Posted on 10/05/2012 1:18:09 PM PDT by pgyanke
Why not mandate that hospitals provide treatment of all “pre-existing conditions” for a flat rate of, say, $20 an hour, all drugs and tests included?
If you mandated the latter, hospitals would go out of business because their business would no longer be profitable, and you would have no place to go to get your condition treated.
Maybe Obama can mandate that gasoline be sold for no more than $1.50 a gallon. That will solve gas prices in the same way Obamacare is solving our medical costs mess. Everyone has a right to $1.50 gas but no one can actually find any.
I don't want to trade my healthCARE for somebody else's health insurance and that is what ObamaCare amounts to, IMO.
This is why bleeding heart liberals say that conservatives have to heart.
I am NOT saying that another government mandate is the answer. But I’m saying that we can’t ignore the problem.
What about a child diagnosed with diabetes or one who ran a bout with cancer at five years old? What about a girl with a heart condition from a birth defect that requires a stint?
All of these people (now grown) are not ‘disabled’ in the traditional sense. The grow up, try to go to school or work, but can’t get insured because of things that were inflicted on them as children.
If there’s a gap in my son’s insurance, the great state of Texas said that he could join the state insurance while he looked for work...
if he paid $3000 a MONTH.
Not a year. A MONTH. I called twice and made sure that I heard them correctly.
A healthy 19 year old would have to pay $3000 a MONTH to keep continuous coverage. Without a job.
Because he has a ‘preexisting condition’. A condition that wasn’t anybody’s fault. It’s not caused by smoking or eating wrong. It’s an autoimmune disease.
Trust me, diagnosed at 9 years old, he wasn’t waiting to get sick to get health insurance.
He’s not sick enough to get disability, but if he doesn’t get a shot every four hours, he dies.
He’s the most optimistic human being that I’ve ever met. The ONLY thing that I’ve seen him get depressed enough to blow his brains out over is the impossible task of maintaining health insurance.
Obamacare isn’t the answer, but we can’t keep ignoring the problem. We can’t assume that it’s a simple matter of ‘get a job’.
This forum is the most pro-life forum out there, but once my partially disabled son hits 18, y’all want to throw him to the wolves. Tell him to go figure out a puzzle that’s impossible to figure out. The deck is stacked in such a way that kids with lifetime problems and the working poor have no hope.
The preexisting issue is a REAL problem.
I’m voting for Romney and repeal of Obamacare - even though I’m terrified for my son. I’m doing it because I truly believe that my son’s best hope is a thriving economy. I believe that Obamacare is MUCH worse for everyone - including my son.
I’m libertarian enough to want the gov’t out of the problem-solving business, but we’ve got a LOT of people who wouldn’t have survived childhood illnesses just 60 years ago that keep on ticking.
The natural order has been disrupted by modern medicine and our economy has not caught up.
-----------
The first thing to note is that Paul Krugman (and others of a like mind) lack an understanding of the definition of insurance. The first rule of insurance is that the risk of loss must be aleatory (that's a Latin term which means there must be an element of chance). If there is no element of chance to the risk of loss, it isn't insurance. It's simply a transfer payment.
For an example, let's take a look at home-owner's insurance. When we buy home-owner's insurance, we are trying to cover ourselves against the risk of loss of our home due to unforeseen circumstances (fire, wind, fallen trees, et al). If we didn't have to already have insurance before the covered event occurred, we could simply buy insurance when our house catches on fire to make the insurance company pay for our loss instead of us. Clearly, that is a business model that makes no sense for the insurance company. Their whole ability to pay claims comes from the premiums paid by their customers and the diversified risk of loss among them. If the chance of loss is 100% among the risk pool... let's just say they won't be able to meet their obligations and will stop providing coverage.
In the healthcare insurance debate, the first thing the Democrats have successfully done is to equate insurance with healthcare. People lacking insurance are not automatically lacking healthcare. In fact, one significant reason healthcare costs in this country are so high is because our hospitals may not turn away someone in need. If that person is unable to pay, the expense often gets written off and those who do pay make up the difference to allow the hospital to keep functioning. Relative to care, our system is the envy of the world. That isn't the case on the side of cost but you and I have already talked extensively on the many factors (many of them government-driven) which have made our healthcare system so expensive.
