I've ranted about this before, but I'm going to again...

for one last time.  The Papa John's and Denny's reactions to the mandates of Obamacare have me again pondering a reality that many people seem to be ignoring.  The reality to which I refer is that someone has to bear the cost of providing coverage for all pre-existing conditions by anyone and everyone who does and doesn't have health insurance.

I've offered this analogy before but let me offer it again, this time with a little more detail.  A man decides he doesn't really need car insurance.  So even though the law says he has to purchase it, he ignores the law and pays the annual fine.  His fines are used to lower the cost of auto insurance for everyone else, who follow the law and purchase the mandated insurance.

Then, he has a bad car accident.  It was his fault and he's caused serious injuries to the two occupants in the other car.  Now he wants auto insurance.  And he wants it to cover his pre-existing problem, that being the accident that took place while he wasn't insured.  He paid his fines.  Shouldn't he be able to just get coverage and let the insurers pay for treatment of the injuries he has caused?

Of course not.

So why do people insist that health insurance companies be forced to provide coverage of pre-existing for people who choose not to purchase insurance under the Obamacare mandate, at some point in the future?  How is that any different from the example above?

It isn't.

When Congress opens its session in 2013, I plan to write to every member of the House and Senate, and urge them to amend Obamacare.  In a small, but important way.

The mandate remains as is.  But those who choose not to take part and refuse to purchase coverage now, lose their opportunity to purchase coverage later and still have their pre-existing conditions covered at that time.  Either opt in now, or bear all of the risks yourself.  They can still opt in at some point in the future, but any condition that is pre-existing will not be covered in the future.

For those who have pre-existing conditions now and no health insurance, there are two alternatives.  One is to subsidize the high-risk plans each state has in effect now, to lower costs for these people.  The other is to allow them to purchase coverage through the health insurance exchanges, but they will have to pay somewhat higher premiums, to help offset the higher expenses they will required, based on their condition.  The larger risk pools that will result from more people purchasing coverage will help spread the costs for coverage of pre-existing conditions over a larger population, but it also isn't fair to ask every person without a pre-existing condition to bear the full cost of covering those conditions in others.

Nor is there a huge amount of health insurance industry profits that can be confiscated to bear this expense.  Several large insurers are already non-profits.

Okay, no more ranting about Obamacare for awhile.  A long while.