A Market solution for pre-existing conditions?

[shadow9d9]

Making 1000% increase in profit in 5 years time means THEY CAN COVER pre-existing conditions but choose not to for PROFIT!!!!

 

[shira]

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?

Yes.

Just as, if your religion prevents you from using birth control pills, your insurance premium will (in part) pay for prescription drug coverage that you won't take full advantage of.

Just as my property taxes pay for a school system I don't use (I don't have kids).

 

[shira]

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....

You're incorrect. Those with "pre-existing" conditions can't get personal insurance policies at any price. And it's estimated that fully 40% who apply for private insurance are rejected. One of the biggest issues with pre-existing conditions is that many people are forced to keep their current jobs working for somebody else, in order to retain their group policies, rather than work for themselves and be without insurance.

It's a very serious problem - I'm in this situation myself: I don't need to work (I have sufficient savings and outside income). But I cannot get private insurance at any price because of "pre-existing conditions" (yet I'm perfectly healthy - the insurance companies treat all sorts of medical events as "pre-existing condition" and therefore disqualifying). In my case, a previous surgery (on an elbow, if you can believe it), disqualifies me. So I must continue working for years to come (absent health care reform) to ensure that I have good health insurance.

If you think my personal situation is at all unusual, you're in a dream world. Our current health system is horrible, and it will continue to get worse.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
Me for one.

well i guess being the village idiot is a pre-existing condition...lol

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: glenn1

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.

The only way the proposal to force the insurance companies to write a policy for someone with pre-existing conditions, is to allow them to price it at a point sufficient to cover the costs that will be associated with the inevitable treatment that will be required.

Where the problem comes in, is that most who demand that insurance companies cover pre-existing conditions also believe it's "unfair" to charge higher rates for those same clients. Instead, they get all misty-eyed upon hearing the sob story that "my insurance would cost $ eleventy billlion/year" and want the insurance company to write the policy at the same rates as a healthy person. Well, t As someone without pre-existing conditions, I should get lower rates than you if you have _____ (insert disease name here).

The basic problem is that many preexisting conditions would put the cost so high that it might as well be impossible to get anyway. Since we're going to eventually treat them anyway when they end up in the emergency room, this is not a good solution.

So your solution is to force the healthy to subsidize them, making insurance unaffordable for more of them as well. So instead of a a handful of folks facing a bad situation, you've turned this into a tradegy of the commons scenario.

We currently DO subsidize them. Those without insurance get coverage. The rest of us pay for it with higher premiums.

The current legislation stipulates that the range in premiums can be a factor of two. So those who are young and healthy will pay the least. Those who are old and/or have healthy issues will pay twice as much. When YOU get old you will also benefit, as your own insurance rates will be much cheaper than they'd otherwise be.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: shira

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?

Yes.

Just as, if your religion prevents you from using birth control pills, your insurance premium will (in part) pay for prescription drug coverage that you won't take full advantage of.

Just as my property taxes pay for a school system I don't use (I don't have kids).

So now INSURANCE is just like a tax?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: shira

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....

You're incorrect. Those with "pre-existing" conditions can't get personal insurance policies at any price. And it's estimated that fully 40% who apply for private insurance are rejected. One of the biggest issues with pre-existing conditions is that many people are forced to keep their current jobs working for somebody else, in order to retain their group policies, rather than work for themselves and be without insurance.

It's a very serious problem - I'm in this situation myself: I don't need to work (I have sufficient savings and outside income). But I cannot get private insurance at any price because of "pre-existing conditions" (yet I'm perfectly healthy - the insurance companies treat all sorts of medical events as "pre-existing condition" and therefore disqualifying). In my case, a previous surgery (on an elbow, if you can believe it), disqualifies me. So I must continue working for years to come (absent health care reform) to ensure that I have good health insurance.

If you think my personal situation is at all unusual, you're in a dream world. Our current health system is horrible, and it will continue to get worse.

I call BS on that little story of yours. Yes, there can be more work involved and different coverage levels involved but for you to suggest that an elbow surgery is preventing you from getting private insurance is a bit too much to believe. It may be just a state thing in your case but even that I find hard to believe. You should likely try harder if you really want insurance.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: shira

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....

