Reply #3: That's just it, that's what's been missing in this whole HCR [View All]

[liberalhistorian]

debate. There's an implicit assumption that a lot of the problem with access and affordability, and financial ruin due to illness, is simply due to being uninsured, when it's NOT. You can be insured up the wazoo and still not be covered for what you need and still face accessibility, affordability and financial ruin issues. There's little mention of the fact that private insurance companies are for-PROFIT and they maximize their profit and protect their bottom line by denying care and cancelling policies on the ill. The normal free-market model that works for most businesses doesn't work for health insurance companies. That's why Baucus's bill is such dangerous bullshit, worse than no bill at all. You're going to be punished twice for being ill, since there's little in his bill to deal with the most egregious of insurance company practices, such as rescission, denial of care for needed services that should be covered under the policy, dropping the ill from the policies, refusing coverage due to "Pre-existing condition" (a term which is hardly even heard of in most other industrialized countries with guaranteed health care), etc., etc. So, you'll get fined for not having insurance, but you can't get insurance you can afford because of your illness. Nice.