Pre Existing Conditions Vs Sub Prime Mortgages

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Harvey
I replied directly to your "empirical arguement," twice, with a precise statement appropriate to its significance. The operative word was BULLSHIT! because, when it comes to the very existence of our fellow human beings, there is no ethical or moral defense for putting profit ahead of human health and survival.

Until you understand that, your pathetic "empirical arguement" isn't even worth the price of real BULLSHIT because BULLSHIT can be used as fertilizer to help things grow, whereas all your greed based whining will do is kill people.

I have been around long enough to know that you live in a world where your opinion is correct 1000% of the time and no rational discussion is possible, thus I will no longer respond to your blatant flame baiting.

Thank you. It's about time you figured out I'm right and stopped your whining. :thumbsup:

Single Payer Health Care NOW! Pass Teddy-Care.

[/quote]

medicare/aid pays out in larger amounts (about 2x iirc, the natural outcome of covering the sickliest portion of the population) on average than private insurers with no actual decrease in paperwork. thus, the portion of paperwork costs to claims paid out is lower, simply because the claims tend to be larger.

now, there are counter arguments to that. first, insurers do deny various things. medicare basically doesn't. (whether insurers are denying things they shouldn't be, or whether medicare is paying for things that are unnecessary or pointless, but not fraudulent, is something that should be studied very heavily in order to determine what's what). second, insurers are generally insuring more healthy people. if they were insuring the whole population, their payouts would undeniably be higher on average. similarly, if medicare were backing the whole population, their payouts would undeniably be lower on average.

however, let's see what is off budget for medicare/aid that is on budget for private insurers.

congress: congresscritters are basically the board of directors of medicare. however, none of their considerable time and costs spent discussion medicare are included in medicare's overhead.

management: the salaries of professionals at CMS are apparently not included in the overhead estimate for medicare. wtf.

financing costs: costs to collect the payroll tax that pays for medicare are not included in the estimate. not only that, the .gov borrows money to pay medicare claims from time to time, and the interest cost is apparently not part of the estimate.

fraud prevention: budgeted through the inspector general of DHHS, not medicare.

state taxes: private insurers have to pay various state taxes. medicare doesn't. so if medicare for all is passed, the states will need some way to make up that lost revenue.

add all that stuff in and medicare's overhead figure goes up. how much i don't know.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Emotion has no place in the rule of law.

You couldn't be more wrong! The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America says:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Providing publicly funded health care would specifically address insuring domestic tranquility and promoting the general welfare.

A healthy nation would also be far more able to provide for the common defense, and doing so would definitely be an example of securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

I repeat -- You couldn't be more wrong! :thumbsdown:

Oh, wow. I couldn't believe my eyes, but there it was. Harvey actually trotted out the "promote the general Welfare" clause, the first sign that he is really reaching for support to his argument. Hey, a 7-series BMW would help "promote my general welfare" over the "clunker" I am driving now...why doesn't the government provide one for me, for "free"? :roll:

And ElFenix, you might want to fix up the quotes in your last post. It is tough to tell where it's your post or Harvey's.

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: Carmen813
It's actually an ignorant analogy, because I don't think the OP understands what pre-existing conditions are used for by the insurance industry. Sub-prime mortgages required both the bank to give the loan and the loanee to default. Insurance companies are not currently covering pre-exisiting conditions, so the analogy falls flat on its face.

A pre-existing condition is simply not covered. There is no "pay 2x the normal premium." There is no cost to the insurance company. You cannot join an insurance plan and start collecting benefits to cover a prior diagnosed condition (at least not in NYS) so I don't know what he is talking about. The way the public plans have been structured is that they must be financially sustainable on their own, i.e., through premiums.

He also seems to be misinformed about how insurance works in the first place. It is the redistributing risk and costs of a single individual across a group (it is in fact, socialism) in order to minimize the impact any one person can have. That is why having more healthy people in the pool is better for the companies bottom line.

All of that ignores the ethical and moral debate of denying sick people coverage (and I'm referring specifically to people who were in the plan to start).

