« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

McCain hangs Fannie around Obama-Dem necks

Factual refutations show McCain represents real economic change

Originally published by Mike DeVine, the Legal Editor for The Minority and HinzSight Reports

[Update - Since my friend called for McCain to act, he has, all week. McCain has called out Dems, including Obama, by name in pinning the cause for the Fannie Mae induced economic crisis on them and showing that he and Palin are the real change.]

I had been considering doing a post-mortem on the recent two-week debate over the Paulson Panic Prevention Bill that was finally signed into law late last week. Given my exhaustion (and the recently announced retirement of alter ego Cockstradamus until after the election) from reading enough pages to have re-read Tolstoy’s War and Peace and having written five columns in 12 days that resembled Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment, it was a great joy to me that an executive with one of the largest Banks in America (who also happens to be a close friend) wrote the following to me after I requested he identify three issues he wanted addressed refuting Obama and Democrat positions on the great issues of the day, with facts, that he considered not being effectively addressed by the McCain campaign or the media.

My friend shares much of our (conservative segment of the GOP) frustrations with the campaign and the past eight years and echoes many of my own thoughts, but he brings more of an insider’s perspective on the current state of banking affairs, as well as an outsider’s perspective, not being a blogger or columnist.


He shall remain anonymous, but given that this is only the first of a series of columns featuring my friend’s thoughts and desires, and given that my offer to try and address concerns that would “float his boat”, I will refer to him as “Boata”:

IT’S THE ECONOMY, STUPID

The Dem mantra is ‘We can’t afford another eight years of the failed Bush economic policies’, and McCain will not refute it – and neither will Bush Jr!

Here’s the truth of the matter:

It started under Carter, and it accelerated under Clinton. The so called noble idea was that home ownership should be expanded from 60% to at least 70%. Through PR pressure and arm twisting on lending institutions by the government, the fear of being labeled as discriminatory by Jesse Jackson or other extortion thugs, and the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA),
requirements for mortgage loans relaxed.

The CRA has various methods and penalties to persuade lending institutions to make available a certain percentage of their portfolio for ‘affordable housing’ (and they still do – Countrywide just received a directive to make loans to applicants with credit scores of 500-580! If nothing is done it will happen again).

Urban communities that no bank would seriously consider lending to were now badges of honor. Credit scoring, financials, current job, etc. – these were no longer paramount. This was doubly encouraged because Freddie Mac
and Fannie Mae would buy these loans so the lending institutions didn’t really have to worry.

GSE’s hold approximately 50% of the nation’s mortgage loans. In fact, the GSE’s were established under the theory that by
buying loans, packaging, and reselling them as investment instruments (CDOs, Auction Rate, etc.), they would be freeing up more cash for lending institutions to make more loans so everyone could own a home! On top of this, ARMs were invented and pushed as an easy way to afford a loan – the catch of course is that they are extremely risky and irresponsible. If you can’t afford a fixed rate loan, you shouldn’t be contemplating adjustables, but many lenders started pushing them to increase their commissions. Ditto for sub primes.

This is where the ‘greed’ comes in that Wall Street is accused of. On Bob Brinker’s Moneytalk show yesterday, he had a NY Times economist on who posited this as the big reason the lenders and the GSEs hit hard times. He is right about the snowball effect, but how it started he is not (after all, he works for the NY Times). It started for the aforementioned political reasons.

Now it really gets complicated! With tried and true institutions failing or struggling, lending amongst themselves starts to dry up. Companies that depend on short-term lending for the regular business of stock and supply start freezing up because creditors don’t have the money or fear default. This credit crunch is the fear that prompted the federal bailout (rescue) last week.

Prior to all this, both Bush and McCain tried to rein in the GSE’s and their excesses, but the attempt fell on deaf ears in Congress – yet neither of them will explain this to the public. Former Fannie CEO Franklin Raines and his successor should be investigated for hiding the true dire financial situation there, but they won’t be because the Dems hold sway in both houses and the Republicans have no backbone. The Republicans are complicit in the whole situation also because the sub prime lending really ramped up after the turn of the century. They raised no protests or red flags (outside of a few like McCain) for fear of being called racists or ‘evil, rich Republicans’.

