They said, when asked, that they would not end this recission practice unless mandated by law because to do so otherwise would be to put them at a competetive disadvantage with other insurers.

At first you have to think, wow, the huevos to say something like that and then you think, HOLY REDACTED, did they just throw the gauntlet down and says I triple dog dare you to regulate our industry?

That is a critical moment in US history, in my far less than scholarly opinion. THey basically said that they will exploit every loophole in the law to avoid paying out for an illness unless the legislature mandates that they do so by enacting legislation. The only question remains, are these men and women we all voted for (remember that 95% incumbency statistic) really worthy of the trust we put in them?

NO

If you want to pass legislation preventing incurance companies from denying people care, be it because the have pre-existing conditions, or because they dare to get sick, fine, just drop the public option (co-op trojan hourse) and I am sure you can pass it.

The single most important ideal in this whole health care fiasco has already been agreed to by demos and repubs alike. It is the 'pre-existing conditions' thing.

Everybody, even me, agrees this has got to go because it opens the door fo insurers to put other clauses, like, 'we will only cover you if it is tuesday afternoon and it's raining and your disease is not caused by being alive'.

I have no problem over riding health policies and their language with laws so they can't cancel people.

The states do it with car insurance.

Bad drivers eventually get cancelled by carrier A. But they must have insurance by law. They apply through high risk programs and get put on a wheel and the next carrier gets that high risk driver by law.

Now if the bad driver gets their license suspended or revoked--they are cancelled out--for obvious reasons--they are not allowed to drive.

But folks should not be cancelled from their health insurance because they got sick--or cancelled for pre-existing conditions.

I think HIPPA addresses the pre-existing pretty well. But it sounds like it needs to be tweaked.

If you go to another job and were treating for whatever ailment--your new employer's carrier cannot exclude that person from coverage of the condition they were treating under the old job.

Oh and cap the amount they can charge--just like they do for high risk drivers.

And to think, the congress could easily pass all that, and yet Liberals are hellbent on putting in a public option or co-op trojoan horse which are poison pills to many people.

"And to think, the congress could easily pass all that, and yet Liberals are hellbent on putting in a public option or co-op trojoan horse which are poison pills to many people."

And the funny part is they don't even know why they are against it, they are just obeying the talking points. Member is the perfect example.

And the funny part is they don't even know why they are against it, they are just obeying the talking points.

Bullshit. That is just YOUR talking point, and more personally an excuse to fluff your feathers and pretend you are superior.

It has been explained time and time again on the DR and in the public arena why people are against the public option. The only excuses for you claiming not to know what the reasons are is either a) willful ignorance, b) general lack of comprehension skills, or c) disingenuousness. Considering your typical party-line hackery I am betting on option "c".