The crux of the OP's point is that under the currently proposed systems, pre-existing conditions could not be the basis for denial of coverage, which is also where the "2x" number comes from. You're talking about the current system and he's talking about the proposed system.

He needed to be more clear then, however he is still wrong, as the new system would not allow you to charge more for someone with pre-existing conditions period. These costs are offset by more people having to buy insurance, which is why their is a mandate in every bill being considered. The insurance companies are on board with covering pre-existing conditions so long as there is also mandated coverage. It prevents the "sub prime" crisis analogy he is trying to make. The only way something like this would ever happen is if an insurance company accepted ONLY people with pre-existing conditions, and all those conditions required payout (or most of them). So long as healthy people are paying into the insurance pool, his disaster scenario is avoided.

Pre-existing conditions are exploited as they are often out of the consumers control. I was taking good care of myself when I was diagnosed with cancer, i.e, wasn't obese, was exercising regularly and eating well. I could see providing incentives (i.e., lower premiums) to people who don't smoke, aren't obese, and exercise regularly, but somethings are out of your control.

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Emotion has no place in the rule of law.

You couldn't be more wrong! The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America says:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Providing publicly funded health care would specifically address insuring domestic tranquility and promoting the general welfare.

A healthy nation would also be far more able to provide for the common defense, and doing so would definitely be an example of securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

I repeat -- You couldn't be more wrong! :thumbsdown:

Oh, wow. I couldn't believe my eyes, but there it was. Harvey actually trotted out the "promote the general Welfare" clause, the first sign that he is really reaching for support to his argument. Hey, a 7-series BMW would help "promote my general welfare" over the "clunker" I am driving now...why doesn't the government provide one for me, for "free"? :roll:

And ElFenix, you might want to fix up the quotes in your last post. It is tough to tell where it's your post or Harvey's.

Are you only a strict constitutionalist when it fits your ideology? The general welfare clause show sup twice, it's how different parties interpret it that matters.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

add all that stuff in and medicare's overhead figure goes up. how much i don't know.

The funding needed to pay for Congress' time spent on health care and the fraud prevention that occurs outside of the Medicare bureaucracy are negligible in relation to total expenditures. There are in fact other externalities such as some that you mentioned that DO increase Medicare's overhead above the 2% mark.

For some decent numbers here is CAHI's report on the issue. On just straight admin, Medicare runs a 5.2% administrative overhead, and private industry runs an 8.9% one. When you add in commissions, tax, profit, etc private insurance runs an almost 17% overhead.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Emotion has no place in the rule of law.

You couldn't be more wrong! The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America says:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Providing publicly funded health care would specifically address insuring domestic tranquility and promoting the general welfare.

A healthy nation would also be far more able to provide for the common defense, and doing so would definitely be an example of securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

I repeat -- You couldn't be more wrong! :thumbsdown:

Oh, wow. I couldn't believe my eyes, but there it was. Harvey actually trotted out the "promote the general Welfare" clause, the first sign that he is really reaching for support to his argument. Hey, a 7-series BMW would help "promote my general welfare" over the "clunker" I am driving now...why doesn't the government provide one for me, for "free"? :roll:

And ElFenix, you might want to fix up the quotes in your last post. It is tough to tell where it's your post or Harvey's.

Are you only a strict constitutionalist when it fits your ideology? The general welfare clause show sup twice, it's how different parties interpret it that matters.

So you would be willing to pay for a new 7-series BMW for me? After all, it would promote my general welfare over the older car I currently drive.

You know, I'm tired of clipping coupons and buying "cheap food" at the store in order to save money. Would you be willing to buy fillet mignon for me? After all, it would "promote my general welfare" by eating healthier.

It may sound silly and stupid, but you could use that extremely vague clause to justify anything, really.

Also, since you made some sort of claim without any backing, please show me where I've ever used the "promote the general welfare" clause to further some agenda? Because, I'd love to know, since I've never done such a thing (other than pointing out the liberals' laughable overuse of this clause to justify their agendas).

