A Market solution for pre-existing conditions?

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Text

It seems like some people believe the market can deal with pre-existing conditions. Most importantly:

The bills being considered in Congress address the pre-existing condition problem by forcing insurers to take everybody at the same price. It won't work. Insurers will still avoid sick people and treat them poorly once they come. Regulators will then detail exactly how every disease must be treated. Healthy people will pay too much, so we will need a stern mandate to keep them insured. And this step further reduces competition.

Some people here just whine all day long about pre-existing conditions and push the replay button about getting cancer and getting dropped because of acne. But once again I ask, what does UHC really do for those with pre-existing conditions? What's wrong with a basic solution such as forcing carriers to take those w/ pre-existing conditions? I mean the proposal in this article is certainly better but why do you all scream UHC as the golden solution (especially the one guy here who has "pre-existing condition" in every other sentence)

 

[Blackjack200]

Originally posted by: DLeRium
Text

It seems like some people believe the market can deal with pre-existing conditions. Most importantly:

The bills being considered in Congress address the pre-existing condition problem by forcing insurers to take everybody at the same price. It won't work. Insurers will still avoid sick people and treat them poorly once they come. Regulators will then detail exactly how every disease must be treated. Healthy people will pay too much, so we will need a stern mandate to keep them insured. And this step further reduces competition.

Some people here just whine all day long about pre-existing conditions and push the replay button about getting cancer and getting dropped because of acne. But once again I ask, what does UHC really do for those with pre-existing conditions? What's wrong with a basic solution such as forcing carriers to take those w/ pre-existing conditions? I mean the proposal in this article is certainly better but why do you all scream UHC as the golden solution (especially the one guy here who has "pre-existing condition" in every other sentence)

Because that's not isurance, that's just making a company pay for your medical care. Why wouldn't I just wait until I get sick or injured, and then get insurance.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

Originally posted by: DLeRium
Text

It seems like some people believe the market can deal with pre-existing conditions. Most importantly:

The bills being considered in Congress address the pre-existing condition problem by forcing insurers to take everybody at the same price. It won't work. Insurers will still avoid sick people and treat them poorly once they come. Regulators will then detail exactly how every disease must be treated. Healthy people will pay too much, so we will need a stern mandate to keep them insured. And this step further reduces competition.

Some people here just whine all day long about pre-existing conditions and push the replay button about getting cancer and getting dropped because of acne. But once again I ask, what does UHC really do for those with pre-existing conditions? What's wrong with a basic solution such as forcing carriers to take those w/ pre-existing conditions? I mean the proposal in this article is certainly better but why do you all scream UHC as the golden solution (especially the one guy here who has "pre-existing condition" in every other sentence)

Because that's not isurance, that's just making a company pay for your medical care. Why wouldn't I just wait until I get sick or injured, and then get insurance.

Because we would make it a requirement. If you don't join up you go to jail. Serious business.

 

[Athena]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Because we would make it a requirement. If you don't join up you go to jail. Serious business.

Yeah...that's what really what we need to do: increase our already overcrowded jails and prisons with ablebodied people who won't buy health insurance.

I don't think it makes any sense at all to talk about forcing for-profit insurance companies to accept everyone -- which is why we have to change our health care financing model; not just "tweak" it. It's true that "some people" think that the "invisible hand" of the market could somehow fix things (even though Adam Smith himself felt that doctors were an exception to his theory) but the vast majority of scholars who specialize in health care economics, ie. those who have been studying and publishing for years, do not.

From a recent interview with Dr. Marcia Angell of Harvard Medical School and former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine:

Q: [/i]How? Won?t insurance companies have to cover all applicants regardless of health status?[/i]

A. It?s hard to regulate an enormous industry without setting up a bureaucracy to oversee it. That?s very expensive and creates a whole new set of problems.

 

[Genx87]

I really dont have an answer for pre-existing conditions. It may be they need to go on medicaid or medicare. What % of people out there are hit with pre-existing conditions?

 

[ZeGermans]

Me for one.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
Me for one.

A need for psychological help counts as a pre-existing condition? I didn't know that.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I really dont have an answer for pre-existing conditions. It may be they need to go on medicaid or medicare

doesn't it strike us as odd that we banter on about choice but the solution for people who are sick and need healthcare is to go onto medicare? While those who really don't need it pay a company just in case they do need it I mean once you get sick 1 time thats it no more health insurance for you. No more choices.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

I think that trying to break the necessary reform down into its individual parts for reasonable and more specific regulation scares the living shit out of the current proposal's adamant supporters.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
Me for one.

