Hi Bob,

> Should insurance companies be *forced* to issue insurance policies to
> drivers *after* they've been involved in an accident?  Said accident being

That's a completely different topic.  Courts have already established that 
driving is a priv not a right, ergo there is a law that requires if one 
drives, then one must have insurance. Just because it's
"insurance" doesn't 
make it akin to Health Insurance.

> If insurors are *forced* to ignore those 'pre-existing conditions' and 
> issue
> policies that cover them, health insurance premiums for everybody will go 
> up,
> probably steeply.  If the national government places a hefty tax on health
> insurors, that increased cost will result in increased premiums for 
> everybody;
> businesses don't pay taxes, their customers do.  Yet the government claims
> that the cost (premiums) will go down.  I don't see it.

It's economics 102 - Competition in the market.  The government provides 
less expensive coverage, and the insurance companies figure out how to 
provide similar coverage for less.  They will be forced to become 
competitive and give up some of that profit (several hundred times over 
their original investment).

> If the government places a cap on what insurors are allowed to charge in
> premiums, insurors will abandon the market (that sort of thing has already
> happened in some states, with insurors leaving the state and cancelling 
> any
> policies in effect there).  Then health insurance will be
"affordable,"
> comprehensive
> and UNAVAILABLE.

The plan does not call for insurance caps - and I'm not for caps.  This 
plan - by design - simply provides a more competitive market effectively 
lowering the cost.  Why do you believe that I support "caps" ?? I
never even 
mentioned Caps. 

--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a