Greenbeard
Gold Member
I did. I told him I pay for my kids insurance and currently have none on myself as I am in between jobs. I could probably afford to cover me and my wife. If I liquidated some assets and cashed in some of my savings. I Chose to instead go uncovered for a short time while in Between Jobs. See it is that choice you people want to take away. [...] I will have insurance again soon enough.
[...] I have never said I was against Medicare. Which my mother will be on in a few months.
Maybe you can explain your world view to me because I really don't know what you believe or what you want. I know that you support:
1) Privatizing Medicare, presumably meaning seniors get vouchers to buy private coverage,
2) Deregulating the insurance market, and
3) Ending employer-sponsored coverage.
I know that because you voted in my poll.
But presumably if your mother had $100,000+ in medical bills, she has some health problems. Which, in a deregulated market, means no insurer is going to voluntarily cover her, regardless of how generous her voucher is. Should she get care or should she not?
You say you'll have health insurance again soon enough (presumably when you get a new job) and you can be reasonably confident of that--even if you develop a medical condition between now and that time--because people in group plans enjoy certain federal protections. But if you want to push everyone into the individual market and you want to deregulate the individual market as much as possible, you're stripping those protections from lots of people (including yourself) who either already do or will benefit from them. If you develop a health problem in the near future, should you be precluded from getting insurance coverage? Should anyone who's currently between jobs face that scenario?
People usually start by suggesting they want Policy X or Y but I'm curious: what outcomes do you want to see?
Last edited: