Huckabee and homeowners insurance vs health insurance

[zeos3]

I'm sure we've all heard about Mike Huckabee's comments comparing the ban on pre-existing condition exclusions or denials from health insurers to buying insurance on your house after it burned down.

Take a look here if you don't know about it.
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/119547-huckabee-slams-plan-to-ban-insurers-from-denying-coverage-to-sick-people

Here's a quote.

"ou can call your insurance agent and say, 'I'd like to buy some insurance for my house,'" Huckabee said. "He'd say, 'Tell me about your house.' 'Well sir, it burned down yesterday, but I'd like to insure it today.'


"And he'll say, 'I'm sorry, but we can't insure it after it's already burned.' Well, no preexisting conditions."




It's interesting that he chose the homeowners insurance analogy because it reminded me of an article written by David Cay Johnston last year. In the article, Johnston talks about the situation after Hurricane Katrina and Trent Lott's efforts to get the damage to his home paid for by someone else.

"Consider the example of Trent Lott of Mississippi, who was that state's senior senator when Hurricane Katrina hit in 2005, flooding his home looking out on the Gulf. Lott had not exercised personal responsibility by taking out flood insurance even though it was available from the federal government at low cost. He did have private insurance, but his insurer refused to pay much of the claim, saying it was not wind damage (which was covered by the policy), but water damage (which was excluded).

Weeks later Lott introduced Senate Bill 1936, which would have authorized retroactive flood insurance. The idea came from Representative Gene Taylor, a Democrat who represented the Mississippi Gulf Coast, which should remind us that when there is voter demand for reform, and campaign contributions are not the driving force, the parties have worked together.

Lott's bill would have let flood victims pay 10 years of flood insurance premiums after-the-fact plus a 5 percent late payment penalty. Since this storm was rated a once in 500 years occurrence, even 10 years of premiums would not come close to covering the real costs, meaning a taxpayer subsidy was built into the Lott bill."

Let me repeat the best part:


"Lott's bill would have let flood victims pay 10 years of flood insurance premiums after-the-fact plus a 5 percent late payment penalty."

Here's more:

"Congress is so generous in its subsidies for property that the public option for flood insurance even covers property built in flood prone areas. And you can literally buy insurance on the day of a flood in some cases, and 1 day before in others."



The article mentions some other provisions that current republicans are opposed to in the health care legislation, like mandates. It seems that those who received flood relief in Mississippi are REQUIRED to maintain flood insurance on their property and so are the FUTURE owners if the property is sold.

I guess if any of us were considered the property of a republican politician, we'd be able to buy retroactive health insurance even if we had a pre-existing condition.


Edited to add the link to David Cay Johnston's article.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-cay-johnston/gop-favors-public-option_b_296703.html

[RDANGELO]

1. That comment by Huckabee

makes a great argument as to why we need to get insurance companies out of health care. Insurance for houses and autos is about funding after the mishap. Health care is about preventing the mishap.

[zeos3]

3. I agree.

Your health is not a commodity. You can't put a dollar value on it.

[ejpoeta]

2. thank you for posting this. i had no idea.

another thing to think about is that when you have insurance on your home and it burns down, the insurance company can't refuse to pay it because you had a repair done on your house ten years ago.

[zeos3]

4. Good point.