Posted on 10/07/2009 12:03:26 PM PDT by ElenaM
I think there should at least be a rider that folks with pre-existing conditions can buy to get coverage for their conditions.
As to the questions of “Why should I pay for someones already broken leg” well why should a healthy person pay for another person in the groups bypass, even if they were insured at the time? It’s not the healthy persons fault the other guy did not take care of himself why should his premiums go up to take care of him?
Because that’s what Insurance is. It’s about sharing risks.
I think the biggest problem I have is Insurance Rescission. People who get their policy canceled because they dare get an illness. This is something that must be dealt with.
And if the Democrats were to propose a bill that got rid of insurance rescission except in the cases of outright fraud and failure to pay premiums and eliminate pre-existing condition clauses they could pass that bill in a landslide.
Most people aren’t against a lot of what’s in the bill. It’s the Federalization of Health care, especially decision making, and the single payer by installments “public option” that they are proposing.
If they stripped about 40% of the bill they could get the other 60% passed by very wide margins.
Your point is that it's unfair not to cover people with preexisting conditions. I disagree. I consider it unfair that my insurance bill goes up because my insurance company is required to insure these high risk people. In other words you are spending money that I worked hard to earn....who do you think you are? Obama???
The better alternative is for people to buy insurance before they have a physical problem. Most policies have guaranteed renewability clauses (as long as the premiums are current). That is an acceptable risk. Otherwise you're doing like a previous poster noted - totalling your car and then trying to get insurance to cover it.
How about where a new employee is hired and only THEN acquires some expensive chronic ailment. Should employees who have been contributing to an insurance pool while using minimal amounts of the pool for health care be compelled to pay in both increased premiums and a shrinking money pool for the new employee with a brand new serious health condition?
Duh. That's what insurance is for.
Sounds like you’re doing well. Amazing what modern medicine can do.
In that case, I would imagine it would be paid for by catastrophic (at least the expensive parts of it). I don’t think I remembered to mention that part of my plan. Catastrophic Insurance + Medical Savings Accounts —would bring costs down and would make people responsible for themselves.
Conservatives need to have a better answer for people with preexisting conditions than “tough luck, buddy, you’re screwed.”
I have three preexisting conditions. Two of those conditions do not cause an increased need for health care, and the third has already been treated and resolved. But insurance companies nevertheless look at me as if I am radioactive and decline coverage.
Insurance is pooling of risk. If one has cancer, for instance, what is the risk of getting cancer? There is no probabilistic risk: one already has that decease.
Even simpler: what is the risk of SCHEDULED tooth cleaning? None: it is going to occur with probability 1.
And why stop at health? Suppose someone's roof caves in, and then the house owner seeks INSURANCE that would cover roof damage. This would not be insurance at all. If we cover preexisting conditions in health, why not in auto or home insurance? That would be stupid, wouldn't it?
It is equally stupid to require that of health insurance.
A prospective homeowner chooses to build a home on the Gulf Coast of Florida. The pre-existing condition is known as Hurricane Season. Because of this, people living in landlocked states are forced by big insurance companies to pay higher premiums as those costs trickle into the pool. Expecting me to pay for someone's decision to build on the Gulf Coast is theft and fraud. Therefore, people who build houses in Florida should not be given homeowner's insurance, and eventually it should be illegal to build a home in Florida, altogether.
And you might add "Unconstitutional". At least I didn't see a reference to health insurance in my copy.
How about open up the market place where insurers may see a benefit in offering a product to people with pre-existing conditions. Sure, there may (will) be some sacrifice on the insured's part, such as higher premiums, but just like auto insurance for at-risk drivers, if there is a potential market, that vacuum can be filled with a product.
I understand you were rephrasing a politician’s point. I was essentially asking a rhetorical question. :o)
My main objection to the entire healthcare debate right now is the fact that there is some lingering impression that eqitable policies result in equal outcomes. They don’t.
People (as well as insurers) assume risk. It is integral to freedom. Educating people about their options and the potential consequences of their choices is appropriate. Nevertheless, some will gamble and lose. Others will just have sucky luck.
Attempting to enforce equal results has been tried in many arenas and fails miserably everytime.
The big problem is that insurance companies use it as an excuse to not cover things. I’ve dealt with the hours of questions they come up with to try to find a way to say that the problem was there before you wound up under them. On the surface there are good reasons for the pre-existing condition exception, but in practice they use the fact that you bumped your knee on a table when you were six to not pay for your knee operation when your 40.
If a person without a pre-existing condition becomes seriously ill, say, four months into employment, how much do they really have vested in the pool? Yet, they will get full coverage. If we say, "not enough vested", then how much is "enough vested", when the bills could be running hundreds of thousands of dollars for someone even without a PEC?
That's a down side of universal coverage. Some who don't want coverage can get a religious exemption. For the rest, they will have to have coverage.
For sure, some are in a financial state with their present income to debt ratios that they won't be able to afford a high deductable plan.
For these cases, a method could be set up whereby they are never-the-less enrolled with the public picking up the tab on perhaps a ten year graduated scale. During this period during which the public is picking up some portion of the tab, tax liens are placed against their assets. At some point, the public will be repaid and the newly insured should have more than enough time to adjust their finances.
If they are black, they must be covered.
If they are not black, good luck to them.
But we do cover pre-existing conditions in places like the Gulf Coast and the foothills of California and in areas of higher crime rates. Those are pre-existing conditions of home ownership and we all pay higher premiums for it, wherever we live.
Sounds like “Gattaca”
I am! 80% of people with my injury and surgery don’t have bowel and bladder control, and just over 50% don’t walk. My neurosurgeon and pain docs say I’m the only patient they’ve ever had who works full time. So I’m doing very well. I wouldn’t trade the care I received for all the money in the world.
For this reason, the feds offer flood insurance.
Also, homeowner’s rates on the coast are always higher than 20 miles inland. The same cannot be said of health insurance. When you join a group plan, your premium isn't higher because you're 50 and have HBP. Your premium is the same as the next person in the group, and if enough 50 year olds with HBP are enrolled everyone’s premiums go up.
It isn't an apples-to-apples comparison.
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.