- Joined
- Feb 1, 2006
- Messages
- 20,120
- Reaction score
- 16,169
- Location
- Cheyenne, WY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
So what replaces it?
A national healthcare service that is funded through taxpayer dollars and sliding scale co-pays.
So what replaces it?
What then of the arguement I've heard that the competition in our current system is part of it's strength?A national healthcare service that is funded through taxpayer dollars and sliding scale co-pays.
I think it would be more efficient to let insurance companies be very lightly regulated on their criteria for insurance. They should be able to discriminate on your current health condition, lifestyle, location, age,etc when they determine your premiums. This will make the insurance market much more efficient. I think the government should provide a option to those who cannot afford insurance due to a pre-existing condition. So in a perfect world I would not support the pre-existing condition mandate.
What then of the arguement I've heard that the competition in our current system is part of it's strength?
Do you consider that an invalid argument?
have no problem some of this, life style and age can determin premiums and certain things definitely should but I dont agree with location? explain
also when talking about something like this "etc" doesnt cover it, there are certain things that should NEVER have an impact on such things.
and I possible imagine how it would make the insurance market "much more efficient" unless you define efficient as lots of money for the insurance companies and lesser service coverage and quality of care for its customers.
Im not saying you meant any of this im simply asking because since currently the insurance companies LOVE to figure out how to not pay what makes you think with "very light regulation" they would change this attitude?
Perhaps the person wishing to have health insurance lives in an area that has high medical costs. That person will be more expensive to insure. Insurance companies should be able to discriminate upon these grounds.
Since I am making very general statements, I am sure you could find one thing they should never use, though I cannot think of one right now. Whatever variable an insurance company wants to use to justify raising or lowering its rates should in general be used. Insurance companies hedge against risk and uncertainty, and they will be able to do this better with more lax regulation in this regard.
You are looking at it from a single point in time. So long as our insurance markets remain competitive, insurance companies will not simply reep the benefits. Why do you think we pay actuaries so much money? They want to find the lowest rate at which the insurance company can make money, or else the competition will take away their customers. If the insurance company can make more money by discriminating against those with pre-existing conditions, this will eventually lead to lower premiums.
In this regard, I agree with you. We need to keep insurance companies honest. Insurance needs to be insurance. If you already have insurance they need to pay for what they said they would.
totally disagree they should not be able to use and varible they choose, that could easily get discrimitory and allow them to screw customers worse.
Now mind you I have no problem with a person who smokes 5 packs a day and drinks a 5th a day who sky dives and rock climbs paying increased fees just saying this area should definitely be regulated
not in our current system, currently people dont have many choices at all, if health insurance became like car insurance where I can go online and basically have people bid for my services then MAYBE but currently no, I still dont see that making it effecient for CUSTOMERS at all going off the history of isnsurance companies. Nor do I want alot of people to be stuck without health care, I want whats best for the people and whats fair. Yes I could provide great cheap healthcare if theres 400million people to provide for and I disqualify 300million of them but that doesnt FIX anything
So what replaces it?
If you have a pre existing condition, and if the insurance companies are allowed to exclude those conditions, then you can't get health insurance, correct?
That being the case, the only alternative currently is to have a job that provides health care. If you don't have/lose your job, and can't afford to take care of that condition, whatever it is, then you're out of luck.
Talk about death panels.
Again looking for honest GREY talk, not bias spin and partisan hate/ talking points.
I of course love the no more preexisting conditions clause, its the right, proper and fair thing to do without a doubt it just needs "some" guidelines. Which OF COURSE is the magic trick I just dont understand those that are 100% against it so id like everyone's insight no matter your stance.
yes i know I am making the poll cut and dry and there should probably be a "in the middle" or "other" option but i want to force people to pick and then defend their side and not cop out. Usually people make a more honest choice when forced.
You are either for it or against it, of course you can add to it, reasons for and how far you will go or reason against because you think its all to risky.
That sounds like, basically, high (or not so high) - deductible health insurance.which is why we need to get away from employer-provided health insurance and provide the same tax benefits for individuals who purchase it.
That sounds like, basically, high (or not so high) - deductible health insurance.
Wherein you pay up to X dollars yourself, and then the insurance kicks in.
