government continually interferes in the market with entitlements no reforms will work. Medicaid and Medicare skew pricing and always have. Doctors will continually make up their losses with other revenue streams such as cash payments and insurance payments. That is how health care became the mess that it is.

      Your list is good one but it negates the history behind the health care mess and how we got here in the first place.

      Also don’t leave out the complete reform of HMOs* as well as medicine costs. Currently we subsidize Canada and that drives up costs here at home.

      *HMO”s were invented by Ted Kennedy as an answer to high cost medical insurance. He succeeded in raising costs even more which is more proof Democrats are clueless to economics.

      • FutureOnePercent

        Thanks for the info Laurel, I can’t say I know much about HMO’s. Would you mind explaining a bit of the problem they have created and if there is a possible solution?

      • librtifirst

        The bigger picture, to me, is that the Fed crashed the system, (great depression) government came in with easy money and created a social system of control, and the people of this country thanked them for it, and still believe that government is trying to do good. Now we have so called conservatives looking to replace Obama Care with their own socialist system. Where is the real solution going to come from?

    • FutureOnePercent

      Oh, and one more I forgot (besides the tort reform) just to go all Milton Friedman on you, I agree that doctors should not have to be licensed by the government.

      I firmly believe that ALL licensing should be completely voluntary. It is not the governments job to give me a warm and fuzzy feeling about a doctor, it is the doctor’s responsibility to gain my trust.

      You’re either a free market, or you’re not.

    • 1970greenie

      What if everything you thought you knew about health care was wrong? And what if that meant the the next time you needed to see a physician that there was a good chance that the care you recieved would be unnecessary or less effective than it could have been, even to the point of causing potentila serious harm? And what if thereason behind this was THE fundamental issue in health care today? Cost is not the problem. Cost is a symptom. So called ‘free market’ soluton will fail and ObamaCare will fail miserably.

      • FutureOnePercent

        I have yet to see a true free market fail, so what do you suggest instead?

        • 1970greenie

          Health care can not operate in a ‘free market’ because the consumers, we used to call them patients, do not have true choice. When you are sick , true illness like an infected gallbladder or cancer of the colon, you do not have an option to say no without life threatening risk. There is no other choice you will make, no purchase you will make in which there is an inherent life threatening risk if you decline. With any other choice ‘no’ is always an option. With health care ‘no’ can kill you. So let me ask you or anyone else who may read this, what do you want from health care? The fifty people whom I have asked so far, from business owners to health care professionals, do not actually know the answer to this question. I would be quite surprised if any one of you knew the answer.

          • FutureOnePercent

            Here is what I want from health care. Allow for competition to drive down treatment prices so it doesn’t have to come down to a choice between saving their life and their life savings.

            No one will ever choose not to get treatment because they can’t pay? I wouldn’t and I would never expect anyone else to make that choice. You do what you have to do to live, but why does the alternative have to be the poor house?

            Competition competition competition.

            Lower treatment costs means lower health care bills which lead to lower health insurance which leads to more people having the financial access to it.

            A big give away to Big Pharma and the insurance companies doesn’t get to the root of the problem.

            We need LESS regulation for MORE competition.

            You have your answer. Now you can stop asking people.

            • 1970greenie

              If cost were the problem then competition might help reduce costs. Cost, however, is not the problem but only a symptom of a much more important and fundmental problem. What is it that everyone, regardless of financial status, even Warren Buffett, wants from health care? Consider what it is you want from an airline carrier. What is it that trumps everything else? If health care were free you would still want this.

  • jdbaird

    It doesn’t matter what Romney wants congress still has to pass it. That’s why we’re trying to put more real conservatives in congress so they don’t just go along with the president when he has stupid ideas like they did with Bush. If they go along with unconstitutional crap we gotta keep firing these a–holes ’til they get the picture.


      With Boehner, McConnell, Cantor at the helm….whatever Mitt wants/doesn’t want passed will be so.

      Mitt has already made sure that that the bill to bypass senatorial approval for Presidential appointments was passed….and that was before he’s elected.

      Good like trying to hold Mitt’s stinky feet to the fire after the election.

