But it is all right for men to be charged more for life insurance.

Might as well write a rule requiring men to live as long as women

So much for the "affordable" part of the bogus bill name.

Must be nice to tell businesses how to run their operations....without having any business knowledge, or taking any responsibility.

FTA: "and will require plans in every state to cover certain services."

OK, news flash........mandates raise costs.

The more mandates, the higher the cost.

I hate democrats as much as they hate America.

if you are close to death, you can continue treatment if you agree to register as a democrat and agree to have mail in ballots sent you an address after you die.

...and car insurance, #1

This of course is good news for those with pre-existing conditions. C´est la magnifique ma c´est pas insurance. It is not, that is, insurance. It has nothing whatever to do with insurance. Calling it insurance is misleading to the point of deliberate dishonesty - or abysmal ignorance.

Of course it might be converted into insurance if insurers were permitted to charge actuarially aound premiums for those with pre-existing conditions. I do not know, but I seriously doubt that this is the case. My guess is that they will be charged the same rates as everyone else, i.e. people without pre-existing conditions.

People with pre-existing conditions should assuredly have access to some affordable means of health care - but misusing the term insurance to achieve this is a far more serious error than it might seem.

"When words lose their meaning," said Confucius, "there is chaos in the land."

GOP should demand end of ObamaNoCare as part of any deal on raising debt ceiling and/or extending Bush tax rates. This nightmare adds to our fiscal crisis, and should be ended before it starts. If not repealed, taxes imposed by city, state and federal governments will have increase to pay for exploding health care premiums for government workers and retirees as well as expanded Medicaid.

#1, actuaries can easily show that, on average, women live longer than men. So having a difference on life insurance makes sense.

On the other hand, I am not aware of any actuarial studies that show that women´s health costs to age 65 are more than men´s health costs. (Leaving out Medicare here, as it isn´t covered by this bill.) Yes, women get pregnant, but they also tend to be healthier through their early 60´s and are less prone to accidents. So if you total all of their medical costs ages 0 - 64, would it be different than for men? Don´t know.

A regulation will soon be promulgated making it illegal to be unhealthy, which includes being conservative. The law of gravity is being studied for its racial bias.

Actually, women, apart from pregnancy, have always consumed more medical resources.

But you can´t charge more for that.


Women drive less, and have a higher per capita accident rate.

But you can´t charge more for that.

Men die earlier; that you can charge for!!

Are we all clear?

Ah, yes, rates should increase slightly every year. I can tell you right now that won´t work.

Dead on #8 – when the gov’t steps in and forces private companies to cover high (or guaranteed) risk customers with no ability to manage said risk, it is no longer insurance. What we now have is a mandatory health care participation tax.

However, simply forcing the young and healthy to participate still does not provide enough resources to cover the high risk pool if you can’t charge the high risk substantially more. This is a giant tax increase on every working American – who will have to provide for themselves, for the unemployed, for the illegal, and for those who are much better off but are higher risk. And it won´t be enough, so the program will hasten our date with national bankruptcy.

So, an "insurer" is prohibited from pricing his product on the basis of loss projections?

How can you tell your builder he can´t take the cost of lumber into account when he bids your house? Lewis Carroll, well and truly trumped, is in a black funk.

Indeed, no longer insurance, but a Federal benefit that a private company is forced to carry [pay for]. They´ll all be out of that market in 4... 3... 2....

#8, as usual, reasons well.

The country will never recover from the damage and high financial cost of Obamascare. Just remember to pin the blame where it belongs, on the Demonrats.

Since actuarial data cannot be meaningfully applied to pre-existing conditions(the chance of the malady occurring is 100%), coverage is not insurance but rather welfare. If they called it by its right name, there could be a meaningful debate.

#8, correct French is "C´est magnifique, mais ce n´est pas l´assurance". As a Linguist, couldn´t resist ;)

"The Obama administration issued new rules"

New rules ? Were they in the 2000 plus pages passed by Congress ?

This is so stupid. All they had to do was put the sick and uninsured into Medicare or Medicaid or the Cadillac federal employees plan.

Why not go directly to universal healthcare ? Alan Grayson said that was on his new agenda.

these rules will force private insurance companies to raise rates for everyone, and make private insurance companies less competitive.