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: Painman
See, This place is just too goddamned fucking serious, aka EMO!

SET ME FREE!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQEmaj9C6ko

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: Carmen813
I could see providing incentives (i.e., lower premiums) to people who don't smoke, aren't obese, and exercise regularly, but somethings are out of your control.

Which is what insurance already does.

If you get cancer and already have insurance, you should be fine (as far as coverage goes). The problem arises when you get cancer and then change or apply for new insurance. At that point, your getting cancer isn't an actuarial possibility, it is empirical fact (since you already have it). Insurance is designed to pool risk.

The reason that insurers are ok with mandatory coverage is that once coverage is mandatory, it is no longer insurance (i.e., a shared risk pool). Once coverage is mandatory risks are certain (or as certain as most things get in this world). With certain risks, health "insurance" becomes a health "tax".

Will people revolt in the face of such a regressive health tax? No, because the appearance of randomness in health care is relative. What I mean by this is that something that appears random to me may not be random to you. Developing lymphoma tomorrow may be a shock to me, and appear quite random and unforseen. To the "insurer", they were statistically guaranteed that someone would develop lymphoma tomorrow. Since the transfer of information is inefficient (from a market perspective), or perhaps more likely the information itself is imprecise, a health tax still entails risk from the taxpayers' perspective and functions like insurance, to them.

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: Carmen813
I could see providing incentives (i.e., lower premiums) to people who don't smoke, aren't obese, and exercise regularly, but somethings are out of your control.

Which is what insurance already does.

If you get cancer and already have insurance, you should be fine (as far as coverage goes). The problem arises when you get cancer and then change or apply for new insurance. At that point, your getting cancer isn't an actuarial possibility, it is empirical fact (since you already have it). Insurance is designed to pool risk.

The reason that insurers are ok with mandatory coverage is that once coverage is mandatory, it is no longer insurance (i.e., a shared risk pool). Once coverage is mandatory risks are certain (or as certain as most things get in this world). With certain risks, health "insurance" becomes a health "tax".

Will people revolt in the face of such a regressive health tax? No, because the appearance of randomness in health care is relative. What I mean by this is that something that appears random to me may not be random to you. Developing lymphoma tomorrow may be a shock to me, and appear quite random and unforseen. To the "insurer", they were statistically guaranteed that someone would develop lymphoma tomorrow. Since the transfer of information is inefficient (from a market perspective), or perhaps more likely the information itself is imprecise, a health tax still entails risk from the taxpayers' perspective and functions like insurance, to them.

Which is why I have major problems with the way our current system works. I'm 25 years old and likely to work for several companies during my career (unlike my grandparents who worked for one). So tying insurance to your employer for our generation just doesn't make sense, and punishing individuals for health things beyond their control also doesn't make sense. I don't have a problem paying a "health tax" in order to guarantee I will have access to medical care regardless of what happens tomorrow.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Oh, wow. I couldn't believe my eyes, but there it was. Harvey actually trotted out the "promote the general Welfare" clause, the first sign that he is really reaching for support to his argument.

Oh, wow. I absolutely believe my eyes. RyanPaulShaffer actually trotted out his anti-human right wingnut dogma in an attempt to deny the intent of the framers of the Constitution "to insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare.

In his cold, hearless world, that old so-called "conservative" value of adhering to the intent Constitution only applies when it pimps corporate greed over preserving and enhancing the health and the very lives of all of our citizens.

Why am I not suprised that he takes the same anti-human stance to pimp greed over humanity when he dismisses and denies global warming. :roll:

You are pathetic! :thumbsdown: :|

Hey, a 7-series BMW would help "promote my general welfare" over the "clunker" I am driving now...why doesn't the government provide one for me, for "free"?

IF you own a car that qualified as a "clunker," and IF a 7-series BMW would have qualified under the CARS program, and IF you had gotten off your ass to take advantage of it, you would have had it.

Didn't do it? Good! I wouldn't want to squander my tax dollars on your personal welfare when you're so unwilling to support the health, welfare and very lives of millions of uninsured Americans.