Lastly, Obama and Pelosi’s continued hammering of the eight years of a failed Bush economic policy’ is a non sequitur – they’re two separate things. I blame the Bush Administration and the House Republicans for acting like drunken Democrats in spending even more, and adopting pork and earmarks as their own, but this is not the reason for the crisis.

However, this gives the Dems the ammunition they need; they would have done better to take the heat up front and do what’s right. So the reason we are where we are all boils down to this: Republicans didn’t have the gumption to stand up for what they believe when they finally gained the power to make REAL CHANGE!

I trust that Boata, like most of us in the conservative movement, is encouraged by the McCain campaign’s post-bailout bill signing, fact-laden refutations of and attacks against Obama and the democrats that echo much of the above, as well his the McCain ad that began running during the bailout bill debate that features the NYT praising McCain’s Fannie-Freddie 2005-6 reform attempts, and Bill Clinton’s assessment of blame against the democrats in congress (2003-2008), including the Obama-occupied, filibuster threatening Senate.

Gamecock echoes Boata’s call for McCain-Palin to show America that they represent real change for the economy.

[Despite the lack of a complete post-mortem following up on my econ columns (see my archive) opposing the bailout – albeit as a close call given the GOP improvements – especially given post-bailout market disasters here and abroad, I deem it appropriate to heed Boata’s desire for shorter columns and less self-congratulatory pajama geek echo chamber chatter! – I will address the other issues on a blog this week concerning Big Government central planning Bernanke-Paulson’s attempt to force Wachovia to be split in two, rather than let the free market and the legal system sort out the claims of Wells Fargo and Citibank.]

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
Legal Editor for The Minority and HinzSight Reports
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” – The Chief Justice
Race 4 2008
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Tags:
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • izoneguy

    I agree, if it is the economy then why don’t the Obama supporters listen? An Obama Presidency would be the sure ruin of our economy for decades to come.

    Socialism does not work.

  • MikeO

    That’s it: The power to lord it over the rest of us.

  • izoneguy

    Why Socialism Will Never Work (in a nutshell)

    Utopia, the perfect society, or according to one well known Senator, the perfect village…the theory of Socialism at its root is a wonderful theory. The idea that everyone in a society thrives, and that poverty becomes a thing of the past through collective hard work and compassion. What is wrong with this idea that so many “progressive” thinkers have adopted as their life’s ambition…simple, it does not work. The reason that the theory of Socialism does not work is complex, but it can be made simple for the purpose of this article, in short, it is a theory. The problem with a theory, or a concept, or an idea for that matter, is that they all look great on paper, in lab conditions, but when you try to enact them in the real world, the ugly truth about most theories begins to show. For Socialism to work, every member of a society must pull their own weight. Take a look around, does that seem possible to you, as an intelligent life form? The truth is that Socialist are idealistic, and if they truly believe that Socialism will work in a real society, they are also naive. It has been proven that water will follow the path of least resistance, and in many ways, humans are like water. If you constantly give a person sustenance without requiring them to work for that sustenance, they will never work. The old adage, give a man a fish, he will eat for a day, teach him to fish, he will eat for a lifetime is very pertinent to this discussion. If the government constantly gives men fish, why would they buy their own pole and bait a hook? The answer, they will not. Socialism will never work for the same reason that capitalism makes some people rich. In a capitalist market, those who work the hardest gain the most spoils. Removing the incentive for these hard workers to work, by redistributing their spoils, does nothing more than create mass poverty, it does not eliminate poverty. Look around, has socialism ever been successful? Were the bread lines of the Soviet Union a picture of success? If so, why is America, a capitalist nation, so much stronger in every facet of life than quasi-socialist nations like Cuba? Why do thousands of Cubans risk their lives every year in an attempt to reach America? It seems so simple, and in fact it is. This life is a survival of the fittest, it is human nature, and as long as humans are involved in the equation, Socialism will never work.

  • izoneguy

    The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital . . . the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth in the economy.

    – President John F. Kennedy, 1963

    You’re looking at a poor man who thinks the capital gains tax [cut] is the best thing that could happen to this country, because that’s when the work will come back. People say capital gains are for the rich, but I’ve never been hired by a poor man.

    – New Jersey painting contractor

    An even more economically compelling reform would be to eliminate the capital gains tax entirely. Abolishing the capital gains tax would promote entrepreneurship, business creation, U.S. competitiveness, and higher wages for American workers–especially for the most economically disadvantaged among us.