You're incorrect. Those with "pre-existing" conditions can't get personal insurance policies at any price. And it's estimated that fully 40% who apply for private insurance are rejected. One of the biggest issues with pre-existing conditions is that many people are forced to keep their current jobs working for somebody else, in order to retain their group policies, rather than work for themselves and be without insurance.

It's a very serious problem - I'm in this situation myself: I don't need to work (I have sufficient savings and outside income). But I cannot get private insurance at any price because of "pre-existing conditions" (yet I'm perfectly healthy - the insurance companies treat all sorts of medical events as "pre-existing condition" and therefore disqualifying). In my case, a previous surgery (on an elbow, if you can believe it), disqualifies me. So I must continue working for years to come (absent health care reform) to ensure that I have good health insurance.

If you think my personal situation is at all unusual, you're in a dream world. Our current health system is horrible, and it will continue to get worse.

There's a consequence of eating all those double cheeseburgers you fat fuck

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: DLeRium
I know the whole 2% tort reform crap, but this really just accounts for lawsuit payments and litigation costs. If you look at research done on the left and the right, studies show that extra tests are a HUGE burden on health costs.

When you look at survey showing doctors ordering extra tests to cover their asses, then you realize that a lot of this is due to fears of malpractice. Tort reform, if done right, can not only put an end to frivolous lawsuits but also start reducing the number of extra tests we do. Since this is one of the biggest expenditures in the industry, maybe we can cut down on this cost big time. It's a lot more than 2% when you look at the big picture.

extra tests are also (mostly) being done because patients demand them and doctors get paid more to do them so the incentive to do more tests already exists in much stronger and direct form than avoid lawsuits which make up 2% of your costs.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
As much of a free market supporter as I am, this is unfortunately one of the hardest questions for the free market to answer.

As others have pointed out and where I'm very much in agreement, is that part of the problem we have is that health insurance right now is like auto insurance that pays to change your oil and replace your wiper blades. That just adds a middle man where none is necessary and raises costs. Instead, auto insurance covers accidents. One time events. They fix your car and you go on your merry way. The problem is that if the mechanic told you that he could fix your car after the accident, but that due to the accident it would need a new engine every 1000 miles your insurance company would tell you take a hike. It's cheaper to total the car and buy a new one. Not really a viable answer to a patient.

The option I've supported for quite some time after a great deal of thought is Universal Catastrophic Coverage. Anything that required extraordinarily expensive or ongoing care would be covered. Everything else is up to you. Private companies can sell complete health care plans just like auto shops are selling comprehensive plans that cover all routine maintenance. Hell, I can buy that sort of coverage for my dog and for a couple hundred bucks per year it gets routine checkups. Why should something like breaking a bone cost thousands of dollars which is why it has to be covered by insurance? Setting a bone and putting on a cast should cost a couple hundred tops. I do believe in the free market enough to think that if we truly allowed it to operate freely that those kinds of basic procedures could come way down in price.

Edit: And those of you who disagree with the auto analogy are brain dead.

so if government ( i presume that is who you are refering to) provides coverage for catastrophic events, shouldn't they also make sure they are less likely to suffer catastrophic harm in the first place? Where is the incentive for health care providers to provide good preventative care, if they will never have to cover the costs of bad preventative care? I think we can all agree that the vast majority of people are not going to be able to fully comprehend the choices they are making because they just don't have the education to do it, which is probably the biggest reason free markets cannot work in health care.

 

[Phokus]

How do we know insurers will honor such contracts? What about the stories of insurers who drop customers when they get sick? A competitive market is the best consumer protection. A car insurer that doesn't pay claims quickly loses customers and goes out of business. And courts do still enforce contracts.

lol republicans.txt

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Market Solution for pre existing conditions

Seems like a rational solution until people have the balls to unhook INSURANCE from employment.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Market Solution for pre existing conditions

Seems like a rational solution until people have the balls to unhook INSURANCE from employment.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Phokus

How do we know insurers will honor such contracts? What about the stories of insurers who drop customers when they get sick? A competitive market is the best consumer protection. A car insurer that doesn't pay claims quickly loses customers and goes out of business. And courts do still enforce contracts.

lol republicans.txt

lol freemarket.doc