Single Payer Health Care NOW! Pass Teddy-Care.

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: Carmen813
Which is why I have major problems with the way our current system works. I'm 25 years old and likely to work for several companies during my career (unlike my grandparents who worked for one). So tying insurance to your employer for our generation just doesn't make sense, and punishing individuals for health things beyond their control also doesn't make sense. I don't have a problem paying a "health tax" in order to guarantee I will have access to medical care regardless of what happens tomorrow.

Perfectly reasonable.

The provisos that eliminate the pre-existing exclusion when you've been with a company for 1 year seem inadequate. If you have cancer, paying for a year's treatment out of pocket isn't feasible.

In my opinion, the consternation with pre-existing conditions (PEC) stems from a couple different items:

1. Many people who find fault with the way PEC are handled project the inadequacies of the individual market to the group market. They also tend to overstate the inadequacies of the group market.

As it is, you're just not going to get coverage for PEC in the individual market. But many people think that means you don't get coverage in the group market either. That's not correct. There is typically no wait for coverage for PEC if you had coverage within 60 days.

2. The proposals on the table mis-characterize the solution in an attempt to make it more palatable. We're used to the insurance system. We hate taxes. So the politicians say "Health insurance for everyone!", which is of course impossible. I think that some (many, few, I don't know) of the opponents of 'health care reform' would be more receptive if the politicians just called it what it is- a tax. But noone wants to play the "raising taxes" game so they call it 'insurance'. That makes the people who are predisposed to not trusting them distrust them further since it is obviously not insurance and that "lie" validates the distrust. Of course, there's the whole negative expectation fallacy wrapped up in that, but it's human nature and I guess you can't change it.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Oh, wow. I couldn't believe my eyes, but there it was. Harvey actually trotted out the "promote the general Welfare" clause, the first sign that he is really reaching for support to his argument.

Oh, wow. I absolutely believe my eyes. RyanPaulShaffer actually trotted out his anti-human right wingnut dogma in an attempt to deny the intent of the framers of the Constitution "to insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare.

In his cold, hearless world, that old so-called "conservative" value of adhering to the intent Constitution only applies when it pimps corporate greed over preserving and enhancing the health and the very lives of all of our citizens.

Why am I not suprised that he takes the same anti-human stance to pimp greed over humanity when he dismisses and denies global warming. :roll:

You are pathetic! :thumbsdown: :|

Single Payer Health Care NOW! Pass Teddy-Care.

Provide for the common defense...

So, you're all for a huge defense budget too I gather, since it's right there next to your beloved "promote the general welfare" clause? We need to provide for the common defense, so our defense budget should be bigger, right Harv?



Oh, and I can't decide...will you buy me a 7-series BMW or an S-class Mercedes in order to "promote my general welfare"? I mean, after all, you're all about taking other people's money to "promote the general welfare" for everyone else, so why not pitch in? The seats in my older car aren't very comfortable and they hurt my back...a new luxury car would "promote my general welfare" by improving my health. You say that is necessary, right? Government provided insurance to "promote the general welfare"? Why stop there? "Free" BMW's for all! Harvey's paying! You wouldn't dare deny the poor people access to the luxury cars with their ergonomic seats, would you? Think of their health! How can you be so inhumane!?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ElFenix

add all that stuff in and medicare's overhead figure goes up. how much i don't know.

The funding needed to pay for Congress' time spent on health care and the fraud prevention that occurs outside of the Medicare bureaucracy are negligible in relation to total expenditures. There are in fact other externalities such as some that you mentioned that DO increase Medicare's overhead above the 2% mark.

For some decent numbers here is CAHI's report on the issue. On just straight admin, Medicare runs a 5.2% administrative overhead, and private industry runs an 8.9% one. When you add in commissions, tax, profit, etc private insurance runs an almost 17% overhead.

interesting paper. i'll print it off and read it in a bit




just skimming it here is the important take away:

Second, there is an assumption that administrative costs are bad. The fact is that only inefficient administrative costs are bad. Insurers regularly scrutinize claims forms and check with health care providers if they find an error, discrepancy or what they believe to be an unnecessary treatment. That raises administrative costs, but it also lowers claims costs. That is a benefit for those insured because it helps keep premiums lower.