    The ABCs of the Capital Gains Tax

  • izoneguy

    “Socialism does not work, because, while capitalist decisions are made by individuals and firms that know more about their particular circumstances than anyone else could possibly know, socialist planners cannot know nearly as much about the persons and institutions they deal with and thus are forced to make and enforce arbitrary general rules that apply the same to different people and different circumstances, regardless of the absurd or unjust consequences.”

    Example: Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac

    Why Socialism Is the People?s Choice

  • liberalrepublican

    It IS the economy.

    McCain is going to win or lose based on how strong he can make this case.

    Unless Obama can be shown planting a bomb himself, the Ayers stuff ain’t gonna cut it.

    It fires up people on this site but leaves the middle cold.

    We need to hammer economics and how government meddling got us into this mess and how more government meddling is NOT the solution.

  • izoneguy

    Power Expands in Venezuela

    Hugo Chavez brings to mind the failed social movements littering the ash heap of the twentieth century. Planned economies break down because they lack freedom. The election in Venezuela is likely to go to the insane, self absorbed leader and it will prove to be disastrous for the people. Chavez, like so many authoritarians, claims to be fighting the good fight, for the people. There is a long line of strongmen through history who came to power by pandering to the people by asserting they were standing up to take care of the little guy.

    Hitler promised Germans pride.

    Lenin brought revolution.

    Castro fought international capitalism backed by industrial, imperial powers.

    Mao promised a return to the land.

    Sandinistas fought land owners.

    Mussolini made Italian trains run on time.

    Often, the so-called leader of the people dies in power. Each case is different but social orders propped up by injustice and terror lead to revolutions built upon the same. Chavez?s role in this hemisphere, propelled by demagoguery and funded with oil revenue, holds the potential to engender colossal tensions reverberating throughout the world for decades……………

    Socialism Does Not Work

  • izoneguy

    Socialism exists “to make sure everyone starts at the same point.” Politically, this has already been done, thanks to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Everyone has the right to live his own life as he sees fit, as long as he does not violate others’ rights. No one has the right to an education, a job, or a life-style paid for with money taken from others against their will. That is the difference between socialism and capitalism: one system tries to establish economic and political rights separately, while the other begins from the understanding that they are indivisible.
    Alan J. Back

    Get over it – Socialism does not work

  • izoneguy

    One of the Utopian ideas of socialism is for everyone to be more equal, and for the government to take care of us all. The left continually decries the top 1% of Americans for owning so much of the wealth, and says that proves that capitalism is crushing us all.

    Let?s take a look at Sweden, one of the most well known socialists countries on Earth. The top 1% owns 40% of the wealth in Sweden. Surely if wealth spread out among classes is the measuring stick of the success of socialism, Sweden must be far better than the U.S.?

    In this Cato Opinion piece by Alan Reynolds, it turns out that the top 1% in the U.S. earns 20% of the wealth. And the statistics have been been put out time and time again that show this is not a static group, but the top 1% is a constantly changing dynamic of people.

  • izoneguy

    Here lies the problem of communism, socialism, liberalism or whatever else you may wish to call it. It takes from those who are responsible to subsidize those who choose to live irresponsibly. Pretty soon for obvious reasons the number of the irresponsible are increasing and the responsible are decreasing. By the next generation their are enough irresponsible people to vote in irresponsible leaders who spend far beyond the means of the nation for the continuing increasing benefits of the irresponsible citizens. After another generation or two the nation is totally bankrupt and it fails. We are very near that point now in the U.S. The life span of socialism in a republic can only be a few generations.

    Why socialism does not work

  • izoneguy

    Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is facing a financial crisis in California and may have to turn to the federal government for help. I guess all those socialist programs like “free health care” cost more than they are worth. What do you think, should we just sell California to the Chinese or the Japanese? I bet we could get enough out of selling California to solve our countries financial crisis. As a plus, all those Hollywood elites that always threaten to move to another country if a Republican gets elected, will not have to move.

    Socialism does not work in California

  • c17wife

    Make sure you are getting this to Steve Schmidt.
    McCain needs to sucker punch Barack on this EVERY DAY until Nov 4th.
    He can no tlet up at all.
    As McCain punches Barack, he gives cover to others to go after the dems in their races as well.