Obamacare introduced the idea of "no pre-existing conditions may be excluded" into the healthcare insurance debate. However, as even my liberal Congressman was forced to admit in a conversation with me, that approach makes absolutely no sense from an insurance standpoint. The insurance companies can't survive the scenario laid before them. If you read the law, you find that citizens will be fined for not having health insurance coverage. The cost of the fine is initially set below the cost of insurance. Rational people will simply pay the fine and get the "insurance" when they need it. That tips the risk pool for the insurance company toward a certainty in regards to claims-paying. They will simply go out of business and we will be left with the government for our insurance needs. This is known as "single-payer" coverage when the government is the sole source. It is the purpose of Obamacare and the reason these provisions begin next year... so they occur after this election. It is an absolute lie that we will be able to keep our current insurance plan. This one provision of Obamacare will decimate the industry by itself.
Although I am not in favor of the government's deep involvement in healthcare, it is involved already. The question now is between one plan or another. Gov Romney's plan is at least more sensible in regards to pre-existing conditions. You may not be denied coverage as long as you keep your insurance in force. If your family had health insurance as you were growing up and you kept coverage as you matured, you will maintain coverage... even if you have a terrible disease. The argument against this approach by Krugman is that you must first have had coverage and have been able to keep up with the premiums. It's a fair question to ask whether he or President Obama have read the Obamacare bill. Their approach is to mandate all citizens buy insurance or be fined by the government. It's the same approach as Gov Romney--but without the liberty to decline. If they are so concerned about the premium-paying ability of their constituents, they picked a funny way to show it. The fine is initially set lower than the cost of insurance but it rises over the years to be very significant... when the government is the sole insurer. If the criticism of Gov Romney's plan is that you must maintain continuous coverage... how does Obamacare escape such criticism?
Gov Romney's approach is more sensible, allows citizens their liberty in participation, and is in keeping with a true definition of insurance. Again, he is a businessman at heart and understands the insurance industry better than those who are forcing it to function outside of its business model.
There are no easy, pat solutions, but the solution is out there and I'm pretty sure it doesn't involve the gub'mint.
Marie,
I sympathize with your issue. As you stated, Obamacare isn’t the answer... but we do need a solution. Personally, I would rather each state set up a direct healthcare-welfare program where their 5-10% chronically-ill uninsured could simply be taken care of by the government paying into a high-risk pool than see what has been done to us under Obamacare. It would be much more efficient in terms of stream-lining the system and much more targeted in getting care for those who truly need it and can’t afford it. In the end, it would save money over the bureaucratic approach we take to every government solution today.
May God bless you and your family.
You see, her son will die if he does not get his shot every four hours. He's TRYING to find a job but in Obama's economy that can be rather tough. The State of Texas wants to rip him off to the tune of $3,000 a month.
We all agree that ObamaCare is an unmitigated disaster; send it to /dev/null posthaste!
Might I suggest tort reform as one way to get costs down? (whatever happened on that front under President Bush?) And might I suggest insurance across state lines?
Should the government be setting the cost of bandaids?
Also, charities... charities devoted to helping with this type of situation. Are there any?
This is more your league than mine. I'm just throwing out ideas.
Is there not a parallel also with giving patterns of politicians broken by party?
My reply in 67 was for the email this thread referenced. My reply to Marie is in 68 and references her particular situation. Again, states could provide this coverage for those who can’t afford it free of charge more cheaply than the bureaucratic systems they currently have in place.
Go to Lloyds of London.
Don’t carry car insurance and crash your car into another causing injuries and then call State Farm to insure it and cover your loss. What do you think the agent will say.
Fogetaboudid! And go to the high risk pool if you plan to continue driving.
>>As an uninsured, develop pre-existing conditions and call Blue Cross and ask them to cover it. What do you think the agent will say.<<
Go the the high risk pool for immediate coverage, wait six-months and if you're OK, reapply for regular health insurance coverage.
I would agree with this. I also thing that EVERY PATIENT must pay something for each doctor's visit and test. Even if it's only $10-20. This would cut down on abuse of the system, but be low enough that family or charities could help out.
And yes. I believe that this includes Medicaid, Medicare and TriCare. FREE medical care is a disaster.