Would your shrinks even be covered by UHC?


EDIT: damn, MotF Bane beat me to it...

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

Originally posted by: DLeRium
Text

It seems like some people believe the market can deal with pre-existing conditions. Most importantly:

The bills being considered in Congress address the pre-existing condition problem by forcing insurers to take everybody at the same price. It won't work. Insurers will still avoid sick people and treat them poorly once they come. Regulators will then detail exactly how every disease must be treated. Healthy people will pay too much, so we will need a stern mandate to keep them insured. And this step further reduces competition.

Some people here just whine all day long about pre-existing conditions and push the replay button about getting cancer and getting dropped because of acne. But once again I ask, what does UHC really do for those with pre-existing conditions? What's wrong with a basic solution such as forcing carriers to take those w/ pre-existing conditions? I mean the proposal in this article is certainly better but why do you all scream UHC as the golden solution (especially the one guy here who has "pre-existing condition" in every other sentence)

Because that's not isurance, that's just making a company pay for your medical care. Why wouldn't I just wait until I get sick or injured, and then get insurance.

Because we would make it a requirement. If you don't join up you go to jail. Serious business.

What if my religion forbids me from seeing a doctor? Will the government force me to buy insurance against my religious beliefs?

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: rudder
What if my religion forbids me from seeing a doctor? Will the government force me to buy insurance against my religious beliefs?

Given the nature of the current reform proposals, it's almost guaranteed that you'd at least be hit with a tax penalty, if not worse further down the road.

Some folks, like Hillary Clinton for example, want healthcare reform to eventually include some sort of "enforcement mechanism."

Remember her fun-filled ideas?

"We will have an enforcement mechanism, whether it?s [garnishing people's wages] or it?s some other mechanism through the tax system or automatic enrollments?

I sincerely doubt that she's the only one who wants to implement such things.

 

[Modelworks]

Insurance came into existence to pay for unexpected expenses that someone could not normally afford. If you look at the history of medicine, before insurance, people actually paid cash for services. It was no different than paying someone to paint your house.

Somewhere along the way someone realized they could make a bundle and prices increased to the point that insurance was no longer about unexpected expenses but everyday expenses. Imagine if car repair and maintenance increased to the point that an oil change was $500. That is what happened to health care.

They really should just change it from insurance companies to medical brokers, because that is all they are. They act as a go between from the patient to the doctor negotiating for the best price for what the patient can pay. It isn't insurance anymore. The old insurance model cannot work with pre-existing conditions, it just isn't possible. You can't insure a house that is sitting halfway over a river for flood insurance and expect to make a profit. The insurance model only works when you have less claims than you have money being paid in premiums and pre-existing conditions nullify that.

 

[JSt0rm]

well the whole religion thing is nice but if you have kids they should be covered. If you are over 18 and will never see a doctor and live in a amish community of sorts then go off the grid if you want. The problem is this person who says they will never see a doctor might be brought into an emergency room unconscious and then we all have to pay that bill. BUT the number of people who would be in this mind set are so tiny that I would argue statistical insignificance.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

Originally posted by: DLeRium
Text

It seems like some people believe the market can deal with pre-existing conditions. Most importantly:

The bills being considered in Congress address the pre-existing condition problem by forcing insurers to take everybody at the same price. It won't work. Insurers will still avoid sick people and treat them poorly once they come. Regulators will then detail exactly how every disease must be treated. Healthy people will pay too much, so we will need a stern mandate to keep them insured. And this step further reduces competition.

Some people here just whine all day long about pre-existing conditions and push the replay button about getting cancer and getting dropped because of acne. But once again I ask, what does UHC really do for those with pre-existing conditions? What's wrong with a basic solution such as forcing carriers to take those w/ pre-existing conditions? I mean the proposal in this article is certainly better but why do you all scream UHC as the golden solution (especially the one guy here who has "pre-existing condition" in every other sentence)

Because that's not isurance, that's just making a company pay for your medical care. Why wouldn't I just wait until I get sick or injured, and then get insurance.

Because we would make it a requirement. If you don't join up you go to jail. Serious business.

What if my religion forbids me from seeing a doctor? Will the government force me to buy insurance against my religious beliefs?

Dude! The government knows best!

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
well the whole religion thing is nice but if you have kids they should be covered. If you are over 18 and will never see a doctor and live in a amish community of sorts then go off the grid if you want. The problem is this person who says they will never see a doctor might be brought into an emergency room unconscious and then we all have to pay that bill. BUT the number of people who would be in this mind set are so tiny that I would argue statistical insignificance.