      • GetWhatYouPayFor

        This sounds just like Barrack. You mean Romney is going to change the rules legally? Just like the vote on the floor of the Convention when it was declared, “the ayes have it”? If the people say they don’t want something, Govt. will just jam it down our throats from the back room crony deal center? Hmmm, “extreme conservative” is starting to make sense, now. Is that like radical? Makes no difference who we elect as our representatives? Hmmm, Is Romney elite? Is George Soros laughing at us? “MMMMM….MMMMM….MMMMM”.

        • MiketheMarine

          Buy ammo and keep your guns cleaned and oiled. That is what the 2nd ammendment is all about.

      • jdbaird

        Hey, you wanna give up go ahead, I won’t.

    • sDee

      Exactly and this is why we have to keep this issue alive and in the forefront. Romney thinks he can put us all back to sleep.

      • jdbaird

        For sure, I’ve learned my lesson. I made a fool of myself defending people who in the end could care less about our country. I won’t let it happen again.

  • The GOP and Libertarians need to figure out how to communicate the message that every American has the right to do everything in their OWN power to try to live forever, but that does not mean that a person can use the power of GOVT to take a dollar out of my pocket to pay for it.

    The liberals like to bash us over the head that we aren’t compassionate or that we don’t walk the Christian talk. That is true BS. Society has orders, which go like this: Person, Family, Friends, Church Family, Neighbors, Township/City, State, Federal. I regularly pitch in money, time, and effort for the first 4 levels above myself when people at those levels need help because I know someday I might need that help myself. This is the way society is suppose to work.

    • FutureOnePercent

      Very well said… I think the Republicans would be a lot better off embracing more libertarian positions than kowtowing to the Left as they seem so want to do.

  • I agree with Rand Paul. I’m sick to death of politicians proselytizing on this as well and telling me it is good economics. Tell me why it is good for society and the country as a whole but stop trying to sell this under a false premise.

  • Sandra123456

    Just try after a your car is wrecked, now an existing condition, to get car insurance to cover the NOW pre-existing condition condition of your car. It is the same with health care.

    People just don’t understand insurance. It is a for profit business. It is a bet. The bet is if they insure enough people there will be enough premium money to cover the payouts for accidents/diseases and make a profit.

    Government can NOT require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions without forcing them into bankruptcy or charge super high premiums.

    Economics should be taught in high schools.

    • MiketheMarine

      Which is hay I keep saying that if Maobamacare isn’t struck down we will ALL be on medicare. There will be no private health insurance companies for the reasons you outlined above.

  • crakpot

    The moral answer for someone without insurance who gets cancer is not regulation or taxation – it’s charity. Every dollar taken by force is another dollar not available to go into the collection basket.

    • MiketheMarine

      Yep, churches and communities used to be the charities in our country. You would give to your church if you could afford it and the church would help out that family down the street that needed the assistance.

      Nowadays, the feds think they have a better idea and going to a church apparently makes you a lesser person. Somehow, I think it was better the way it was.

      I was born in the wrong century.

  • Patriot077

    Admittedly I cringed when I heard Romney say he wanted to see those with pre-existing conditions could get coverage, but it seems that we might be reading more into his words than was said. He didn’t actually say that he liked the 0-care solution for this issue.

    I think it’s a very small number of people that lose their coverage and have a hard time getting another policy. But it does happen. It can easily happen to someone who loses his job and his employer sponsored health insurance. Once COBRA runs out, he must find his own plan. Any conditions or illnesses diagnosed while insured under the employer plan will constitute a pre-existing condition.

    Also, each health policy has a lifetime benefit maximum. Once the lifetime maximum is exceeded, the insurance is cancelled. Some plans have very small lifetime maximums ($500,000 for instance) that a major illness can easily burn through. No standard insurance carrier is going to write a policy under these circumstances. For any amount.

    Having said that, it seems like these cases could be treated in the same manner that assigned risk auto insurance pools are arranged for drivers that are uninsurable in the standard and high risk markets. The driver still has to purchase the insurance but the insurance risk doesn’t fall on just one insurer and is managed by each state. It isn’t something you can buy “just in time”.