  • izoneguy

    Socialism is the Big Lie of the twentieth century. While it promised prosperity, equality, and security, it delivered poverty, misery, and tyranny. Equality was achieved only in the sense that everyone was equal in his or her misery.

    In the same way that a Ponzi scheme or chain letter initially succeeds but eventually collapses, socialism may show early signs of success. But any accomplishments quickly fade as the fundamental deficiencies of central planning emerge. It is the initial illusion of success that gives government intervention its pernicious, seductive appeal. In the long run, socialism has always proven to be a formula for tyranny and misery.

    A pyramid scheme is ultimately unsustainable because it is based on faulty principles. Likewise, collectivism is unsustainable in the long run because it is a flawed theory. Socialism does not work because it is not consistent with fundamental principles of human behavior. The failure of socialism in countries around the world can be traced to one critical defect: it is a system that ignores incentives. …

    READ MORE:

    Why Socialism Failed

  • izoneguy

    Socialism does not work anywhere it has been tried!

  • izoneguy

    Proponents of Canadian-style universal health care say that Canadian life expectancy is two years longer than ours, implying that the health care systems of the two countries have something to do with that result. Yet doctors don’t control our overeating, overdrinking, etc. Where doctors do make a difference, the comparison does not favor Canada. In an NBER study, David and June O’Neill draw on a large US/Canadian patient survey to show that:
    The percent of middle-aged Canadian women who have never had a mammogram is double the US rate.
    The percent of Canadian women who have never had a pap smear is triple the US rate.
    More than 8 in 10 Canadian males have never had a PSA test, compared with less than half of US males.
    More than 9 in 10 Canadians have never had a colonoscopy, compared with 7 in 10 in the US.
    These differences in screening may explain why US cancer patients do better than their Canadian counterparts. For example:
    The mortality rate for breast cancer is 25% higher in Canada.
    The mortality rate for prostate cancer is 18% higher in Canada.
    The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among Canadian men and women is about 13% higher than in the US.

    Socialism & Healthcare

    Source – Does Socialism Work? Debunking the Myths

  • izoneguy

    Look, socialism does not work! Oh, it looks great on paper, but in practice it corrupts and corrodes and finally rots a country?s core until that country collapses in on itself. History has taught us that. But, if you have not been taught history and you are ignorant of the trail of collapsed socialist countries littering the landscape of human history then, yes, you may find socialism?s promises compelling. For those of us who have studied history, and (at my age), have lived history, it scares the hell out of us! We have watched our beloved country, over the past few years, drift ever closer to European State Socialism? and it is frightening.

    Obama?s dependency on socialism and misery

  • izoneguy

    Benjamin Franklin, one of the Founding Fathers of this republic, is credited with having said: ?When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.? Franklin was, of course, correct. When one looks at the decided drift of the US toward socialism and the Obama juggernaut pushing with all it?s might in that same direction, one must ask? have we reached the end of the US Republic?

    Please research this for yourself if you need anymore proof that Obama will ruin America!

  • Harold_Vaughn

    Obama/Dem economics: do absolutely nothing for 2 years!

    I loved what McCain said the other day something like this “name one piece of legislation that Obama put forth to help the economy or the middle class”. Heck, ask the same question about the Dem controlled congress which has been asleep for the past 2 years, except for trying to stop funding for the war.

    American voters need to start physically implementing term limits by removing any representative who has served over two terms. Lets send up idiots if we have too, it might just be an improvement!

  • stang

    .

  • Achance

    to empower an elite and keep them in power. That is why it is so attractive to the self-styled cultural and intellectual elite who firmly believe that the common people are too ignorant to act in their own best interest. Consequently, the “caring and sharing” elite must control policy, take care of the masses, and share wealth. So, if you think you are positioned to be a member of the nomenklatura, socialism works very, very well – for you.

  • speciallist

    n/p

  • izoneguy

    Refute Obama/Dems on real economic change and what will happen if Obama gets elected.

  • izoneguy

    izoneguy this a threadjack. If you want to rant about socialism please do it on your own diary.

    Maybe somebody will read this

  • gamecock

    it has been brought to my attention that readers of rooster crowings and Boata musings are annoyed by how far down they have to scroll to reach relevant comments that relate to the title.

    We get the point and agree that socialism sucks. Will you now please stop repeating same in more sundry and various ways in this blog?