Moreover, that regular scrutiny has an impact on providers' behavior, helping to discourage the small percentage who might try to game the system to increase their income. In other words, efficient administrative oversight alters behavior, and the cost is almost certainly recovered in lower premiums.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: Carmen813
I could see providing incentives (i.e., lower premiums) to people who don't smoke, aren't obese, and exercise regularly, but somethings are out of your control.

Which is what insurance already does.

If you get cancer and already have insurance, you should be fine (as far as coverage goes). The problem arises when you get cancer and then change or apply for new insurance. At that point, your getting cancer isn't an actuarial possibility, it is empirical fact (since you already have it). Insurance is designed to pool risk.

The reason that insurers are ok with mandatory coverage is that once coverage is mandatory, it is no longer insurance (i.e., a shared risk pool). Once coverage is mandatory risks are certain (or as certain as most things get in this world). With certain risks, health "insurance" becomes a health "tax".

Will people revolt in the face of such a regressive health tax? No, because the appearance of randomness in health care is relative. What I mean by this is that something that appears random to me may not be random to you. Developing lymphoma tomorrow may be a shock to me, and appear quite random and unforseen. To the "insurer", they were statistically guaranteed that someone would develop lymphoma tomorrow. Since the transfer of information is inefficient (from a market perspective), or perhaps more likely the information itself is imprecise, a health tax still entails risk from the taxpayers' perspective and functions like insurance, to them.

Which is why I have major problems with the way our current system works. I'm 25 years old and likely to work for several companies during my career (unlike my grandparents who worked for one). So tying insurance to your employer for our generation just doesn't make sense, and punishing individuals for health things beyond their control also doesn't make sense. I don't have a problem paying a "health tax" in order to guarantee I will have access to medical care regardless of what happens tomorrow.

Go start your own insurance company that makes deals with large corporations that unties the insurance to your employer. But don't force your health tax on other people.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

So, you're all for a huge defense budget too I gather, since it's right there next to your beloved "promote the general welfare" clause? We need to provide for the common defense, so our defense budget should be bigger, right Harv?

What's your point? Did I ever say we should NOT provide adequate funds for our common defense?

Don't confuse "bigger" with adequate. Don't confuse "bigger" with smarter. Don't confuse funding "common defense" with funding treasonous acts like torture and domestic spying or war profiteerslike Haliburton and criminal contractors and Blackwater/Xe. :thumbsdown:

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: Carmen813
I could see providing incentives (i.e., lower premiums) to people who don't smoke, aren't obese, and exercise regularly, but somethings are out of your control.

Which is what insurance already does.

If you get cancer and already have insurance, you should be fine (as far as coverage goes). The problem arises when you get cancer and then change or apply for new insurance. At that point, your getting cancer isn't an actuarial possibility, it is empirical fact (since you already have it). Insurance is designed to pool risk.

The reason that insurers are ok with mandatory coverage is that once coverage is mandatory, it is no longer insurance (i.e., a shared risk pool). Once coverage is mandatory risks are certain (or as certain as most things get in this world). With certain risks, health "insurance" becomes a health "tax".

Will people revolt in the face of such a regressive health tax? No, because the appearance of randomness in health care is relative. What I mean by this is that something that appears random to me may not be random to you. Developing lymphoma tomorrow may be a shock to me, and appear quite random and unforseen. To the "insurer", they were statistically guaranteed that someone would develop lymphoma tomorrow. Since the transfer of information is inefficient (from a market perspective), or perhaps more likely the information itself is imprecise, a health tax still entails risk from the taxpayers' perspective and functions like insurance, to them.