Probably an accurate statement.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I really dont have an answer for pre-existing conditions. It may be they need to go on medicaid or medicare. What % of people out there are hit with pre-existing conditions?

Well, I think the first part of the answer to the OP's question is that under freer market conditions, health care would be a lot cheaper. Insurance companies wouldn't be saving as much money by avoiding people with pre-existing conditions. And beyond that, people would be much more likely to have insurance before they get to the point of having pre-existing conditions.

 

[b0mbrman]

Markets work when you have: Transparency so people know how much they pay for insurance and which companies do recission, low transaction costs of switching, no collusion among providers...

Those are some of the things you'd need to get closer to a market-driven solution.

 

[Patranus]

There is a market solution right now...

...YOU PAY MORE...

Just like a driver with several DUIs, it is not that they can't get auto insurance, they can, but it costs more.

You have to remember that of the "40 million uninsured" if you take away the illegal immigrants and the people who can afford insurance but CHOOSE to spend their money elsewhere there are only 10 to 15 million people who really lack insurance to forces outside of their control....

...yes that is only 3% to 4% of the total population....

 

[JS80]

Yes, the solution is you pay more. Go make more money if you want a leech doctor to treat you.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Patranus
There is a market solution right now...

...YOU PAY MORE...

Just like a driver with several DUIs, it is not that they can't get auto insurance, they can, but it costs more.

lol, I can't wait to repeat that to a ex-coworker of mine who moved down to North Carolina who has been diagnosed as bipolar: "You're just like a driver with several DUIs!"

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: Patranus
There is a market solution right now...

...YOU PAY MORE...

Just like a driver with several DUIs, it is not that they can't get auto insurance, they can, but it costs more.

You have to remember that of the "40 million uninsured" if you take away the illegal immigrants and the people who can afford insurance but CHOOSE to spend their money elsewhere there are only 10 to 15 million people who really lack insurance to forces outside of their control....

...yes that is only 3% to 4% of the total population....

can you back up those statistics? and also the uninsured use the services anyhow but they wait until the service will be the most expensive and they go to the emergency room with prices much higher then normal visits. You don't have a solution to this problem either.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: JS80
Yes, the solution is you pay more. Go make more money if you want a leech doctor to treat you.

You are paying more anyways since the sick people will just go to the hospital and skip out on the bill.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: JS80
Yes, the solution is you pay more. Go make more money if you want a leech doctor to treat you.

You are paying more anyways since the sick people will just go to the hospital and skip out on the bill.

they would rather run their ships aground "knowing" that they are right then do anything that they "think" is socialist.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Insurance came into existence to pay for unexpected expenses that someone could not normally afford. If you look at the history of medicine, before insurance, people actually paid cash for services. It was no different than paying someone to paint your house.

Somewhere along the way someone realized they could make a bundle and prices increased to the point that insurance was no longer about unexpected expenses but everyday expenses. Imagine if car repair and maintenance increased to the point that an oil change was $500. That is what happened to health care.

They really should just change it from insurance companies to medical brokers, because that is all they are. They act as a go between from the patient to the doctor negotiating for the best price for what the patient can pay. It isn't insurance anymore. The old insurance model cannot work with pre-existing conditions, it just isn't possible. You can't insure a house that is sitting halfway over a river for flood insurance and expect to make a profit. The insurance model only works when you have less claims than you have money being paid in premiums and pre-existing conditions nullify that.

Exactly. The purpose of insurance is to cover your medical expenses if you are in an auto accident or get appendicitis. In an ideal system, if you have a heart condition or cancer or diabetes (e.g. something that is a known condition and requires long-term expenses), you should pay for it yourself using an HSA or loan.

The problem is that the government has interfered with the health care industry so destructively that the cost of treatments has increased to ridiculous levels that no one can afford, unless they have an insurance plan which pays for it. Thus everyone demands to be covered by insurance for everything. Which causes the prices to become even more astronomical.

There are other major problems with our health care, but these can be easily fixed if the Democrats were interested in actually fixing health care, rather then socialize it for their own power. These two are: health care for poor/old people. Replace medicare/medicaid with government-provided HSA's (or even better, contribution-matched). That way, people will be responsible for the price they pay for care. Second: tort reform. This is self-explanatory but will never happen as long as the lawyers dump billions in contributions to congress to keep themselves in business.