    In Christ

  • speciallist

    n/p

  • stang

    This is toally uncalled for. Can you rectify please?

    Thanks.

  • Erick

    Cease further activity in this thread or be deactivated.

  • izoneguy

    n/t

  • stang

    and this was childish. You owe GC (especially) and the rest of us an apology.

  • gamecock

    5

  • gamecock

    material.

  • gamecock

    of wisdom?

    I think so.

  • pangloss

    He carved himself a nice little spot in between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie…

    The guy had piano lessons as a kid — not exactly like being sent to work in a textile mill.

    He was always a little hazy about the role of the intellectuals (you’re comment about Gramsci the other day was spot on — the battle of ideas was a second front in the war on class). But Marx did identify intellectuals as the folks who would help teach/led the newly class conscious workers.

    Lenin was a little more clear-cut: the vanguard would lead the way. But all of them (even though they didn’t say it) laid out a nice plan for the thinking class… none of the grunt work and all of the rewards.

  • Achance

    never was much of an envelope stuffer myself. If you’re not the lead dog, the view is always the same.

  • KBDay

    And they’ve already loosened some of that money. A newsletter from my bank came this weekend offering mortgage refi for 120% of your home’s value. I almost hyperventilated.

  • conservativecash

    Did anyone else notice that Obama stated that $18 Billion is not a lot of money during the debate last night?

    McCain should run that clip on youtube

  • JSobieski

    ARMs, balloons, interest only, etc. are merely options for two parties to fashion a mutually agreeable arrangement.

    The real issue is whether or not the risk in a particular transaction is reasonable.

  • PNW_old_surfer

    McCain has to drastically revise his health-care strategy, or loose the election.

    The consensus at the medical school where I work, among both right-wing and left-wing MDs alike, is that Swiss-style health-care plans are coming to America … because they have to come.

    Swiss-style plans have to come, because the present health-care system is so badly broken that it is destroying the economy of our nation, and making it almost impossible for small businesses to start-up.

    Even worse, the present system is corrupting both the morale and the moral sense of the young physicians we train.

    The good news for conservatives is that Swiss health-care system is market-driven and choice-driven … all health-care is provided by MDs that families choose.

    To make this happen, the Swiss enforce the following market discipline:

    • no denial of coverage is allowed (high-risk and elderly patients are pooled).

    • every Swiss family must purchase coverage (from one of sixty-five private-sector providers).

    • if you can’t afford coverage, you get a voucher … so your family not only can choose a provider, you must choose a provider.

    • small businesses do not provide health-care insurance … the choce happens at the family level.

    This plan works well … better care, more choice, lower costs, greater coverage, less government involvement.

    So why isn’t this plan in-place in America? When it would have saved (over one decade) five trillion dollars?

    Simple. And shameful for far-right Republicans. It’s Hillary’s plan.

    Just because an idea comes from a Clinton, doesn’t mean it’s not a good idea.

    McCain is proud of his ability to “reach across the aisle.” To win this election, McCain needs to prove it … by admitting that Hillary Clinton got it right on health-care.

    In comparison to a Swiss-style plan, the present McCain health-care plan is moronic pandering to the far-right.

    Which is not what America families want … and which why McCain is so far behind.

    Now Swiss-style health-care is coming to America, like it or not.

    McCain-style Republicans can either proudly lead this bi-partisan effort … and thus serve our nation well … or become irrelevant.

  • skorrent

    But first, let me correct some errors.

    Hillarycare was heavily bent towards HMOs, before the HMO industry became unpopular.

    She wanted government to determine the coverage of all ailments, one-size-fits-all.

    She wanted the government to determine how many of each medical specialty would be allowed and where they could work.

    What you’ve described as the Swiss system sounds more like McCain’s proposal than like Hillarycare.

  • PNW_old_surfer

    One huge difference is that McCain-care ducks the tough issue of pre-existing conditions … Swiss-care doesn’t.

    Under McCain-care, if McCain himself were ever to switch jobs (move from government health-care to private-sector health-care), he would be uninsurable (due to history of state-2 melanoma).

    Under Swiss-care (and Hillary-care) he would be covered.

    So McCain-care is not Swiss-care.

