Quote:
Originally Posted by Mavdog
if that were accurate, the accusation would be correct.
but that is not the case, insurance cos should act like a business, and they should do exactly what their business does...insure people against risk, and pay when their is a claim.
they should not be able to stop insuring people when the risk is realized. that is removing the downside of the policy they underwrote.
|
You're not making sense.
If I have health insurance in force when I become ill, the insurance company has to pay. Now, should they be allowed to raise premiums? Of course. Otherwise, how is it insurance?
Quote:
|
that's not being a "charity", far from it. the premiums will be paid, and the coverage will be extended, and if there is a claim it should be paid.
|
I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Are you saying that insurance companies shouldn't be allowed to stop insuring people, that they shouldn't be allowed to raise premiums when a person gets sick, or what?
Quote:
the false accusation that it is the "federal government..as an insurance/welfare company" is false. wrong. inaccurate. a lie.
the federal governemnt does not write a single policy.
|
Look, if you want everybody covered no matter what, that's going to result in a gigantic increase in costs. Unless you think that each individual patient is going to cover the cost of that increase through their premiums (which would be a ridiculous assumption), then I'm not sure why you're denying that the federal government would have to pick up the tab.