Which is why I have major problems with the way our current system works. I'm 25 years old and likely to work for several companies during my career (unlike my grandparents who worked for one). So tying insurance to your employer for our generation just doesn't make sense, and punishing individuals for health things beyond their control also doesn't make sense. I don't have a problem paying a "health tax" in order to guarantee I will have access to medical care regardless of what happens tomorrow.

Go start your own insurance company that makes deals with large corporations that unties the insurance to your employer. But don't force your health tax on other people.

I'll get right on that, care to provide some venture capital to start it up?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Don't confuse funding "common defense" with funding treasonous acts like torture and domestic spying or war profiteerslike Haliburton and criminal contractors and Blackwater/Xe. :thumbsdown:

I'm glad to see Blackwater/Xe put in the same word, so that they are more avvountable for thier bad actions, and can't just get away with a name change hiding it.

The name Xe is so unusual, I can't help but wonder if a factor in selecting it was that it's not clear how to pronounce it, making it a little harder for people to discuss it verbally.

And it's so generic, it doesn't as easily become the symbol 'blackwater' was for the terrible organizaiton they are. Pretty slick PR move to hide, by Blackwater/Xe.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Craig234
-snip-
I'm glad to see Blackwater/Xe put in the same word, so that they are more avvountable for thier bad actions, and can't just get away with a name change hiding it.

The name Xe is so unusual, I can't help but wonder if a factor in selecting it was that it's not clear how to pronounce it, making it a little harder for people to discuss it verbally.

And it's so generic, it doesn't as easily become the symbol 'blackwater' was for the terrible organizaiton they are. Pretty slick PR move to hide, by Blackwater/Xe.

Re: Bolded part - I suppose that's a possibility, but it's gotten so difficult to come up with a new name that's not already protected/registered/trademarked that people have had to resort to made up nonsense-type names for several years now.

Then add to that they operate in many foreign countries, some with different alphabet system and the difficulty just increases.

I wonder if "Xe" looks a bit similar in both our alphabet and the Arabic (and/or Russian, Greek etc)?

Wait - "Xe" works fine in Greek

Fern

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Craig234
-snip-
I'm glad to see Blackwater/Xe put in the same word, so that they are more avvountable for thier bad actions, and can't just get away with a name change hiding it.

The name Xe is so unusual, I can't help but wonder if a factor in selecting it was that it's not clear how to pronounce it, making it a little harder for people to discuss it verbally.

And it's so generic, it doesn't as easily become the symbol 'blackwater' was for the terrible organizaiton they are. Pretty slick PR move to hide, by Blackwater/Xe.

Re: Bolded part - I suppose that's a possibility, but it's gotten so difficult to come up with a new name that's not already protected/registered/trademarked that people have had to resort to made up nonsense-type names for several years now.

Then add to that they operate in many foreign countries, some with different alphabet system and the difficulty just increases.

I wonder if "Xe" looks a bit similar in both our alphabet and the Arabic (and/or Russian, Greek etc)?

Wait - "Xe" works fine in Greek

Fern

You're right about names, but usually they try for 'easy' nonsense names, easy to pronounce, to remember - Xe appears an exception in being hard to pronounce, and not being one you are likely to notice much, it doesn't even look like a company name, really, it's harded for the public to get stirred up about the 'Xe' outrages.

I doubt how it plays in Greece has much impact.

While international is come concern, you see English 'McDonalds' signs in China etc.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: Carmen813

He needed to be more clear then, however he is still wrong, as the new system would not allow you to charge more for someone with pre-existing conditions period. These costs are offset by more people having to buy insurance, which is why their is a mandate in every bill being considered. The insurance companies are on board with covering pre-existing conditions so long as there is also mandated coverage. It prevents the "sub prime" crisis analogy he is trying to make. The only way something like this would ever happen is if an insurance company accepted ONLY people with pre-existing conditions, and all those conditions required payout (or most of them). So long as healthy people are paying into the insurance pool, his disaster scenario is avoided.

