If the government does mandate that we all buy health insurance, how is that not government taking over our health care?  A mandate without a public option or a single payer system is a mandate of profits to the well connect and a well placed few. Putting the foxes in charge of the hen house. A mandate is a tax. A mandate to pay corporations is taxation without representation, that will increase whenever a corporations need for profits increases.  It is a redistribution of wealth, however the money is flowing to those who need it the least from the least fortunate of us.    If the government intervenes and mandates that we all have insurance, I see two options.

First option.  A government mandate to purchase corporate insurance must be accompanied by a mandate to provide minimum coverage to anyone that requests it and must be non-profit.  Profits could be derived from addition insurance for perks such as guaranteeing you receive a private room.  But without a non-profit mandate, how is it not a for profit mandate for the insurance companies?

Second.  A single payer system where all Americans pay into one pool and all risk is divided equally.  A mandate is a tax, and taxes should only be payed to governments, not to corporations.  When we pay taxes to corporations, we have Corporate Fascism.

It is not called free health care, it is called single payer.  This means the government would pool all the money we currently give to the many corporate interests, and consolidate this and be the single payer for every ones health care. Consider this example.  If we all payed in $1000 a year, or $3000 per household, into a single payer system, we would have over 300 billion a year.  $300 billion before any tax dollars were consumed.   How many people can say they can be covered for $1000 a year per person?  And if we could afford to pay more… we are approaching a trillion dollars a year.  Cut out the billions in profits that inspire insurance companies to engage in racketeering and fraud and we are easily over a trillion a year, now financing is a very small problem.

If any bill should happen to pass that includes a mandate, you better decide who you want to pay taxes to, and which of these two terms you prefer.   Corporate Fascism or Socialized Medicine.  It comes down to whether you want to stand with the people of this country, and all civilized nations of the world, or with the corporations.  Which side will you be on?

Monday the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that Fortis Insurance, now known as Assurant,  must pay 10 million in damages to a man dropped shortly after being diagnosed HIV positive.   In the ruling, the Huffington Post notes Chief Justice Jean Hoefer Toal wrote:

We find ample support in the record that Fortis’ conduct was reprehensible … Fortis demonstrated an indifference to Mitchell’s life and a reckless disregard to his health and safety.

In a memorandum dated June 16,2009 the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform discussed their findings during investigations into problems with the individual health insurance market.  The first part of the study discusses the issue they call “post claims underwriting”.

Rather than reviewing individual medical histories at the time applications are submitted, some insurance companies award policies quickly to begin collecting premiums. If thepolicyholders subsequently get sick and file expensive claims, these insurance companies initiate investigations to scrutinize the details of the original application materials and medical records in order to find discrepancies, omissions, or misrepresentations. This practice is known as “postclaims
underwriting.”

Based on the results of post-claim investigations, insurance companies may rescind coverage, retroactively cancel policies, return premiums, and refuse payment for medical services. Rescinding health insurance policies has implications not only for policyholders and their families, but also for physicians, hospitals, and other health care providers that seek reimbursement for their services. A Mississippi court described why this practice is controversial:

“An insurer has an obligation to its insured to do its underwriting at the time a policy application is made, not after a claim is filed. It is patently unfair for a claimant to obtain a policy, pay his premiums and operate under the assumption that he is insured against a specified risk, only to learn after he submits a claim that he is not insured, and, therefore, cannot obtain any other policy to cover the loss. The insurer controls when the underwriting occurs…. If the insured is not an acceptable risk, the application should [be] denied up front, not after a policy is issued. This allows the proposed insured to seek other coverage with another company since no company will insure an individual who has suffered serious illness or injury.

The way the private sector is handling the issue of denying coverage today is immoral.  One of the scare tactics we hear today against Government paying for health care is that rationing would deny you a hip replacement because it would not improve your remaining quality of life.  So say the government did deny you and you had to walk with a cane. You would still be covered if perhaps you got pneumonia, had a bad case of the flu, or needed emergency care.   Under the current system, once you are denied and dropped by the insurance companies, the only thing you have covered is bankruptcy, or death.