oldschool: blog 
oldschool's blog
okay, i have to ask . . .
Published Jul. 29, 2009Views: 550
Obama keeps running around saying that he wants to stop insurance companies from denying coverage for "pre-existing conditions".
Currently, the way it works is that if you have a pre-existing condition, it won't be covered for a year unless you had previous coverage. In other words, if you have insurance at your job, you leave, you apply for new insurance, your condition is covered.
If you DIDN'T have coverage, the insurance company doesn't have to pay for it for 1 year.
So my question is this: if Obama makes it illegal for insurance companies to deny coverage for a pre-existing condition, why on earth should I have insurance?
I mean, seriously - I could just chug along, pay nothing in premiums, wait until I'm diagnosed with cancer or Potato Famine or whatever, and THEN go out, get me some insurance and I've saved a bundle of money while YOU suckers are working at the salt mine to pay your premiums. They can't deny me insurance, so I'm golden.
What am I missing?
Filed under: Lifestyle
close![[no avatar]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/presentation/v1/images/golo/noavatar.gif){kind=avatar}
Welcome to GOLO, where WRAL.com visitors can comment on stories and create profile pages, blogs and photo galleries.
You must be a registered WRAL.com user to use these tools. Click here to register or log in.
My Econ prof today said that the only thing he liked about the health care talk from the prez was that he was going to allow open borders on insurance. So that you could get your insurance from any state not just the one you live in.
GOLO member since February 14, 2008
July 29, 2009 7:38 p.m.
GOLO member since February 22, 2008
July 29, 2009 7:58 p.m.
What makes you think it's unintended?
GOLO member since May 15, 2009
July 29, 2009 8:01 p.m.
GOLO member since August 22, 2007
July 29, 2009 8:16 p.m.
GOLO member since January 22, 2009
July 29, 2009 8:23 p.m.
GOLO member since September 23, 2007
July 29, 2009 8:26 p.m.
This is a money saving plan for me! I pay the penalty, wait for the problem and then get my insurance.
Plus, according to the latest, the blue dogs have received a concession that the forced insurance coverage won't apply to small business owners. That's me!
I'm golden!
Ha ha! Suckers!
(arf - you know I'm kidding of course. I'm a conservative. I'll keep insurance because it's the responsible thing to do. I'm just making a point.)
GOLO member since July 17, 2007
July 29, 2009 8:27 p.m.
GOLO member since August 27, 2009
July 29, 2009 8:38 p.m.
That's what has happened in Massachusetts, where almost everyone is covered. Costs have soared by $300,000,000,000.
This plan, unlike what Obama favored during his campaign, is more like Hillary's, wherein the young are forced to pay. Not written into the plan other than as open-ended and changeable, I figure the lone uninsured person is going to pay $325/month for his coverage, which he is going to get whether he likes it or not.
Companies with payrolls of $400K (about 6 or 7 employed) will have to pay 8% of payroll for NOT providing adequate coverage. Estimating insurance charges of $350/month for employers per employee (state workers), then at $48,000 (total payroll) or less a year, the state could drop health benefits and save money. That's $44K gross, or $21/hr. After that, the employer would save money by keeping t
GOLO member since January 20, 2008
July 29, 2009 8:57 p.m.
Check out my earlier posts - the penalty is LESS than I pay in insurance.
But thank you for playing.
Please, try again.
GOLO member since July 17, 2007
July 29, 2009 8:58 p.m.
Please log in to add comment.