A question about health care

[maxiep]

There seems to be a political consensus that insurance companies shouldn't be able to deny you for a pre-existing condition. However, if that's going to be the case, don't you have to mandate everyone have insurance coverage?

If you didn't mandate health insurance, I could go without coverage and when I got sick, just call up an insurance company and get coverage. It's the ultimate moral hazard.

 

[RR7]

Good point.
What bugs me is, people complain about insurance companies rejecting you for a pre-existing condition, and it does suck. I understand that. But if I have absolutely attrocious credit, and no job, chances are I can't get a large mortgage from a lender. Well, a few years ago, maybe I could have. . But should we mandate that lenders provide loans regardless of pre-exiting conditions(poor credit, no job)? I wouldn't think so. Insurance companies provide us a great service, and save many from financial hardship, but they are first and foremost a business. If I have cancer, and go to get insurance, they know going into it I am going to cost them a ton of money. Money they are unlikely to recuperate from me over the lifetime of a policy. How can we expect them to just say well, it's the morally correct thing to do, to help you out, and we'll lose money on it, and turn around and make others pay more money, etc.

 

[BTOWN_HUSTLA]

There seems to be a political consensus that insurance companies shouldn't be able to deny you for a pre-existing condition. However, if that's going to be the case, don't you have to mandate everyone have insurance coverage?

If you didn't mandate health insurance, I could go without coverage and when I got sick, just call up an insurance company and get coverage. It's the ultimate moral hazard.

coverage is not retroactive.

 

[bluefrog]

Agreed, the government will have to require people to get health care. With this you will have to do 1 of 2 things:
1- provide the cheap public option
2- allow insurance companies to compete beyond state lines (good bye small guys)

Undoubtedly crowds will gather complaining that this infringes on their freedom. A lot of people will not like being forced to buy health insurance.

There are so many parties with vested interests involved in this. It's a huge cluster fuck.

 

[maxiep]

coverage is not retroactive.

All pre-existing illnesses are by definition retroactive. If I break my arm, I get insurance with a "pre-existing condition".

 

[maxiep]

Agreed, the government will have to require people to get health care. With this you will have to do 1 of 2 things:
1- provide the cheap public option
2- allow insurance companies to compete beyond state lines (good bye small guys)

I don't believe any public option will be cheap for the taxpayer. Once you crack open the door, the coverage will get more and more generous. The subsidies will get larger and larger and more and more people will choose the public option.

I actually think there are insurance companies that will specialize--smokers, fitness freaks, diabetes patients, etc.. Rather than getting fewer insurers, I think you'll see a fractioning of the insurance industry.

Undoubtedly crowds will gather complaining that this infringes on their freedom. A lot of people will not like being forced to buy health insurance.

There are so many parties with vested interests involved in this. It's a huge cluster fuck.

Agreed.

 

[BTOWN_HUSTLA]

All pre-existing illnesses are by definition retroactive. If I break my arm, I get insurance with a "pre-existing condition".

If you have a heart attack, its not retroactive coverage if you need emergency surgery.

 

[maxiep]

If you have a heart attack, its not retroactive coverage if you need emergency surgery.

Meh, you pay for the heart surgery, get the coverage, and then the rehab and hospital stay is paid for. You've cut the cost of the cardiac event by 90%. It's a hell of a lot better than paying health insurance premiums waiting for something to happen.

 

[BTOWN_HUSTLA]

Meh, you pay for the heart surgery, get the coverage, and then the rehab and hospital stay is paid for. You've cut the cost of the cardiac event by 90%. It's a hell of a lot better than paying health insurance premiums waiting for something to happen.

yes, because the heart surgery is cheap! system = SCAMMED!



when are you going to sign up for insurance coverage, when you're in the recovery room?

its a very likely scenario.




I still think the answer is medical tourism.

 

[elcap15]

To the OP, if you are going to force insurance companies to cover "pre-existing" conditions, and we are going to have universal health care, then yes, you basically have to force people to be insured.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

yes, because the heart surgery is cheap! system = SCAMMED!



when are you going to sign up for insurance coverage, when you're in the recovery room?

its a very likely scenario.




I still think the answer is medical tourism.

What if a person is diagnosed with cancer? The diagnosis aspect is usually less than 1/1000th of the treatment. It's a boon for the person.

 

[barfo]

There seems to be a political consensus that insurance companies shouldn't be able to deny you for a pre-existing condition. However, if that's going to be the case, don't you have to mandate everyone have insurance coverage?

If you didn't mandate health insurance, I could go without coverage and when I got sick, just call up an insurance company and get coverage. It's the ultimate moral hazard.

I think that's all correct. Of course, I'm in favor of both non-denial and coverage mandates, so I don't mind they go hand-in-hand.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

To the OP, if you are going to force insurance companies to cover "pre-existing" conditions, and we are going to have universal health care, then yes, you basically have to force people to be insured.