These vary from state to state...BUT:
Insurance carriers often honor each other’s preX when an insured party changes companies.
A preX usually imposes a waiting period...like six months, NOT an outright denial of coverage.
I live in liberal Maryland, and the state of Maryland runs a high-risk pool for the otherwise uninsurable. It provides excellent insurance coverage at a competitive rate for those who otherwise couldn't get insurance at affordable prices. It subsidizes the premiums for low-income folks (the premiums are competitive, but they still run many hundreds, or even over a thousand dollars per month - might not be affordable for someone making $25K per year) so that anyone who wishes to have insurance can have it. All without forcing folks to buy what they don't want!
And Gov. Romney actually explicitly lays this out as part of his solution.
Here is a quote from Gov. Romney's website:
Restore State Leadership and Flexibility
Mitt will begin by returning states to their proper place in charge of regulating local insurance markets and caring for the poor, uninsured, and chronically ill. States will have both the incentive and the flexibility to experiment, learn from one another, and craft the approaches best suited to their own citizens.
- Block grant Medicaid and other payments to states
- Limit federal standards and requirements on both private insurance and Medicaid coverage
- Ensure flexibility to help the uninsured, including public-private partnerships, exchanges, and subsidies
- Ensure flexibility to help the chronically ill, including high-risk pools, reinsurance, and risk adjustment
- Offer innovation grants to explore non-litigation alternatives to dispute resolution
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care
To say that Gov. Romney hasn't spelled out a plan to cover individuals with pre-existing conditions is a lie. A plain, indecent lie. Those telling the lie are evil.
Actually, federal law already requires that those with continuous coverage cannot be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions when they change insurers. For those with continuous coverage, no waiting period.
sitetest
And THIS is what I’m asking for.
We have more people surviving medical conditions that would’ve been fatal than we’ve ever had in human history. This is a blessing, but it’s also a curse.
Both of my children have primary immunodeficiency syndrome. (Another preexisting condition) They’ve survived countless rounds of bacterial and fungal infections. They are going to continue to get sick - curable illnesses that just lay them up for a time - and they are going to need help. This will never get better. This will never end.
These illnesses make it very difficult for them to always have steady work.
Hell, in the modern economic situation, it’s unusual for ANYONE to have steady work.
My grandfather got a job at a car manufacturing plant when he was a young man. Steady pay, blue cross, retirement. He worked there for 40 years.
This is so abnormal now. Even before Obama, the fluidity of the job market was incredible. The only place you can find that kind of job security is in gov’t jobs and it’s been that way for almost 20 years. Outsourcing, companies rising and falling and restructuring on a regular basis, new companies coming out of nowhere. We’re in a very strange situation. Again, the old rules don’t account for that.
To say, ‘you’ll be fine as long as you don’t have a gap in your coverage’ is insane. With the Obama economy, it’s a thousand times worse.
We need to work for solutions or the desperate will grab onto any lifeline they can get a hold of. This is how socialism and communism gets their foothold.
For decades, the republicans controlled Congress and they ignored these worsening problems. It did reach a crisis mode. The dems offered a solution.
Even though most of the public is against Obamacare, the vast majority is FOR extending coverage to young adults on their parents’ plan and for the preexisting condition clause.
If the price were affordable, I’d PAY my son’s premiums to keep him on our insurance. I’m not looking for a freebie. But young people need time to get their lives in order. The old days where an 18 year old man was able to step out into the world and provide for himself and his family are long-gone. (That’s a whole ‘nuther subject.)
If we repeal Obamacare and do not have answers to these issues, we’re setting ourselves up for another desperate takeover.
Again, you’re doing the right thing. You’re recognizing that this is a problem that we must face. As a group, conservatives cannot continue to bury our heads in the sand on these issues.
A thriving economy with tons of energy production and lots of opportunity is the best start. But we can’t ignore our ‘walking sick’.
Actually you can have a gap in coverage under HIPAA but it can't be for more than 63 days.
Thank YOU!!! THIS is what I needed to see!
Saying that Romney doesn’t have a good, detailed plan is not being dishonest. We can’t find the information! It’s buried under so much background noise that it’s hard to even tell fact from fiction.
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.