Posted on 11/05/2018 8:09:28 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Bump!
great explanations!
Obama and the Marxists destroyed the US medical system and we’re still reaping the horrors of that reality. I had a conversation with friends yesterday and we were discussing how awful medical care has become. Most physicians seem to only want to do is hand out prescriptions for medications made in some hell hole out of the USA.
This won’t make your day!! Patient beware!!
https://www.kansas.com/news/nation-world/national/article221081740.html
A patient went in for a standard back surgery. She awoke one kidney short.
Insurance company agrees to accept 90% of applicants, the generally healthy ones; can't shift off if they get sick.
Insurance company accepts your choice of doctors at market prices
Insurance companies can sell in any state
Government offers safety net insurance for people, those 10% with pre-existing conditions.
Let the free market work.
Democrats always claim they want to help people.. All they ever do is entrap them.
Said by a real doc in the field
My new rule
You have to have 10 years in real job before you can be in Congress
Rule 2. No attorneys allowed !
Thanks for the ping!
Right now, you cannot buy a policy which does NOT cover substance abuse in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, even if you refuse to put that $#*+ into your body. Even if you get it through an employer who has you pass a drug test as a condition of hiring you.
Nor can you buy a policy in the State of Delaware which is NOT larded up with mandates to cover conditions exclusive or nearly exclusive to the homosexual lifestyle.
Agree!
A sensible explanation. Boy, I’ll be he’s going to get a lot of hate mail.
The cost of medicine for pre-existing conditions should be revisited. It is a crime how drug companies soak those who are dependent upon monthly prescriptions to live.
When your house is on fire, call an insurance agent, tell him the current condition of your house, and try to purchase an insurance policy.
The house fire is a pre-existing condition, and he will not sell you a policy.
The same should be true for health insurance.
Think about it ...
Insurance claims don't adhere to typical economic principles of supply and demand because there are three parties to every transaction, not two. This is not a serious problem with something like life insurance because there a finality about death that makes the claims process and the aftermath much more clear, but for health insurance it introduces a flaw that always rears its ugly head. If I need medical care, we have three parties to the transaction who operate under conditions that do not apply to a "pure" economic transaction . . . (A) I have already paid for the insurance, so I really don't care how much the treatment costs -- I want the best care, best service, etc.; (B) the insurance company doesn't have to live with the consequences of poor medical treatment, so it doesn't really care about the quality of the doctor, the procedures, etc.; and (C) the doctor and medical facility is dealing with two "customers" who have two different goals in mind in the transaction. The end result is that the insurance keeps getting more expensive because there is no way for prices to be regulated by "the market" through normal supply and demand considerations.
There should be a one time, six-months amnesty, during which people w preexisting conditions can get insurance. That is it.
It is not fair to everyone else that people don’t get insurance while healthy, just wait until they get some terrible illness, then want to get insurance.
Really? How much do you charge for the medication YOU have developed?
bookmark
A better approach is to clearly define what exactly a "pre-existing condition" means ... so it reflects the way other types of insurance work.
If you have no insurance today and then you have a medical condition that requires expensive care, then yes -- you have a "pre-existing condition" (by any definition) if you go out and try to buy medical coverage.
On the other hand ... if you are already insured today and you have a medical condition that requires ongoing treatment, your condition should NOT be considered "pre-existing" if you change insurance carriers. Your continuity of insurance should protect you in all cases. In the example I cited here, there should be a transparent, regulated process for the two insurance companies (the one covering you when treatment began and the one covering you when you change insurers) to work out the details of who pays for the medical care for that particular illness or injury.
If you are currently ill, any financial contract that has someone else paying the bills is not “insurance,” and no business would willingly enter into a contract that obligated them to pay the bill rather than you.
One could hypothesize a contract that “insured” a person with, say, diabetes: the annual premium would be equal to the expected annual cost of treatment for the diabetes, plus an additional sum towards actual insurance for injuries or further illnesses. It would cost a lot, probably more than paying cash for treatment of diabetes while buying an insurance policy for other stuff.
“pre-existing” conditions is probably too loose a term to be of practical use. It implies conditions that someone has never seen a doctor about.
Should be “conditions that had to be previously paid for, either out-of-pocket or a prior insurance company”.
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.