is that true? could you provide a link please. and not to Fox
Exactly the point I made in an earlier thread.
Each en y involved in health care is a separate participant operating under it's own guidelines.
Each en y needs to be addressed as an individual bill regarding reform and justification. To role all into a single bill is inviting chaos that will allow some of these en ies to operate status quo.
You shouldn't go to the doctor if you have a cold, there's nothing they can do for you. J/K
Actually, the concept, and what I think would happen is costs for routine exams, etc...would become less expensive, not more. Anyone not old enough to remember 1984 doesn't realize that copays were invented then. Before that, EVERYONE had a deductible they had to meet every year before insurance would pay $ 1. The average person went to the doctor 1.5 times per year; now they go more than once PER MONTH. When they go, beyond the cost of the doctor's visit, they receive, usually, a prescription, and often a test or two. None of this additional care, studies have shown, do much to make people any more healthy - they just cost.
Doctor's visits would become more rare; and doctors would (gasp) compete for patients by publishing WHAT they charge for a routine office visit. Also, docs would brag about how they prescribe just-as-effective generic drugs, as opposed to the expensive, advertised fancy-ass drug. IT WOULD become important. Also, YOU would have more money in your pocket, because the cost of insurance would drop pretty significantly if utilization was curtailed.
If you think I have been arguing for the status quo, you are mistaken. The system is broken; I am in the middle of it; but the prescription to fix it offered up in Washington is more of what has gotten us to this point in the first place.
How is forcing insurance companies to insure pre-existing conditions right? Basically they are reinforcing the concept of "don't buy insurance until you get sick".
Lets say you have lung cancer and the treatment is estimated to cost $250,000. If you buy coverage for this pre-existing condition and pay a premium of $1000 a month, who pays the balance? Obviously this cost will be split among all the customers...Is it fair that those that buy insurance to cover the eventuality that they might get sick should subsidize those that don't?
If insurance coverage is made mandatory doesn't this problem take care of itself?
Let's do some word association:
Public Bus or Private Bus
Public Beach or Private Beach
Public Park or Private Park
Public Restroom or Private Restroom
Public Housing or Private Residence
Thanks for playing.
Except it'd be mandatory for you to have insurance in the first place. So there is no "until you get sick".
except whether public or private insurance, we'd all be going to the same doctors/hospitals.
Insurance companies don't fear this. As long as coverage is "universal", as in, everyone is paying a premium, or a premium is being paid on their behalf; the companies can rate the risk. The cost for pre-x will be spread among all of us; and then won't exist for all intent and purpose. Also, as has been mentioned, we are ALREADY paying for the care of people who don't have insurance.
They are discussing approximately $900 per year "fines" for families that don't buy insurance. That's less than I pay per month for health care per family. If they force insurance companies to take pre-existing conditions at money losing rates it would be logical and rational to pay the fine and then just buy insurance if you got sick.
Not all of us.
Once again, you are talking about something that is already happening.Not all of us.
If we're going to make insurance companies take people with pre-existing conditions we also need to allow them to charge higher premiums to those people. That would somewhat mitigate this problem, but not entirely. You're right though, this is a loophole.
Again I am not supporting the status quo.
You seem to think that just because I am against what the Dems are offering up, I am against ALL changes in healthcare. Do you actually read what people write?
If we allow insurance companies to charge premiums that would cover their cost there is no reason for a person with a pre-existing condition to buy insurance...they might as well pay the doctor/hospital themselves.
Again, the people that play by the rules will be subsidizing those that don't.
And yeah, I know that the $2000 I pay in property taxes every month (business and personal) is already partially going to health care for the uninsured but I'm pretty confident THOSE taxes won't go down if they pass a new health care bill...
Hey Cosmic, don't confuse these people with facts. It messes their mind
up for days on end. They wouldn't even know how to run a business like
you have for years. Economics to them is Uncle Sugar mailing them a
check and the rest of the folks paying for it.
yes I do. That is why I am pointing out you keep bringing up things that are already happening when criticizing the health reform.
I agree with you that you've got a valid concern. But to some extent the higher premiums you charge people who do sign up with pre-existing conditions will offset the defacto lower premiums they'd be paying via fines when they're uninsured. Yeah, I agree that some people are going to come out ahead. But that's how insurance works. Even if everybody has insurance those who filed claims are still going to come out ahead at the expense of those who don't.
Forcing people to pay for health insurance? How could this be accomplished?
Increasing medicare/medicaid deductions could be one way. But what about the millions of unemployed? How would they be participating in paying their own way?
A "health insurance" write off when filing your taxes? Those who have proof of insurance receive the deduction?
What about those who STILL would not have insurance when needing medical attention? They simply would be denied medical attention or provided care if signing over possessions?
How? How can this logistically be done?
I have ridden public buses many times and quite enjoy the state and federal public parks. I also do not believe that I have ever been to a private beach- only a public one.
I read they actually have the same health insurance as any federal employee -- of course they can buy different plans if they choose.Not all of us.
Let's see. I'd take LA's MTA (the worst public bus I have ever ridden) over Greyhound (the only private bus I have ridden). In my experience the Greyhound station is the most disgusting building in each and every city it passes through.
Considering the property values right on the ocean, I'll take the public Huntington Beach I can go swimming or surfing in for free over having to pay millions to buy my own land which would almost certainly be at a place with far inferior waves and more pollution.Public Beach or Private Beach
I'd take Yosemite, Kings Canyon, Sequoia, Mesa Verde, Joshua Tree, Big Bend, Yellowstone, Rocky Mountains, Glacier National Park, etc. over DisneyWorld or Fiesta Texas in a second.Public Park or Private Park
OK, so you're batting .400.Public Restroom or Private Restroom
Public Housing or Private Residence
Last edited by baseline bum; 09-17-2009 at 03:46 PM.
why do you think this is?
its a mul ude of reasons actually, but i want to hear yours
Last edited by greyforest; 09-17-2009 at 06:45 PM.
Insurance wouldn't be any more affordable if it was non-profit and broke perfectly even. So throw that point out the window. It's not affordable because big pharma corps corner the drug market and monopolize their product at insane prices. $400 for 20 brand name pills? When the stuff is generic the docs will still push the brand name on you. Just go to walgreens and check out the price differential between Tylenol and generic acetaminophen. Now scale the prices up and you have the medical industry.
The other problem are surgeries and transplants that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars that people are somehow obligated to have in their lives. For some reason people have to be on the bleeding edge of technology and just can't die when their time is up.
Blaming insurance is just the cool thing to do when people themselves are to blame. If re s stopped getting MRIs and blood tests for the common cold, then care would cost less. People place a massive demand (health) on very little supply (doctors) with their frequent visits.
I'm also curious how a company isn't supposed to bleed cash when they allow insurance with pre-existing conditions. Imagine you take out a loan of a few million and create your awesome healthcare corp that makes no profit and insures cancer patients and smokers. How exactly do you plan to stay afloat? Your only option are massive gov't subsidies, so your kickass healthcare just ends up being more income tax.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
