• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Where's the health care benefit in health insurance "reform?"

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

vjeltz

Junior Member
Nov 15, 2004
18
15
76
Eliminating pre-existing conditions will definately go a long ways to curtail premium inflation :)

I am trying to wrap my mind around that statement. This is the way I see it and please correct me if I am wrong. If you increase coverage by including pre-existing conditions and eliminating lifetime caps you will increase the overall amount of healthcare spending by the insurance plan. If you increase the amount that a plan pays out then the plans fund will shrink unless it is kept up with additional funds. These funds would need to come from somewhere and that would most likely be from premium increases.

That being said, I don't see how this curtails premium inflation. In fact it looks like the opposite would hold true. I do agree that these things need to be addressed, but I don't see how it won't just shift costs from the consumer to the health plans and then back the consumer through premium increases.
 
Last edited:

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
I am trying to wrap my mind around that statement. This is the way I see it and please correct me if I am wrong. If you increase coverage by including pre-existing conditions and eliminating lifetime caps you will increase the overall amount of healthcare spending by the insurance plan. If you increase the amount that a plan pays out then the plans fund will shrink unless it is kept up with additional funds. These funds would need to come from somewhere and that would most likely be from premium increases.

That being said, I don't see how this curtails premium inflation. In fact it looks like the opposite would hold true. I do agree that these things need to be addressed, but I don't see how it won't just shift costs from the consumer to the health plans and then back the consumer through premium increases.
People with pre-existing conditions are already covered. While using clauses like insurance caps and pre-existing conditions to exclude individuals from the insurance pools saves the insurance industry money, those people are still required to be treated by hospitals. However, since they don't have insurance, these people typically wait until they are extremely ill and go to the emergency room. This requires more intense (and thus expensive) treatment.

Since few people can afford to pay for that treatment, the hospital often takes a loss. It then passes this loss on to the people who can afford it by charging them more...i.e., insurance companies, resulting in a premium increase. They may also do other things such as cut provider salaries or offer less services.

As others have said, we already have universal health care in this country. It's just the worst form of it.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,214
126
What I find somewhat tragically amusing is that people think health care costs can be contained.

That is an absolute impossibility. One may push rates back a year or two, but they are going to go up and up.
 

vjeltz

Junior Member
Nov 15, 2004
18
15
76
While I agree that a feedback mechanism exists between the number of uninsured/under-insured and that amount hospitals need charge insurance companies I think you may be underestimating the effects and forgetting that the feedback mechanism is not instantaneous.

The minute legislation forces additional coverage insurance companies will need to make larger payouts. The payouts made come from the insurances funding pool. This pool has specific values that must be maintained by law. Once you start to draw more from the pool it will need to be filled. Unless the hospitals and doctors instantly reduce the charges across the board the fund will be paying out more. This would in turn increase premiums. This has nothing to do with the profits or operating expenses of the insurer, this is the nature of an insurance fund whether administrated publicly or privately.

Most new insurance payouts for pre-existing conditions would be made to Doctors who are already not held to the must treat requirements of hospitals. The hospitals would also still have uninsured to deal with and still need to charge insurers more to make up for the loss. It would then appear unlikely that we would see an immediate reduction in charges by doctors or hospitals and premiums would increase. If we do see an eventual reduction in charges due to these mechanisms premiums may stabilize for a short time, but other factors not mentioned here will still force their inevitable march upward.
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,471
1
0
I'm not sure I understand the right's decision to start using quotes (or when speaking, saying "so-called" or using finger quotes) in front of the word reform.

Whether you like the changes or not, it's still reform...
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
I'm not sure I understand the right's decision to start using quotes (or when speaking, saying "so-called" or using finger quotes) in front of the word reform.

Whether you like the changes or not, it's still reform...
re·form (r-fôrm)
v. re·formed, re·form·ing, re·forms
v.tr.
1. To improve by alteration, correction of error, or removal of defects; put into a better form or condition.
2.
a. To abolish abuse or malpractice in: reform the government.
b. To put an end to (a wrong). See Synonyms at correct.
3. To cause (a person) to give up harmful or immoral practices; persuade to adopt a better way of life.
v.intr.
To change for the better.
n.
1. A change for the better; an improvement.
2. Correction of evils, abuses, or errors.
3. Action to improve social or economic conditions without radical or revolutionary change.

**********

Maybe because these current bills and proposals aren't an improvement?
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
30,113
3,651
126
We're talking about health here. Longevity is directly correlated with health.

Since YOU raised the issue of quality of life, why don't YOU produce data that demonstrates that the quality of life in the U.S. is among the highest in the world. If you can't, stop muddying the waters.
I hear prisoners get free health care. Strange enough I don't see you jumping at the chance to be locked up to get it. Stranger still, while not leaping with open arms towards the nearest jail cell, you are most certainly espousing the loss of freedoms accompanied with the fox guarding the hen house.

Did liberty ever play a role in your determination of quality of life?
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
199
101
The whole health care reform has very little to do with actual health care reform, and much more to do with democrats wanting to expand the size of government even more, spend and waste even more money, and put further control of everyone's life in the hands of the elites in government.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY