The South Dakota Division of Insurance has politely announced expanded health insurance coverage for young people and folks with pre-existing conditions:
...[A]nyone under age 19 is eligible for health insurance regardless of their health condition during an open enrollment period beginning July 1 and ending August 14.
"Insurance companies offering individual health insurance are required to offer this new option for South Dakota's children," said Merle Scheiber, Director of the Division of Insurance. "This is a great opportunity for those who have been prevented from getting insurance because of health problems."In addition, people with individual health insurance plans with an exclusionary rider will be offered a policy without a rider or exclusion during this open enrollment period.Scheiber urges people who have questions about the program or need assistance with enrolling to contact a licensed insurance agent or the Division of Insurance at 605.773.3563. For a list of companies who may offer coverage during open enrollment, visit http://dlr.sd.gov/reg/insurance/consumer/major_medical.htm [state press release, 2011.06.01]
KELO, Rapid City Journal, and other media have dutifully repeated this announcement.
Not mentioned by Pierre or press: this great opportunity is brought to you by President Barack Obama and the health care reform law that some South Dakotans say they want to repeal (how ya doin' on those petitions, Barb?).
You're welcome.
Bonus Responsive Government: Uncle Sam is reducing high-risk insurance premiums to help more people get the coverage they need.
What! Sick kids can now get health insurance? Americans will never stand for this!
B-b-but... it's communistsocialistmarxism! Also too, Sweden and such! We're losing our Freedomâ„¢ to be denied health care!
[/snark]
Freedom: The power to determine actions without restraint or exemption from external control, interference or regulation.
Argue all you want about the merits of Obamacare but for an American to dismiss any government mandate's assault on freedom is well not very American. We happen to have fought alot of wars and are doing so now for freedom.
Yee gods. Providing people an opportunity for healthy lives and affordable health care and for children to be given the opportunity to be free of the oppression and denial of such opportunities to enjoy freedom is an assault on freedom? And we have fought wars over the freedom to oppress and deny people a basic human need? What gas oven do these believers worship at?
I do dismiss the charge that health insurance reform is an assault on freedom. Guaranteeing health coverage for every American expands liberty. Deport me if you must... but preferably to a country with single-payer health coverage.
Cory, I agree with you on this issue. In fact, my views might even lie to the left of yours.
I hope someone will do an economic feasibility study of a federal (not state-level) health-care "revolution" plan whose main points would include:
(1) Make it illegal for insurance companies to offer or provide health insurance.
(2) Eliminate the Medicare payroll tax.
(3) Expand Medicare to cover every U.S. citizen automatically.
(4) Institute a new national retail sales tax (not a value-added tax) to pay for "Medicare for all."
(5) Allow people to pay for their own health care above and beyond the basic coverage provided by the national plan.
(6) Impose criminal sanctions on people, or corporate principals, who defraud the system.
I realize that such a program might prove not to be economically feasible. That would likely occur if the sales tax rate were too high (greater than about 20 percent).
While a national sales tax of up to 20 percent sounds steep, just think of the flip side:
(1) No more medical insurance premiums for anybody.
(2) No more fear of losing coverage if you lose your job.
(3) No more worries about how to keep your coverage if you move from one state to another.
(4) No more of this nonsense about "mandates."
(5) Throw out the current mess, which seems to constitute a practice of applying bigger and bigger bandages to a festering bullet wound. Take out the bullet instead.
As for health-care rationing, let's not kid ourselves. We have that right now in the form of social darwinism.
Postscript ...
I do not propose that the foregoing plan be implemented (yet). I propose only that someone do an economic feasibility study.
Post(squared)script ...
(7) Exempt groceries from the national sales tax.
(8) Adopt a constitutional amendment to the effect that the sales tax would be devoted to the national healh care system, and never to anything else; also, the national health care system would be entirely paid for by the sales tax revenues.
Well, at least I'm offering specifics. Maybe our academic representative Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin will read this blurb. Isn't she involved with some sort of think tank?
SHS is working for lobbyists, not a think tank (unless I missed another job offer... and boy, I wish I had as many people asking for my services as the former Congresswoman!).
Stan, I'll totally roll with you on that study. But tell me again: what advantage do we gain by replacing payroll tax with national sales tax? Is there really that much difference between taxing wealth at the point of consumption rather than the point of creation?
Cory:
In the case of the health system, I'd rather tax at the point of consumption because then, revenues would not suffer so much in the event of mass unemployment. Everyone would pay, job or not, because everyone would be covered, job or not.
The regressivity of the tax would be mitigated by exempting groceries.
We might even put a higher percentage on luxury items such as yachts, super-duper cars, jewelry, designer clothes, etc.
In addition, everyone who gets the benefit (employed or not) would help to pay for it -- even illegal unemployed immigrants, who presumably buy clothing, pay rent, and things like that.
By the way, I'd legalize marijuana too, and then we could tax it! People who want to smoke the stuff are going to do it anyway; might as well not waste money incarcerating them. I wouldn't touch the doggone stuff even if it were available at the grocer for thirty dollars an ounce, but I won't touch booze, either. ;-)