http://www.thissideofthewall.com/2012/10/what-people-like-about-the-hier/…

Then you have the issue with parents throwing their kids on their plan moments after they discover an illness or an injury occurs then costing the insurance company money it can never recoup.

It is not about being cold or wanting the “poor” to be without, it is about personal responsibility and not telling private companies they have to do something. If insurance companies knew they could make money off of healthy 26 year olds just by allowing them to be on their parents insurance, they would have already allowed it. But since most family plans do not add expense for a child to be added, it is a loss for the companies. Once you figure in the money they lose on the adults getting their own plan rather than sitting on their parents, the losses grow exponentially.

-exits

I have never understood that. Why should someone who covers one kid pay the same premium as someone who covers 7? I understand that kids and young adults USUALLY are healthy but that still doesn’t seem quite fair to me.

I think the law should be attacked on any and all fronts.

There is no requirement that these parents have to enroll their kids, they pay extra premiums when they do so, and it adds a lot of young and healthy people who don’t need a ton of expensive medical care to the insurance pool, balancing out the older and sicker people who draw down huge medical expenses.

Ages 23-26 is when most young people pursue law or medical school. A lot of others have to get by a on a stipend or less at an internship to get their first job. Is the conservative argument that they should go without insurance or go into more debt to buy a policy? What’s the matter with letting them stay on their parents plan?

Perry has seemed to disappear on being out front on this. He’s a great guy to spear head the resistance.

2. I don’t believe this will happen because it is my belief that insurance companies can and will cover their risk due to pricing, but if this tanks the insurance industry, by necissity you will be looking at either a complete government take over of health care or a massive government bailout of the insurance industry to make TARP look like a date night with dinner and a movie. The only way health care can be paid for is to spread risk across a wide pool like is done now through insurance companies or have the tax payer pay for it directly (the single payer of the socialist dreams).

3. The left won’t see #2 as a bad option which means we should be terrified and the cost to the consumer will skyrocket even if the insurance companies avoid the worst of #2.

Obama care is a crap sandwich; it has to be repealed; we should accept nothing less.

The insurance companies rates are capped as to how much they charge to profit but they are not capped in what they charge to break even and they will pass along risk, taxes,etc to the consumer. The insurance companies will adjust and charge the people on insurance more. It means the 45 year old on Crestor will pay more for his doctor’s visit, his stress test and his crestor. Insurance companies will move the risk to pricing (and with healthy people opting out – this is going to be high costs compared to what he pays today).

The healthy person has an auto accident, breaks his pelvis will lose everything (as the law does not force insurance to cover pre-existing medical bills) for his bad decision not to participate. In the current environment, high deductible catastrophic insurance with health savings account is the way to go if you are healthy but I think the 30000 page crap sandwich takes away that option.

Long term this is where we win on socialized medicine…we prove that for the majority of Americans, you will get worse care and pay more for it. Even if you are healthy, if something catastrophic happens, you go broke if you opt out (whereas currently you go the high deductible/HSA route).

Under Obama, never in the history of the US have so many been on the Government dole, from food stamps to health care to auto companies to banks.

So to say that the House refusing to fund ObamaCare is a meaningful response is, in my view, mistaken.

The best solution is for states to refuse to accept expanded Medicaid and set up insurance exchanges. These strike at the core of the law’s ability to function and to pay for itself, even on paper. The majority of the rest can be addressed via reconciliation which can’t be filibustered in the Senate.