Friday, June 29, 2012
© Copyright 2013
I just read the reactions to the U.S. Supreme Court's 5-4 decision to uphold the 2009 health reform act. It was not surprising to read the favorable reaction of U.S. Rep. Sanford Bishop, D-Albany. I am bothered by this reform act and lack of logic is one of the bothersome aspects of this act. The requirement to cover preexisting conditions is a situation that lacks logic.
I am not denying that people with preexisting conditions should be able to be insured. I question a system that will allow a person who is not in good health to obtain health insurance at the same rate as a person in good health. Insurance companies generate income from coverage fees and their net operating income is impacted by the claims that are paid out. What would be the logical reaction of an insurance company required to cover a preexisting condition at the same cost as a person with good health? Raise the premium costs across the board -- those with good health pay more for coverage while those with preexisting conditions pay less according to the risks associated.
A company that insures drivers surely considers the risks associated with the driving record of the insured. That insurance company would not insure someone with a long list of traffic violations at the same rate as a person with a perfect driving record. For that matter, an insurance company looks on a person under the age of 25 as a greater risk than someone 26 and over, not including the octogenarian drivers.
We need to alter the direction of government that emanates from Washington. We need to hold elected officials accountable for their disregard of the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution is not a lengthy document and it is written in English that should be easy to understand.
DUANE "BANJO" DAVIS