It would be completely stupid for anyone to even sign up for insurance if the insurance could drop someone at the one time that one needs to use the insurance. If the insurance company wanted an eventual escape-out or a benefits cap and this was mutually agreed to by the insured and the insurer, that would seem to be fine. The issue, however, may be a canard (like the 47 million “uninsured” canard) promoted by the statists – but it certainly makes little sense to pay for an insurance that pays nothing if I am healthy and nothing if I am sick!Other than a recourse against fraud, there should be no government interference with a free market in insurance.

If there is an issue with the chronically ill (whether the person is suffering from bad luck or bad habits), that should be covered by VOLUNTARY altruism since any alternative is theft and statist slavery.

[Actually Myron, other than from BO, I have never heard of insurance that drops you if you get sick. I hope you are not listening to that ass. I had catastrophic insurance. What would happen is your premiums would go up if your ris status changed. That would make sense.]

~Alex

The reason why most insurance companies drop people who are extremely sick or ill is because it is no longer profitable for them to continue insuring them – there doesn’t need to be any policy making in washington over this, if that is what you are suggesting.

Health care insurance is not supposed to make us healthy – only the individual can do that. Americans are seeing insurance as actually a system whereby you can do whatever you want and then have a second party – your insurance company – foot the majority of the bill for your fatness, bad dental hygiene, smoking, etc.

This is completely not what insurance is or supposed to be; a safeguard in case something bad happens to the individual, not a system whereby I can live recklessly and then pay a small sum while someone else pays the rest.

Now, to the extent that this happens in a free market (which we don’t have), then it is profitable for an insurance company to co-pay in this fashion. But in our regulated, bastardized, socialistic mess, it is more likely caused by legal enforcement rather than contractual agreement.

Hopefully you are not advocating policies regarding regulating insurance in these instances Myron. I kind of like you too much to consider something like that…

~Alex

[That’s the sweetest thing—I love Bach.]

The good news is that this socialistic soup is a harder sell than the Democrats anticipated (as it was in 1993) – but all that means is that the socialism will come slightly more gradually than the single payer goons would prefer.

That said, I am more concerned that Obama is stuck in quicksand – that he is out of his element. Without the Kennedy clan (no pun intended) behind him, his Kennedy-esque luster is in jeopardy. Michelle?