  • mywrite

    Obama supporters are of two ilks, Dems who want Rep out and those black folks who just want Barack as their man so they can say we have made it, it is time to reclaim our forty acres and mule. You see those folks do not see the greater picture of Economy, economy to them is receiving handouts they think they are entitled to by any mean necessary. Obama knows what he is doing when he talks about helping the middle class and grassroots, he know that those folks of whom he speaks do not know much of anything, don’t read and don’t care! All they see is another brother being President of this great nation. This is not a racist comment because I am of Obama’s ilk ethnic wise.

  • PNW_old_surfer

    As a conservative family, health-care is a top issue for us … economically and morally.

    The media’s coverage of health-care is disastrously poor. There is little content in the main-stream media aside from mindless slogan-shouting, equally from the left and the right.

    I came here to red-state to get those some answers. But this place is dead … if you subtract the slogan-shouting and the abuse—both of which are irrelevant—there is distressingly little content here.

    It seems to me, that the American people have figured this out. Over on Intrade, McCain shares are trading at 22% and falling—which is an all-time low.

    To have any chance of winning, the McCain campaign must start providing some thoughtful answers to the tough questions … even if it means alienating those on the far-right.

    IMHO, the McCain campaign’s best (and only) hope for turning these numbers around is to start giving thoughtful answers to tough questions.

    Health-care economics would be a great place for the McCain campaign to start.

  • PNW_old_surfer

    The topic is “Real economic change with facts.”

    But here on red-state, there have been only three posts on this topic in the last 24 hours.

    Meanwhile, over on fivethirtyeight, there have been more than seven hundred posts—many of them substantive—in the last ten hours.

    So AFAICT, there is no point in reading or posting here on redstate.

    The reason is simple and obvious: redstate is no longer a forum where issues important to conservatives are seriously discussed from a substantive point of view.

    Thank you, and goodbye.

  • PaRep

    .

  • gamecock

    bad loans, of whatever variety.

    Yes, two parties should have the right to take risks.

  • gamecock

    5

  • RichChatfield

    In order to Form a More Perfect Union

    This is my take as to why so many Americans buy into it all. Obama is capitalizing on undercurrent themes which are common in how labor unions are often formed. You could almost say that what Obama is doing is making a deceitful appeal to unionize America.

  • gamecock

    so much leftism to communicate

    we will win

  • RichChatfield

    The personal and character tatics might do a good job in raising people’s awareness and concerns, but it isn’t a game changer for the final verdict of who will be elected. It should be, but it won’t be.

    The economy is the game changer. I think if you frame the economic arguement in personal and character attacks(such as “its the dems fault”), you run the risk of watering down any chance to speak clearly as to why Obama’s economic vision is hallow. Add on top of that, that McCain isn’t really getting his plan out there in clear and understandable way, and you find your self exactly where we are.

    Some of my thoughts on how Mccain can turn the economy issue around:

    Common Cents-

    Why the Market Continues to Fall

    In Order to Form a More Perfect Union – More of an insight peice in understanding why I think so many Americans, not just the far left, are buying into Obama’s economic vision.

  • DavidS1787

    N/T

  • DavidS1787

    n/t

  • gamecock

    No evidence a majority has bought Obama’s vision. He has no vision and what passes for same changes everyday.

    What will “change” after Election Day for a few hours, as happens every 4 years mostly, is that the left will have to ackowledge the loss of another dem lib loser, explain how it was due to ads, a debate moment or bigotry an then move on to the same theme they have sold since the mid-50s

    that liberalism is the answer and conservatives are rubes

  • PaRep

    Posts !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Great Post GC

  • RichChatfield

    Point taken. Really enjoyed the post, thanks again GC.

  • gamecock

    ‘splain

    and thanks for the kudos
    I always like your comments

  • PaRep

    COOLBEANS !!!

  • gamecock

    5

  • cwilson

    As long as coverage is un-interrupted, the new carrier cannot exclude pre-existing ailments the current (old) carrier covered.

    IOW, as long as McCain did not let his current coverage lapse (e.g. paid his COBRA bill after leaving the Senate, until he got his new job), then if his new job provided group health insurance, it would also have to cover him, with no additional exclusions.

    The difficulty is when you try to get non-group (e.g. individual, non-employer-provided) health coverage. If your (new) employer provides health coverage, and they hire you, you can’t be excluded from that group plan. But if you’re “shopping on your own” — you’re not a member of a group, or you can be excluded from the group (‘risk pool’). That’s the sticky bit.