Best kind, IMO.
Of course, I haven't been to a doctor in years...
which is why we need to get away from employer-provided health insurance and provide the same tax benefits for individuals who purchase it.
Where does the money come from to help them, if they don't help themselves though?That would be a good first step. It woudn't do anything for people with health issues, however. No one would be willing to insure them and cover their health problems.
Where does the money come from to help them, if they don't help themselves though?
Are you saying we should force other people to pay for the INSURANCE they themselves never bothered to fund?
Don't we already have free care for the disabled and for orphans, etc? You're trying that tired old fraud of using those that are really in need, that are already covered, to argue for something significantly more expansive and costly.Not everyone has had the chance to fund their health care. Some are born with health issues. Some experience serious accidents. Do you think we should just let them fend for themselves?
Not really, it's not societies burden or societies boon. I don't exist for the pleasure of society.If you have a serious illness or accident, lose your job, lose your health care, just tough shydt. Suck it up. If you die, you die for the good of society.
Why is it an insurance companies responsibility to pay for a pre-existing condition and not the family of that person?
If all pre-existing conditions are accepted by insurance companies, then after a short time, there will be no insurance companies so nobody will have coverage.
Will that be OK?
Don't we already have free care for the disabled and for orphans, etc?
Orphans, yes, if they're in the foster child system. Disabled, no.
You're trying that tired old fraud of using those that are really in need, that are already covered, to argue for something significantly more expansive and costly.
Not really, it's not societies burden or societies boon. I don't exist for the pleasure of society.
You're assuming that those really in need are already covered, and that the poor are the issue. That is not so.
Here's an example:
Mr. Smith has worked for the Widget Corporation for thirty years now, since the age of 25. He has always been covered by their group plan, so his high blood pressure has never been an issue. The meds are costly, but are covered. The doctor is able to stabilize him and make sure he doesn't have a stroke or heart attack.
Unfortunately for Mr. Smith, the Widget Corporation went out of business, and so he had to go to work for the Jiffy Mart for no benefits. He has a savings account, and owns a house. He is far from destitute.
He goes to Insuracorp to purchase an individual policy. They sell him one, but exclude anything relating to his pre existing condition, his blood pressure.
Mr. Smith can now hope that he can make it for another ten years (until he qualifies for Medicare) without suffering a stroke or heart attack. He can cut back on every possible expense. He can buy cheaper blood pressure meds, hoping they will work, but can't afford to see a doctor to find out.
There are a lot of Mr. Smiths around. If they make it to Medicare, they're OK. If not, then they are going to lose everything. So, that's not your concern, not until you become a Mr. Smith.
What are you going to do then?
Not everyone has had the chance to fund their health care. Some are born with health issues. Some experience serious accidents. Do you think we should just let them fend for themselves?
If you have a serious illness or accident, lose your job, lose your health care, just tough shydt. Suck it up. If you die, you die for the good of society.
Sure, that's the way to go, sure.
Wikipedia disagrees, a whole slew are getting coverage:Orphans, yes, if they're in the foster child system. Disabled, no.
Government programs directly cover 27.8% of the population (83 million),[53] including the elderly, disabled, children, veterans, and some of the poor, and federal law mandates public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay.
Why didn't he get on Cobra?They sell him one, but exclude anything relating to his pre existing condition, his blood pressure.
Worked for thirty years and can't afford a few hundred for a consultation? If he went to a clinic or free provider (possibly a longer line/wait list?) he could get the consultation for free.He can buy cheaper blood pressure meds, hoping they will work, but can't afford to see a doctor to find out.
Worked for thirty years and needs me to pay for his insurance because he can't be bothered with Cobra and decided not to to save up for a rainy day...I mean, 30 years and 0 planning? Your example is making my case....So, that's not your concern, not until you become a Mr. Smith.
Wikipedia disagrees, a whole slew are getting coverage:
Why didn't he get on Cobra?
Worked for thirty years and can't afford a few hundred for a consultation? If he went to a clinic or free provider (possibly a longer line/wait list?) he could get the consultation for free.
Worked for thirty years and needs me to pay for his insurance because he can't be bothered with Cobra and decided not to to save up for a rainy day...I mean, 30 years and 0 planning? Your example is making my case....