Skip to comments.Health Care’s Bipartisan Problem: The Sick Are Expensive and Someone Has to Pay
Posted on 01/13/2017 12:00:44 PM PST by JeepersFreepers
The 2010 health law, also known as Obamacare, forced insurers to sell coverage to anyone, at the same price, regardless of their risk of incurring big claims. That provision was popular. Not so were rules requiring nearly everyone to have insurance, and higher premiums for healthy people to subsidize the costs of the sick.
If policyholders dont pick up the tab, who will? Letting insurers refuse to sell to individuals with what the industry calls a pre-existing conditionin essence, forcing some of the sick to pay for themselvesis something both parties appear to have ruled out. Insurers could charge those patients more or taxpayers could pick up the extra costs, two ideas that are politically fraught.
Most U.S. health-care spending is for a small number of very expensive patients:
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
To get past the WSJ paywall, simply google the name of the article instead of using the link.
Says who? And don't give me any BS about a "compassionate society." I'm at my compassion limit with all the Welfare and other transfer payments that I support.
If my premiums don't cover me, I'll change insurance companies.
I still get the paywall....hmmmmm.
The overhead in Obamacare is nuts...and non-value added.
As usual, democrats are conflating several issues.
Yes, catastrophic coverage is expensive when something goes wrong. I’d love to have insurance covering just that situation, but they banned it. Catastrophic illness is rare, and the cost of that coverage is not insanely high.
What costs far more is elective medical care. When we say that some service is “free”, there is no incentive not to use that service, even if it’s not needed. I remember noticing that it was cheaper to take my kids to the doctor for the sniffles and get a prescription than it was to pay for over the counter medicines. There is something wrong with that. If we get rid of the “free” items, unnecessary utilization will go down, costs will drop, and we won’t need the unreasonable deductibles and copayments on real services.
I think the healthcare companies that pushed ACA on us should be forced to subsidize those patients for lets say the next 5 years regardless of profit or loss to the company. Let them crash and burn ,, the infrastructure will still be around ,, it’ll just be bought cheaply by someone else and run under a new name.
Totally correct. Nobody is entitled to health care, no matter what these libs think
The political reality is that you will never get enough public support to allow insurance companies to go back to denying coverage for pre-existing conditions.
We have to live in a world of political realities and not an “ideal plane”. And the political realities are that this is DOA with voting public.
Who says someone has to pay? We are told by socialists its all free!
Just crank up the presses and issue more fiat money. You know the stuff backed up by good feelings and unicorn farts.
The left always tries to conflate society with the government.
Government is not so society
Someone has to pay
Says who? And don’t give me any BS about a “compassionate society.” I’m at my compassion limit with all the Welfare and other transfer payments that I support.
It’s interesting that when we were a “christain” nation, people were not afraid to die. Well, there is that, but also, how expensive IS morphene, anyway?
I’m 63 with no insurance. I trust the Lord to provide until the day I die. He has been an EXCELLENT health provider!
The addicted, those seeking a disability of "convenience" and those selecting nonessential but very expensive procedures like sexual reassignment surgery are all in the top 5% category.
Welfare to the receiver == gimme freeshqt i am entitled to
Welfare to the supplier == forced government confiscation of money you earned/invested
Government takes when you earn, they dont give you any back when you lose. But they still take from you, even then.
Well, gee. How in the world were we able to survive as a people for centuries before government, er, taxpayer paid health insurance?
I was warning everyone about this.
And I was laughed at, mocked, made fun of and called a racist and worse.
The people I warned sat there with big smirks on their faces and voted for this anyway.
So now they’re discovering (to their horror) that I was right.
All I can say now is F**K YOU!
I pay for everyone else. I dont go to doctors. I pay for all my supplements and vitamins and exercise gear. I get zero for the money that goes out the door for insurance every year.
I think I see the infamous 80-20 rule in effect.
(Okay, 82-20, to be precise.)
Wrong. Let the free market handle health insurance. Pre-existing conditions can be managed by waiting periods as policies did pre-Obama. The actuaries can figure out the math, companies can sell attractive policies anywhere in America, and Obamacare will forever be the emblem for big government failure.
Back in a college Philosophy class in the 1960s, one of our classes was an ethical discussion about this. What happens when there are expensive cures for diseases, but not the means to provide them for everyone? If I remember, the conclusion was that for every high-priced medical solution, there had to be a low cost option available.
What I would favor is a policy that covered catastrophic situations and diseases....nothing else. For those who chose that option and nothing else (or not even that), there should be first-aid/self-healing clinics for those who choose that. I don't see how else the problem can be solved.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.