You Deserve A (Health Control) Break Today
Via USAToday, McDonalds, Jack-in-the-Box, the State of Massachusetts, along with twenty-six other companies, have obtained waivers from some provisions of the recently enacted Health Control Law.
Tucked into the thousands of pages that, according to Madame Pelosi we had to pass to find out what was in it, were regulations mandating that provided health insurance policies must have minimal coverages.
Seems that McDonalds and other companies effected would regularly supply low-cost, albeit minimal benefit insurance policies to some of their low-wage, part-time, and entry-level employees. New regulations will raise those minimum benefits annually, thus driving up the cost of the policies. Without the waivers, they would not have been able to continue to provide this to their employees.
Says Jessica Santillo, spokeswoman for the Department of Health And Human Services:
The waivers are effective for a year and were granted to insurance plans and companies that showed that employee premiums would rise or that workers would lose coverage without them, Santillo says.
Under that criteria, if carried through, then everyone should fall under exemptions. Every study, every bit of common sense says that everyone’s premiums will rise based on the new law.
Now, I absolutely hate all the Lefties trying to equate mandated health insurance with automobile insurance, because the analogy is false. True, most if not all states mandate you must carry automobile liability insurance, but that’s only true if you choose to operate a motor vehicle on public roads. While it might be difficult to get through modern life without it, you are not required to have a car or drive anywhere.
But, for the purpose of illustration, I will use the comparison here. Since there are some out there who drive without auto insurance, we’re going to overhaul that system, including new mandates. Included in those mandates are minimum coverage amounts for collision and comprehensive, since it’s not fair that liability only won’t pay to repair your car after a crash. (After all, our Dear Leader used that himself during debates on health care.) So starting next year, you’ll have to have collision coverage for $10,000. After that, we’ll increase that minimum annually, until it reaches $25,000.
So what happens when your car is fifteen years old and is worth $1200 (and that’s after you recharge the air conditioner!)? Is that fair to make you have collision coverage for $25,000, thus making your premiums go through the roof? Or would it perhaps be more fair to group similar people, with comparable driving history and type of cars, and then charge premiums accordingly?
As I’ve said from the very beginning, there are many things can, and maybe should be done to the health care system. There were supposedly 30 million or so people who had no insurance. Any business worth their salt would be attempting to find ways to bring in at least some of that 30 million new customers, right? The problem, in my opinion, is largely due to excessive regulations already on the table. Each state has up to now set their own regulations on how companies can operate, and I suspect a lot of those regulations make it very unprofitable to chase after those new customers.
So let’s get rid of this idiotic takeover attempt, and have a real, honest study and discussion on how the existing system can be improved. As these waivers prove, the government will be the one deciding who gets what and for how much. I don’t think very many of us actually want that.