I agree. I've been trying to figure out a way around it, but I actually think Congress is going to mandate no denial for pre-existing conditions and not mandate insurance coverage.

 

[elcap15]

I agree. I've been trying to figure out a way around it, but I actually think Congress is going to mandate no denial for pre-existing conditions and not mandate insurance coverage.

And when they do, I will cancel my Health care, wait until I need medical care, then buy the best coverage I can get, get the procedure, and cancel my plan again.

People dont seem to get that insurance works because you pay for it when you DONT need it, so that other people help pay for it when you DO need it.

 

[maxiep]

And when they do, I will cancel my Health care, wait until I need medical care, then buy the best coverage I can get, get the procedure, and cancel my plan again.

People dont seem to get that insurance works because you pay for it when you DONT need it, so that other people help pay for it when you DO need it.

Agreed.

 

[e_blazer]

I agree. I've been trying to figure out a way around it, but I actually think Congress is going to mandate no denial for pre-existing conditions and not mandate insurance coverage.

It's hard to believe that Congress could actually do something that monumentally stupid, but then, the fact that Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House does give me pause.

 

[BTOWN_HUSTLA]

What if a person is diagnosed with cancer? The diagnosis aspect is usually less than 1/1000th of the treatment. It's a boon for the person.

yes, but what about catastrophic sudden emergencies?

what, so are they just screwed then?

 

[bluefrog]

I actually think there are insurance companies that will specialize--smokers, fitness freaks, diabetes patients, etc.. Rather than getting fewer insurers, I think you'll see a fractioning of the insurance industry.

This is what has happened in Japan. Most private insurers there are specialized since the bulk of medicine is covered by the national health care.

I wonder if foreign companies could get involved in insuring Americans. We already have medical tourism and many Indian companies specializing in call centers. It may be a matter of time for entire operations move over seas and Chinese officials are denying our claims.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

yes, but what about catastrophic sudden emergencies?

what, so are they just screwed then?

OK, so an uninsured person has a stroke. At some point in time paperwork is completed (maybe by an aumsbudsman at the hospital) and the insurance carrier is not only forced to accept the risk, but forced to accept the cost of the stroke. To me, that's out. Although I feel insurance companies should be non profit (so as not to have this conflict between greedy shareholders and patient needs) and should not have to accept and pay for pre-existing conditions except under very limited circumstances. It flat out cheats the insurance company and they have a right to make ends meet.

That said, I feel insurance companies should not be able to cap coverage. If they have an insured who gets ill, then whatever costs they bear, it's paid for. And, they cannot be cancelled for being ill. I think policies should have a provision that if a policyholder becomes sick to the point they cannot work, must leave their job, then coverage should continue in some form for a duration of time so as not to leave them out in the cold. There could be some exclusions (drug addicts, people who eat themselves into obesiety...) Perhaps policy premiums could be paid for the the feds...

Those are some changes I'd like to see.

 

[elcap15]

you do realize all those benefits have to be paid for by somebody.

A good way to look at health insurance is to look at Life Insurance. No one complains that you cant get life insurance for someone AFTER they die. Also premiums for an obese, 80 yr old smoker would be astronomical compared to a healthy, 40 yr old non-smoker.

 

[MARIS61]

There seems to be a political consensus that insurance companies shouldn't be able to deny you for a pre-existing condition. However, if that's going to be the case, don't you have to mandate everyone have insurance coverage?

If you didn't mandate health insurance, I could go without coverage and when I got sick, just call up an insurance company and get coverage. It's the ultimate moral hazard.

Yes. Unfortunately, that is impossible in a country where the wealthy refuse to treat the masses fairly by sharing the wealth. Most of our citizens cannot realistically afford healthcare, while still having a shot at the American Dream of improving their lot in life. A quite sizeable chunk of the millions of reposessed homes have been a direct result of unmanageable healthcare debts.

That is why most otherwise capitalism-based countries have what you call socialized healthcare. Universal healthcare is unattainable in a strictly Capitalist society.

 

[BTOWN_HUSTLA]

Yes. Unfortunately, that is impossible in a country where the wealthy refuse to treat the masses fairly by sharing the wealth. Most of our citizens cannot realistically afford healthcare, while still having a shot at the American Dream of improving their lot in life. A quite sizeable chunk of the millions of reposessed homes have been a direct result of unmanageable healthcare debts.

That is why most otherwise capitalism-based countries have what you call socialized healthcare. Universal healthcare is unattainable in a strictly Capitalist society.

You do know the wealthy already pay most of the income taxes in the United States as it is? the masses are there for a reason. They have no shot in the american dream if they want to live off the success of others.