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.
You have just unwittingly outlined why a mandate is necessary.
It isn't fair to buy insurance the day that you find out that you need an expensive operation. However, if the government mandated that you have to pay into a system for many years, it doesn't sound so bad.
Or how about we do away with insurance altogether so prices drop IMMEDIATELY to be competitive?
Now the Fed Govt is discussing putting 330,000,000 people in it. Or one like it.
It'll be even less cheap.
It was the primary reason for the failure of Obamacare.
First, Obamacare is a major success, even though Trump has been trying to sabotage it since 1/20/2017. Predictions of disaster have not come true.
Second, the federal government is not trying to put everyone on "it," whatever "it" is.
So, here’s what you need to understand. The Affordable Care Act isn’t magic — it produces losers as well as winners. But it’s not black magic either, turning everyone into a loser. What the Act does is in effect to increase the burden on fortunate people — the healthy and wealthy — to lift some burdens on the less fortunate: people with chronic illnesses or other preexisting conditions, low-income workers.
Because if they want to play in the US market, then they should play fair. EVERYONE has some pre-existing condition. People are much more mobile for their jobs these days. Rare for someone to stay at the same place for more than 5-7 years let alone 35-40 years. Employers have been players in making this happen. They lay people off at the drop of a hat.
Bottom line, if insurance companies want to play in our market then they should cover existing conditions, if not they have the choice not to.
First, Obamacare is a major success, even though Trump has been trying to sabotage it since 1/20/2017. Predictions of disaster have not come true.
Second, the federal government is not trying to put everyone on "it," whatever "it" is.
So, here’s what you need to understand. The Affordable Care Act isn’t magic — it produces losers as well as winners. But it’s not black magic either, turning everyone into a loser. What the Act does is in effect to increase the burden on fortunate people — the healthy and wealthy — to lift some burdens on the less fortunate: people with chronic illnesses or other preexisting conditions, low-income workers.
Obamacare is not a success to me. It raised our rates substantially. It dictates that we should all pay for medicines and coverage even if we don't need them. For example, men pay for birth control even though they will never need it. It's socialism. I should not be required to pay for something that is a personal choice. The only thing in that bill I agree with is the pre-existing clause, mandating insurance companies cover pre-existing conditions.
Obamacare is not a success to me. It raised our rates substantially. It dictates that we should all pay for medicines and coverage even if we don't need them. For example, men pay for birth control even though they will never need it. It's socialism. I should not be required to pay for something that is a personal choice. The only thing in that bill I agree with is the pre-existing clause, mandating insurance companies cover pre-existing conditions.
Obamacare factually slowed the rate of insurance cost inflation to people.
Obamacare is not a success to me. It raised our rates substantially. It dictates that we should all pay for medicines and coverage even if we don't need them. For example, men pay for birth control even though they will never need it. It's socialism. I should not be required to pay for something that is a personal choice. The only thing in that bill I agree with is the pre-existing clause, mandating insurance companies cover pre-existing conditions.
I recognize your talking points from the debate on passage of the ACA.
Men pay a fraction of their coverage for birth control, which insurance companies charge very little, since it prevents expensive birth expenses. However, it's no different than women paying part of their premium to cover men's vasectomies. Or childless couples paying for obstetrics for other people.
Not knowing what coverage you had before it's impossible for me to compare your policy to know if the ACA costs you more. Maybe you had a junk policy that provided little real coverage that's no allowed under the ACA.
In any case, aren't you subject to subsidies, that defray some of the cost?
Companies can cover pre-existing conditions, but the insurance price for everyone will reflect that.
At that point, it becomes more like mandated payments for a universal socialized medicine system than insurance. You may as well cut out the middle man, eject the insurance company from the equation, and tack the mandated payment onto taxes.
But the healthcare system strongly will not like that to the point that it won't happen. Because it will be infintely more difficult to raise healthcare costs, as needed or for any other reason. The nation would likely see a significant decline in healthcare standards as a result.
In reality, though, the insurance was responsible for the inflated costs we see now. There just isn't likely to be a way to back out of the system.
Some people seem to have a very strange view of what insurance companies do. They point to the problem of people who have a pre-existing condition, trying to sign up for new insurance, only to find the insurance companies won't pay for the the treatment for that pre-existing condition.
Of course they won't. That's not what insurance companies do. Whoever said they did?
Insurance is a gambling game where you bet on what will happen in the future. You "bet" that you will get sick or injured, and the company "bets" that you won't. If you get sick or injured, the company pays you the stipulated amount (paying for a portion of your medical treatment etc.), and if you don't, you pay them (premiums). The purpose is to shield you from the "shock" of suddenly and unexpectedly getting hit with huge medical bills... which is why you agreed to the contract.
A pre-existing condition cannot be insured against. It's like betting on the outcome of a horse race that's already been run - there is no "chance" involved, and no "unexpectedness" to the outcome (any more).
Insurance companies are in the business of selling security - the assurance that you won't be suddenly bankrupted by huge medical bills, rehab bills etc. in the future. They do it by insuring huge numbers of people and getting them to each pay relatively small amounts (their premiums) each. They and their clients all know that most of them will never incur the huge medical bills they are worried about. But since no one knows which few people WILL incur them, they are all happy to pay the premiums, for the knowledge they won't have to pay the huge amounts if they turn out to be the unlucky ones.
Insurance companies sell safety from FUTURE possible disasters. And that's all they sell. Asking them to cover pre-existing conditions, is like asking a submarine designer to design a supersonic jet - it's got nothing to do with his business or his area of expertise, and he never volunteered to design jets in the first place, for good reason.
If you want to set up some kind of universal pool to pay for pre-existing conditions, fine, go ahead. But why drag insurance companies into it? It's got nothing to do with their areas of expertise, and they never volunteered to do it in the first place - for good reason.
They set up their rates to cover their population, so they can cover it.
And with our employment based insurance, if someone has coverage and a pre-existing condition, they should be able to switch jobs and continue coverage.
The fallacy is that pre-existing drive up costs dramatically. But if all you are doing is moving from one plan to another, there is zero change in costs.
And most of the uninsured are young with no pre-existing conditions. So you only have a relatively small number of uninsured with large costs. They can be put in a high risk pool.
There are only a handful of things that have a significant impact on costs. Heart conditions, kidneys, cancer are the main ones. Most pre-existing conditions do not have significant costs.
Ok, so let's have another example.
I am in the market for a a used convertible.
I find one, and I buy it, along with purchasing insurance.
The top on the car was terrible, but the rest was great, so I buy the car..
A month after buying the insurance, I put in a claim for the terrible top.
The insurance does not want to pay to replace the top, because it was like that before I bought the insurance.
Why should the insurance company pay to replace a top that was in terrible condition before I even insured the car?
Same goes for pre existing condition when people apply for health insurance.
Why should an insurance company have to pay for a health condition you had before getting the insurance?
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.
