rational? hmmmmmm. i dont know. i have one question but i cant seem to find the answer to.
under the bill:
1) you cannot be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions
2) you cannot pay more than anyone else because of your condition.
3) failure to have insurance will (eventually) cause an added tax of $695/year
With this logic above.. If I needed to purchase insurance for me and my fictitious family. Wouldn't it be cheaper to:
A) not by any insurance and take the $695 hit per year.
B) in the case that someone in my family becomes seriously ill.. THEN i say oh but i want insurance now. you can't deny me because of my pre-exisiting condition and you can't charge more even though i'm about to have 1000s of dollars of procedures.
This of course would bankrupt the whole system as insurance makes a profit since there are *supposed* to be more healthy insurees on the plan than sick ones.
Bookmarks