    I’m sure Mike the Marine knows more about this than I do – my own personal lines insurance experience was many years ago. The important thing to me is that with assigned risk, the individual is responsible for his own insurance premium (though it would probably be funded on a sliding scale or something).

    Anyway, lets not throw Romney to the wolves just yet. We will have to continue to pound real reforms based on free markets and limiting torts. (I think class action lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies are one of the most egregious and costly inventions the scumbag lawyers could possibly dream up)

    • MiketheMarine

      You hit it right on the head. I think that the way uninsurables USED to be handled was that they would go to a teaching hospital, like Johns Hopkins and get treatment as an instructional case. Both of my neck surgeries were done at Hopkins. I had and have insurance but I’m convinced that they have the best surgeons on the planet and since they teach they need tough cases for their up and coming doctors.

      • Patriot077

        That is good to know Mike. No reason it can’t be adopted again.

    • FutureOnePercent

      I see what you’re saying about the lifetime maximums, but we also need to address WHY health care is so expensive that you would burn through half a million dollars so quickly.

      Just look at the cost of cell phones when they were first introduced in that cost over $8,800 in today’s dollars. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7432915)

      And what brought those prices down? Competition!

      No one knows the true market value of an MRI, because the prices are so skewed and hidden that there are no market signals to react to.

      Competition in health CARE leads to lower costs in health INSURANCE.

      And competition in health INSURANCE will lead to even lower costs still.

      • Patriot077

        FOP, it’s my opinion that the minute they signed Medicare into law is the moment health insurance costs (and care) began to increase. Once insurers knew they had a never ending stream of customers paid for by the inefficient hands of government, the wheels started turning. Over time it snowballed and now contains a huge element of fraud and abuse that is forever un-addressed by any congress.

        I say get the government out of it and get back to free market principles where competition is king of innovation and efficiency.

        • FutureOnePercent

          I couldn’t agree more Patriot!

  • Kordane

    Insurance is there to give you money IF you develop a problem that’s covered by your insurance – NOT just to give you money for your problems, like a charity would do.

    That is essentially what covering pre-existing conditions does.

    It turns insurance companies into charities.

    Thus destroying the whole concept of insurance.

    And ultimately resulting in the destruction of the insurance industry.

    Which was the Left’s aim all along. DON’T DOUBT ME ON THAT.

  • My life depends on medications that I can only afford with tremendous help from medical insurance. I know how critical health insurance can be, and I had insurance when my condition developed.

    But buying medical insurance only because you have gotten sick, is exactly like buying life insurance after you’re dead.

    • keyesforpres

      Or car insurance after a wreck.

  • Orangeone

    I agree you need competition in health care but to get costs down, get the unions out of health care.

    • librtifirst

      Free markets are the only solution. You can’t have them if government protects unions that price fix wages and benefits, or if government regulates any industry.

  • sandyfromchesterfield

    I thought he said on Glenn Beck’s radio program today that pre-existing conditions should be covered.

  • MiketheMarine

    In one of my examples below I made an educated guess that premiums would be around $15000 per year. Check out this article today on Fox.


    • librtifirst

      I suppose that there are many reasons for increases in medical care costs, but none are more prevelent than currency devaluation. Inflation happens accross the board, so the cost of medical care being inflated 4% is pretty good, considering how much money is being created.

      I would say that the insurance companies are probably holding back a bit. Obama is their buddy, and they want to keep mandated health insurance going. Insurance companies are already government run, and government is run by insurance companies. (at least where regulation is conserned)Obama Care was written long before Obama showed up. He was just the guy to get it passed with a liberal house and senate.

      Romney is the guy to keep it going as well. Nothing substancial will get repealed with Romney in there.

      We are losing our liberties faster now, but they have been chopping away at them for a long time. Free markets are long gone due to federal government intervention in everything. We will either have massive shift toward freedom, or we will continue to sink into the quagmire of socialism/authoritarianism.

      The speed at which most people are getting agitated is not matching the speed of our decline. People like us are the exception to the rule on this.

  • Canada has both.