Kerry’s Healthcare Ignorance

Uncategorized

The closed-door sessions to redistribute wealth in the name of healthcare reform continue today while our President who campaigned on greater transparency maneuvers behind the scenes. Amidst this hypocrisy, Senator John Kerry uttered one of the most profoundly ignorant statements I’ve heard in a long time.

Like those with preexisting conditions, older Americans pay more for health insurance because their claims are much higher, for obvious reasons. As a result, their premiums can be as much as 11 times those of young Americans. Democrats want to reduce the 11:1 ratio to at least 4:1, and some even want to reduce it to 2:1. A 2:1 ratio means that older Americans could be charged no more than twice as much for coverage than young Americans regardless of differences in risks or claims.

Speaking on this topic, Senator Kerry said the following: “Allowing insurers to charge older Americans vastly higher premiums simply because of their age is discrimination, pure and simple. Insurers must compete based on price, value and customer satisfaction, not by avoiding Americans based on their age or health.”

(Read the entire piece in the Washington Times if you like at http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/18/health-reform-bills-target-young-old-cost-gap/)

His ignorance begins with the first word, as it is not the business of the federal government to ALLOW any company—insurance or otherwise—to charge a given price for their products or services. His reference to AGE DISCRIMINATION is perplexing as well. Because bad drivers on average have higher auto insurance claims, they pay higher premiums. Likewise, life insurance premiums are based on a variety of factors. Age is one of them because all things equal, an older person is more likely to die within a given time period than a younger person. This is not very complicated.

Kerry also insists on telling insurance companies HOW they should compete, allegedly on “price, value, and customer satisfaction.” Requiring an insurance company to insure all applicants while restricting them from basing premiums on projected claims guarantees that the young and healthy will be overcharged and the old and sick will be undercharged. The old and sick would represent financial losses, so insurance companies would seek to ration their care as much as possible. There is no way around it.

If you support a “public option,” Senator Kerry’s ignorance illustrates precisely why the government should not be in the insurance business. Replete with the power to tax, redistribute wealth, and regulate insurance companies, the government provider is holding all of the cards. Whenever the marketplace is deemed unfair—which is whenever private companies make a profit—the Marxists in Washington can and will change the rules of the game.

It’s obvious that Senator Kerry hasn’t a clue how to run a business in a relatively free market where winners and losers are not picked by customers, not politicians. Just think…he was almost elected President.

6 Comments

6 Comments

  1. TerryK  •  Oct 19, 2009 @1:46 PM

    These guys are talking like it’s a done deal. Karl Marx would be proud, but it ain’t over until it’s over!

  2. proudlefty  •  Oct 19, 2009 @2:13 PM

    Kerry is right, Terry. Old people can’t afford to pay for insurance now. It’s really only fair if everyone pays the same thing anyway, so a 2-1 ratio cuts you a break. Young people have to pay their fair share. This problem won’t be solved unless everyone contributes their fair share.

  3. Carol  •  Oct 20, 2009 @6:27 AM

    Kerry is NEVER right- to lump us into a government option will cause rationing and guess whose heads will be on the chopping block? THE ELDERLY! If they are placed in this monstrosity they will be quickly eliminated…why not? They massacre babies like it is nothing.

    And by the way- Lindsay Graham from South Carolina…A TRAITOR to this Republic. South Carolina-are you hearing me?

    http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=509551

  4. Joe  •  Oct 21, 2009 @4:59 PM

    proudlefty -
    Why is it okay to confiscate someone else’s money to pay for something YOU think is OK. Remember, a government that can determine someone else’s fair share, can one day determine what’s FAIR from you, and a government that can take from someone else, will eventually take from you. We’ve seen how that works already, it’s called COMMUNISM.
    - “We have no brains, and I must scream!”

  5. jeffo  •  Oct 21, 2009 @8:37 PM

    Proudlefty is just an agitator and not able to be intellectually or even morally honest. You want to confiscate another’s property. Proudlefty, you go ahead and start contributing your fair share now. No one is stopping you. Get back to us on how that is going. It all sounds good when it is OPM. I am puzzled by this “fair share” ideology. Is it fair that one pays 40% of their income in taxes while another pays next to nothing? What would be fair is if we all paid the same percentage.

  6. jeff  •  Oct 23, 2009 @2:15 PM

    no, “proudlefty” is a big fan of “fair share” because he/she is used to be the recipient of other people’s “fair share”…..you see things a little differently when its the gov’t coming to take its “fair share” FROM YOU at the point of a gun/threat of prison, than when you are happily receiving the fruits of others’ labor…

    if some old people cant afford to pay for insurance its because they’re paying the cost of illegal aliens and all the other freeloaders in this society – as well as the Congressionally mandated additions to everyone’s insurance policies(more crooked socialism/theft), AND their own costs….