Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think Glenfield is making a valid point to the extent that he's talking about "routine maintenance" - whether it's home maintenance - auto maintenance - or health maintenance. Things that most people do on a regular basis.
Like getting their teeth cleaned. You can perhaps argue that there should be a mechanism for paying to have a kid's teeth cleaned when his family can't afford the care. But that is a side issue. When you buy a dental "insurance policy" that covers getting your teeth cleaned - you're simply passing the dollars for getting your teeth cleaned through an insurance company on their way to the dentist. Not only is this not "insurance" - it's a very inefficient way to pay your dentist. Robyn
You still don't understand insurance, Robyn. The reason dental insurers provide "cleaning" benefits is to PREVENT more major problems from occurring, which then cost a lot more for both the patient and the insurance company.
That's the fallacy of SICK insurance as opposed to HEALTH insurance. Up until the ACA, few, if any, preventive measures were covered--but almost all the MAJOR SICK problems were. It was backasswards as it existed.
I don't know all the procedures that are covered automatically with little or no deductible, but for the first time this year I got a colonoscopy with no-copay--(dependent coverage of my wife's policy, not medicare)--and that is a change that resulted from requirements in the ACA. It's far cheaper to find a polyp and remove it than wait until it becomes cancer and major surgery is required. THAT is HEALTH insurance.
P.S. Do a little research on how dental health, or lack of it, affects the overall health of people.
We don't really have health insurance in this country, not in a true sense. Insurance is a risk pool where you are paid for an unexpected event. What we really have is a pool to share health care costs.
If your homeowner's policy looked like your health insurance the insurance company would pay to wash your windows and paint your house. If your auto insurance looked like your health insurance the insurance company would pay for car washes and oil changes.
Do you think anyone would paint their own house or miss a weekly car wash if it was on the insurance company? Home and auto maintenance costs would skyrocket. No wonder the system we have doesn't work.
I am glad to see that this post has generated some interesting discussion. I want to clarify my point here a bit. It wasn't that certain maintenance costs can't be shared or pooled, just that this is different than insurance. To go back to the house apology, I have a homeowner's policy that would cover against an unforeseen event, such as a fire. It doesn't cover routine maintenance to my furnace. For that, I can choose to pay out of pocket or perhaps go with some prepaid plan with the furnace company. In the area of health care, we mix the two. I'm simply suggesting that by thinking along these lines, we might be able to price things better and offer consumers chooses that better meet their needs. Those that chose protection against unforeseen events would pay for that. Those that chose to pool maintenance costs with others could pay into that pool. The first is unforeseen while the second is completely predictable.
I am glad to see that this post has generated some interesting discussion. I want to clarify my point here a bit. It wasn't that certain maintenance costs can't be shared or pooled, just that this is different than insurance. To go back to the house apology, I have a homeowner's policy that would cover against an unforeseen event, such as a fire. It doesn't cover routine maintenance to my furnace. For that, I can choose to pay out of pocket or perhaps go with some prepaid plan with the furnace company. In the area of health care, we mix the two. I'm simply suggesting that by thinking along these lines, we might be able to price things better and offer consumers chooses that better meet their needs. Those that chose protection against unforeseen events would pay for that. Those that chose to pool maintenance costs with others could pay into that pool. The first is unforeseen while the second is completely predictable.
Failure to pay for auto washes or oil changes are unlikely to result in an automobile accident for which the insurance company has contracturally accepted liability.
Failure to get check-ups or flu shots, or pneumonia shots, can be VERY expensive for an insurance company, so there is incentive to make sure people get those things to prevent the bigger things from happening. Since we are going to pay for the very sick ANYWAY, through our emergency rooms which is out of sight expensive, then why not provide them with preventive care to keep them from going there?
That is one of the principles contained in the ACA, and it is a good one.
Failure to control costs is a bad one.
Voting, as the Republicans did in 2003-or 04 to prevent the government from negotiating costs for drugs with pharmaceutical companies for medicare, was another bad decision that has been a pain to every American in the country. But the pharmaceutical industry poured tens of millions of dollars into the coffers of congressmen to make sure that would not take place--as it does in all the other industrialized countries were the exact same drugs are from 25% to 50% lower.
