Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [RLC-Action] California Medical Insurance Plan

Expand Messages
  • F Worley
    Doug, agreed, So I think we need to formulate a plan of action to directly counter this offensive before it grows legs. I oppose both the mandatory insurance
    Message 1 of 8 , Feb 6, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Doug,
       
      agreed, So I think we need to formulate a plan of action to directly counter this offensive before it grows legs.
       
      I oppose both the mandatory insurance requirement, and the potential overtaxation, creation of a new government beast and the potential for obscene enforcement.
       
      RLC should quickly develop a position on this and a plan to counter act it.  But we must be agressive and be the "go to" guys when media are looking for someone to speak inteligently on the opposition.
       
      Car insurance may be a perfect example of how mandatory medical insurance won't work.  Mandatory insurance has not brought down my insurance bill at all.  Mandatory Seatbelt laws were also put in place to "save" us money on insurance.  Didn't happen. 
       
      Mandatory insurance could easily be used as the catalyst to regulate everyone eating, smoking and exersize habits.  And no, I am not exagerating.
       
      So fellow RLC'rs.  Are you ready to take on this issue?
       
      Frank

      DGHarrison <DGHarrison@...> wrote:
      Enforcement, indeed. We in Minnesota already have a "health care service
      tax" added to our medical bills. That is, each time we visit our
      doctors, there is a surcharge added to the cost of services in order to
      pay for uninsured or nonpaying users of health care services. It is only
      a matter of time before some liberal thief requires that all health
      insurance policies include a surcharge to provide insurance for all
      those who do not obtain their own insurance. We here in Minnesota are
      already penalizing owners of vehicle insurance policies by charging them
      additional fees for "uninsured motorists" and "under insured motorists."
      An additional and separate fee is charged for each class of miscreant
      driver -- I say "miscreant" because it is unlawful to operate an
      uninsured vehicle in Minnesota. So, if you get in an accident with
      someone who has no insurance (usually an uninsurable drunken driver),
      your insurance carrier will be compensated for its unrecoverable losses.
      You pay for yourself and you pay for the drunk! The same thing will
      happen with medical coverage. No matter how illegal it is to lack proper
      insurance coverage, there will be people who do not have coverage, and
      the state will require surcharges on everyone else's policies to cover
      the uncovered. You go to the doctor and you pay for yourself and you pay
      for the the other guy, too. What a bunch of bullshit!

      So, penalties will not accrue to the uninsured -- they will be added
      onto those who acquire their own medical insurance. Redistribution of
      wealth is alive and well in Kalifornia as well as Moneysota.

      Doug Harrison

    • John David Galt
      ... I haven t heard about this but would like to know details. What is the penalty for non-complying? And how will the state handle people who have been
      Message 2 of 8 , Feb 6, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        F Worley wrote:
        > The plan is to "Require" by law that all citizens of California carry
        > health insurance, along the same lines as required vehicle insurance.

        I haven't heard about this but would like to know details. What is the
        penalty for non-complying? And how will the state handle people who
        have been unable to get health insurance? Will the state insure them,
        or just parcel them out to companies through some kind of "assigned
        risk" plan like the existing one for auto insurance?
      • F Worley
        John, Right now it is only being floated so details are not forthcoming. I could not find the original article I had read, I think it was on Drudge, but I
        Message 3 of 8 , Feb 6, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          John,
           
          Right now it is only being floated so details are not forthcoming.    I could not find the original article I had read, I think it was on Drudge, but I went back and couldn't find it.  In the original article it said that Gov. Arnold had publicly supported the idea, but this article which is from January, says that Arnold opposed the idea.
           
          This article also does not paint it the way the other article did as being Mandatory for all citizens, instead it looks like it was written by someone who likes the idea.  If I find the article I origenally saw, I'll post the link as well.
           
          Frank

          John David Galt <jdg@...> wrote:
          F Worley wrote:
          > The plan is to "Require" by law that all citizens of California carry
          > health insurance, along the same lines as required vehicle insurance.

          I
        • F Worley
          Here is another article that explains the plan I m concerned about. http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/12013883p-12884334c.html Frank
          Message 4 of 8 , Feb 6, 2005
          • 0 Attachment

            Here is another article that explains the plan I'm concerned about.

             

            http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/12013883p-12884334c.html

             

            Frank

            www.frankworley.com

             

             

          • Douglas Lorenz
            I commented on this piece of legislation on my website back on January 20th. http://www.douglorenz.com/index.php/Perspectives/sen_don_perata_what_me_worr y/
            Message 5 of 8 , Feb 6, 2005
            • 0 Attachment

              I commented on this piece of legislation on my website back on January 20th

               

              http://www.douglorenz.com/index.php/Perspectives/sen_don_perata_what_me_worry/

               

              California voters killed the previous attempt to do this very thing with a referendum.  I can’t imagine that Schwarzenegger would sign something like this…

               

                 Doug

               


              From: John David Galt [mailto:jdg@...]
              Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 12:52 PM
              To: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [RLC-Action] California Medical Insurance Plan

               

              F Worley wrote:
              > The plan is to "Require" by law that all citizens of California carry
              > health insurance, along the same lines as required vehicle insurance.

              I haven't heard about this but would like to know details.  What is the
              penalty for non-complying?  And how will the state handle people who
              have been unable to get health insurance?  Will the state insure them,
              or just parcel them out to companies through some kind of "assigned
              risk" plan like the existing one for auto insurance?


            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.