Pre-existing conditions are exploited as they are often out of the consumers control. I was taking good care of myself when I was diagnosed with cancer, i.e, wasn't obese, was exercising regularly and eating well. I could see providing incentives (i.e., lower premiums) to people who don't smoke, aren't obese, and exercise regularly, but somethings are out of your control.

That's kind of what they thought with social security, too - but the problem is that is doesn't work. Your logic doesn't really take into account the fact that the plurality of the American Demographic (baby boomers) are now retiring and getting old (sick). It's not as simple an idea as 'oh, we still have people paying in, so we're cool' - just like a lot of banks didn't magically get better just because they had some people who continued to pay their mortgage on time.

Now, that being said, if coverage was mandatory for all people, this would likely not happen, but it would still be possible - and, to a greater degree than you've acknowledged there.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: Carmen813
Which is why I have major problems with the way our current system works. I'm 25 years old and likely to work for several companies during my career (unlike my grandparents who worked for one). So tying insurance to your employer for our generation just doesn't make sense, and punishing individuals for health things beyond their control also doesn't make sense. I don't have a problem paying a "health tax" in order to guarantee I will have access to medical care regardless of what happens tomorrow.

Why does it matter how many companies you plan to work for? So long as you work for a company with health benefits, I don't see the issue - your grandparents were under the same threat of unemployment as you are and will be. The economy didn't just start sucking when you finished your undergrad.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Harvey
And you don't see any difference between allowing dubious realestate ventures that that risk the solvency of our financial institutions and underwriting saving human lives? :shocked:

The current legislation has nothing to do with "saving lives". Anyone can walk into a hospital and receive care regardless of their age, race, religion, immigration status, or ability to pay.

And if they can pay, they pay outrageous prices/go bankrupt because of it. And ERs do not cover long term ailments. Keep repeating nonsense though.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Pre-existing conditions clauses are needed as a way to make insurance/healthcare not be so much more expensive than it already is. Without them people would only get insurance when they were sick.

I don't like it one bit, but that is the reason for them. Take them away and watch your insurance costs skyrocket.

1000% increase in profit over 5 years... and you think they need to exclude pre-existing conditions? Their bottom line is ALL that matters and it determines your price...

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: Carmen813
Which is why I have major problems with the way our current system works. I'm 25 years old and likely to work for several companies during my career (unlike my grandparents who worked for one). So tying insurance to your employer for our generation just doesn't make sense, and punishing individuals for health things beyond their control also doesn't make sense. I don't have a problem paying a "health tax" in order to guarantee I will have access to medical care regardless of what happens tomorrow.

Why does it matter how many companies you plan to work for? So long as you work for a company with health benefits, I don't see the issue - your grandparents were under the same threat of unemployment as you are and will be. The economy didn't just start sucking when you finished your undergrad.

This might be dragging the thread too far off topic, but if mass layoffs were just as common back then as they are now, then how was it so common for people to stay at the same company for 25+ years and retire with a pension, benefits, etc.? That's pratically unheard of today.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: spidey07
Pre-existing conditions clauses are needed as a way to make insurance/healthcare not be so much more expensive than it already is. Without them people would only get insurance when they were sick.

I don't like it one bit, but that is the reason for them. Take them away and watch your insurance costs skyrocket.

1000% increase in profit over 5 years... and you think they need to exclude pre-existing conditions? Their bottom line is ALL that matters and it determines your price...

Honest question - What is their after tax profit? (It s/b expressed at a percentage of income etc)

If you don't know or can't be bothered to look it up, respond with the names of the insurers you think are too profitable and I'll google for it when I get a chance.

E.g., people complained loudly about the profit of Big Oil, but upon looking at the profit it was in line with other businesses (e.g., 8%).

If insurers are the same, I don't necessarily see a problem. Like the federal governemnt they have to pay for their capital. And profits are used to pay shareholders for the capital they've provided. Otherwise, you pay for capital (borrowed) with interest. Interest payments consume a huge portion of the federal government's budget - they are paying for their capital. Same thing will happen with UHC, it's just that unlike private companies, the federal government will leave that interest off 'the books' and over to the side.

Fern