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.
Yes it costs more. Life stinks sometimes doesn't it?
So who should pay for people with pre-existing conditions?
You won't trap me with this argument. If one has a pre-existing condition and group insurance provided by an employer, the employee, the employer, and the group pay for it.
I think all insurance should cover pre-existing conditions. No one is a blank slate by the time they reach adulthood.
You won't trap me with this argument. If one has a pre-existing condition and group insurance provided by an employer, the employee, the employer, and the group pay for it.
I think all insurance should cover pre-existing conditions. No one is a blank slate by the time they reach adulthood.
If all insurance should cover pre-existing conditions then WHO pays for it? I'm talking about the case where people don't have an employer or choose not to get employer insurance. Easy question. It's always easy to spends someone else's money....
If all insurance should cover pre-existing conditions then WHO pays for it? I'm talking about the case where people don't have an employer or choose not to get employer insurance. Easy question. It's always easy to spends someone else's money....
That is true, but if I decline their insurance, they refuse to pay me the money to get another plan.
As for separating between workplace and health insurance, its not a minute too soon. Employers should be freed from this obligation.
Most companies have "flex dollars" that they give you to PURCHASE their health plan. If you decline, you get the money in your check or you can apply it to other programs like increased life or disability insurance.
The current system of coupling health care benefits to employment, IMHO, is stupid. Few if any developed countries do this. In most other countries where you work has nothing to do with what health care coverage you have available to you. But here in the U.S., it has almost everything to do with your health care coverage you can get and plays a huge part in what jobs you will take (or which jobs you can afford to quit due to loss of health coverage). That is just absurd!
There should be either a single-payer, Medicare for all type system. And/or there should be a private-provider based system but in which the entire U.S. population is treated as one big gigantic health insurance pool and market.
Anyway, the point is that where you work should have nothing to do with what health coverage you can get.
Imagine, say, if where you worked limited your options in terms of where you could shop for groceries or clothes or where your children could go to school, etc etc. For instance, if you worked at XYZ company, you could shop at certain stores at reasonable prices but would have to pay exhorbitant prices if you shopped elsewhere. And if you were fired or quit, you'd have to pay exhorbitant prices to shop anywhere. Well you would say that that is absurd. But is it not really any less absurd than saying that where you work determines what insurance you can get for reasonable coverage at a reasonable price.
Here are some articles that talk about this among many others:
Yes it costs more. Life stinks sometimes doesn't it?
So who should pay for people with pre-existing conditions?
Every single person who lives long enough will have a pre-existing condition. Every person will either get sick, has been sick, or is currently sick, there is no way to escape this. So using the line that some how a person with a pre-existing condition is abnormal, is a ridiculous idea.
No company I ever worked for mandated that I take the insurance they offered. If you don't want it, don't take it.
ummm you missed the point. it isn't about having to say no at work but having work not be the place you can get the care.
The OP is right. people with different jobs get different levels of care because of the way a particular job structures the benefits or who their carrier is.
I agree they should not be tied together but unfortunately it has always been this way and the dinosaurs just can't see other options. When the Affordable Health Care Plan was approved they wanted nothing but to kill it, as if they have a better way.
Seems
we would be far closer to fair if it was tied to the Social Security card , something that is tied to citizens only.
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.
