« The National Popular Vote Idea comes to South Dakota | Main | Fort Hood Failures »

Thursday, February 03, 2011



I just heard it on the radio that "Wise Health Insurance" can offer health insurance for just $1 a day any one aware of this ? have anyone purchased insurance through them. I did search for them and found them online.

George Mason

Peggy I am certain someone will sell you insurance for $1/day but it wont cover much. Obama care was going to require coverage for pre-existing conditions. That coverage could easily cost $100K/year. Obama sold this like the $1/day insurance and avoided the discussion of what the actual price to the individual would be.The Pelosi/Reid dems wanted everybody to believe that Obama would wave his magic wand and health insurance would be free and cover everything and the Constitution be damned ("we don't care about the Constitution."). KB according to Obama less than half the states participated, only 27 out of 57.


In this day and age of rising health care costs, failure to purchase health insurance is not mere passivity. It is an active, perpetual choice, whether compelled by the size of inurance company premiums or by the daily prayer that one will not get sick.

More to the point, it is simplistic to say that the Health Care Reform Act's intent is to regulate the failure of a person to purchase health insurance. Rather, the purpose of the Act is to regulate the health care insurance market as a whole, a market whose premium costs is affected by the number (and health of)those enrolled. Btw, Judge Vinson in his decision acknowledges this purpose.

George Mason

J.A. the purpose of the act was to give the government power over the individual. If reducing health care costs was the actual intent the act would have removed the government from regulating health care costs for the large percentage of our population as it currently does. Medicare and medicaid do not pay to costs. This forces higher costs on every one else. Eliminate the deduction for companies purchasing health insurance for their employees and allow the individual to deduct the purchase of individual policies and allow competition between the insurance companies and health care providers control costs. Allow insurance companies to sell across state lines to increase that competition. What government needs to regulate is the legal profession. Currently there is no independent oversight or regulatory body that can rein in the excesses of unrestrained litigation. The practice of defensive medicine not only drives up costs but consumes the time and resources of medical professionals. As you approach the age of medicare you will find fewer doctors willing to take medicare patients because the payments do not cover the costs and there is no protection from increasingly aggressive litigators. Obamacare would make this true of health care universally.


So this "impartial" judge alludes to the Boston Tea Party in his ruling. Just a coincidence I'm sure.


A.I.: And he mentioned James Madison, who is short. I'm short! A coincidence? How naive. We're all out to get you A.I.

I would point out that the Boston Tea Party has been part of American political rhetoric since the Boston Tea Party.


J.A.: Even if thought is excruciating it does not constitute an action. It is only when a person adds physical effort to his decision that it does. And one could apply your argument to any other scenario.

"In this day of overpopulation, failure to have an abortion is not a mere passivity."
"In this day of violent crime, failure to purchase a gun is not a mere passivity."
"In this day of political unrest, failure to give money to the DNC is not a mere passivity."
"In this day of obesity, failure to exercise is not a mere passivity."

But even if we supposed that not doing something constituted an action, I am not sure we should be comfortable with allowing the government to force us to purchase any good or service it likes. Dr. Blanchard's Green Tea example is particularly apt. Judge Vinson's observation about the motivation of The Boston Tea Party is, perhaps, even better.

A.I.: Is anything the judge said untrue?

Donald Pay

I'm not opposed to some tort reform, but it must provide far more money for the injured party. For fifteen years I've been involved in one way or another with brain injury victims who have received insurance settlements from various sorts of accidents (only two strictly from medical malpractice, one involved medical malpractice following a severe auto accident). I can tell you that most of the settlements fall far short of a person's lifetime needs. The huge settlements from punitive damages that make the news are very, very rare. Most people end up in three to five years on SSI or SSDI for life, and various other federal or state programs will cover rent subsidies, medical/dental coverage, transportation costs, in-home or group care, etc. Medical costs for these people are huge, and mostly paid for by Medicaid. If the doctors' insurance doesn't cover it, your taxes will. So, you choose.


someone is now spamming my posts here it is Buy Term and LOSE the Difference! Whole Life = no mraekt risk? 5% return? tax deferred build up? tax free withdrawal? Zero net cost loans? Self completes if you become disabled? Lawsuit and creditor protected in 43 states? tax free death benefit? No 591/2 rule on distributions? No RMDs? No contribution limits? And people say this is a bad product? Really? The truth be told it very well may be the best financial product you can own!!!

The comments to this entry are closed.