Skip to main content

Georgia Insurance Commissioner makes ridiculous statement about pre-existing conditions

There are approximately 57.2 million Americans whom suffer from a pre-existing condition. This is why the Affordable Care Act tends to be popular among such people, because it mandates coverage for them, when they likely would have been rejected otherwise.

Well, according to a video uncovered by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Georgia Insurance Commissioner Ralph Hudgens had a few things to say about that very mandate during a November CSRA Republican Women's Club meeting in Evans, Georgia, where he said this:

"I've had several companies come in and they have said just the fact - just the fact - that in the individual market pre-existing conditions have to be covered on Jan. 1, that that is going to double the cost of insurance. And if you don't really understand what covering pre-existing conditions would be like, it would be like in Georgia we have a law that you have to have insurance on your automobile. You have to have the liability insurance. If you're going to drive on Georgia's roads, you have to have liability insurance. You don't have to have collision. You don't have to have comprehensive... But you have to have liability.

But say you're going along and you have a wreck. And it's your fault. Well, a pre-existing condition would be you then calling up your insurance agent and saying, 'I would like to get collision insurance coverage on my car.' And your insurance agent says, 'Well, you never had that before. Why would you want it now? And you say, 'Well, I just had a wreck, it was my fault and I want the insurance company to pay to repair my car.' And that's the exact same thing on pre-existing insurance."

Analogies don't seem to be Mr. Hudgens' strong suit. In fact, grammar, common sense, and critical thinking don't appear to be either. Come to think of it, I'm not sure Hudgens has a strong suit.

Allow me to dissect Hudgens' analogy for a moment. He's saying that health insurance for a person with pre-existing conditions is the same as automobile insurance for a person who just got into a car wreck for which they were responsible. So, according to Mr. Hudgens, if a person is provided health insurance after he or she is born with multiple sclerosis, that's identical to a person rear-ending another vehicle and then asking for insurance after the wreck. Notice how in one scenario, a person asks for insurance because of a wrong he committed, while in the other, a person asks for insurance due to health complications beyond their control. But, yes, that's the same thing...

Hudgens logic

A) A man gets into an accident after going down the wrong way of a one-way street = his fault and he shouldn't be afforded automobile insurance after the accident

B) A child born with epilepsy = her fault and she shouldn't be afforded health insurance

A = B

It really boggles my mind how Ralph Hudgens and those like him can call themselves pro-life while maintaining a straight face. Sure, they stand up for the pre-born, but once the babies are born, they're on their own, and if they have any health problems, it's their own darn fault. The Republican Party - pro-life until birth.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/12/04/3020831/georgia-insurance-commissioner-pre-existing-fault/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i...