I am glad to see that this post has generated some interesting discussion. I want to clarify my point here a bit. It wasn't that certain maintenance costs can't be shared or pooled, just that this is different than insurance. To go back to the house apology, I have a homeowner's policy that would cover against an unforeseen event, such as a fire. It doesn't cover routine maintenance to my furnace. For that, I can choose to pay out of pocket or perhaps go with some prepaid plan with the furnace company. In the area of health care, we mix the two. I'm simply suggesting that by thinking along these lines, we might be able to price things better and offer consumers chooses that better meet their needs. Those that chose protection against unforeseen events would pay for that. Those that chose to pool maintenance costs with others could pay into that pool. The first is unforeseen while the second is completely predictable.
We used to not cover preventive care at 100%, as recently as just 2 years ago. Studies find that people won't go in as regularly for their annual physicals if they have some out of pocket costs, co-pay or whatever. With free preventive care, more people will go in for those physicals and conditions found sooner, and treatment will cost less. They would rather pay $200 for that physical then $200,000 for a heart attack, so costs are being "shared" by eliminating those huge bills in many cases.
Your home owner's insurance does require you to keep your home in good repair and if you are found negligent of that, you won't get paid for that fire you caused due to your negligence...
Failure to pay for auto washes or oil changes are unlikely to result in an automobile accident for which the insurance company has contracturally accepted liability.
Failure to get check-ups or flu shots, or pneumonia shots, can be VERY expensive for an insurance company, so there is incentive to make sure people get those things to prevent the bigger things from happening. Since we are going to pay for the very sick ANYWAY, through our emergency rooms which is out of sight expensive, then why not provide them with preventive care to keep them from going there?
That is one of the principles contained in the ACA, and it is a good one.
Failure to control costs is a bad one.
Voting, as the Republicans did in 2003-or 04 to prevent the government from negotiating costs for drugs with pharmaceutical companies for medicare, was another bad decision that has been a pain to every American in the country. But the pharmaceutical industry poured tens of millions of dollars into the coffers of congressmen to make sure that would not take place--as it does in all the other industrialized countries were the exact same drugs are from 25% to 50% lower.
If your front ball joints start to go bad they could fail and lead to an accident, but your auto insurance will not pay to fix them. And while it is correct that your homeowner's policy requires you to keep your house in good repair, you pay to do that not the insurance company. Health insurance seems to be the only type that includes routine maintenance in the covered events.
If your front ball joints start to go bad they could fail and lead to an accident, but your auto insurance will not pay to fix them. And while it is correct that your homeowner's policy requires you to keep your house in good repair, you pay to do that not the insurance company. Health insurance seems to be the only type that includes routine maintenance in the covered events.
So???? There is a big difference between keeping your house painted and keeping someone alive
Not when you are trying to use it as a concrete example....
That they insure different things does not mean that there cannot be parallels, and I never suggested that there not be some sort of pooling of preventive healthcare costs. Others seem to appreciate this, yet you have to take exception to everything I post in every forum. I do not know what it is that I did to you, but you really seem to take this personally and have gotten downright nasty of late, to the point of personal attacks. I even apologized in the MN forum for having offended you in any way, yet though you seem to respond to just about every other thing I post, you never even acknowledged my attempt to make peace with you. I don't know what your issue is, but because you come after me on just about every post, I am certain that the debate you want to have really has nothing to do with healthcare.
That they insure different things does not mean that there cannot be parallels, and I never suggested that there not be some sort of pooling of preventive healthcare costs. Others seem to appreciate this, yet you have to take exception to everything I post in every forum. I do not know what it is that I did to you, but you really seem to take this personally and have gotten downright nasty of late, to the point of personal attacks. I even apologized in the MN forum for having offended you in any way, yet though you seem to respond to just about every other thing I post, you never even acknowledged my attempt to make peace with you. I don't know what your issue is, but because you come after me on just about every post, I am certain that the debate you want to have really has nothing to do with healthcare.
Not to derail this further but....go back and read these posts and then tell me who is attacking whom...moving on..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
