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.
That is entirely up to the individual. If they want to debase themselves and live in abject poverty because they are afraid, that is their choice. Personally, I would rather live what remains of my life with a modicum of dignity than lose all self-respect and become a parasite upon society. That is my choice.
So you would tell a young person in their mid twenties that their life isn't worth saving and that they should just suck it up and die with dignity so you can save that couple bucks a year it would take to treat them and allow them to live a long, relatively normal life.
With the disorder I have it would take me years to die. Of course, I'd spend a good solid 30 or so of those years wheelchair bound and in extreme pain... But hey, as long as you get to buy that new tv all is good!
I do believe that taking care of our infirmed and helping them to live as productive and normal a life as possible is extremely important, regardless of costs. I do t believe in greed that causes death.
The problem is that you, and others who take a similar line, are led into a not unreasonable misunderstanding of health "insurance".
Our health care system, although administered largely by insurance companies, is better understood as a system of health care financing rather than health insurance. It distributes, or socializes, the costs not just of unpredictable expenses like medical costs caused by accidents or unknown illnesses, but also of the costs of chronic conditions, maintenance medications, and even, in more enlightened policies, well care like annual physicals, mammograms, Pap smears, and contraception.
One of the ways our current system socializes costs is by forcing hospitals to provie emergency care even for the uninsured. This, of course, puts the burden on the hospitals, who pass these costs along to all other payers.
Your proposal to create some kind of assigned risk pool for people with preexisting conditions is unworkable for a couple of reasons. First, there are plenty of people who have preexisting conditions without knowing it, so they don't know that they should be buying into the pool. Second, and probably more fundamental, is the problem of adverse selection. The only people who would buy the coverage are those who know they need it, which means that it will be ridiculously expensive. It's like optical coverage: the only people who buy it, generally, are people who already know they need glasses, so it doesn't save you much over just buying your glasses when you want or need to.
Of course, all systems that rely on insurance companies have a major flaw: they wind up shoveling an unreasonable share of health care costs to insurance companies, which add nothing to the system but spend millions of dollars trying to deny claims or apportion costs between carriers. If we could take them out of the picture we would be way better off.
They could have simply "fixed" health insurance by providing some sort of pre existing pool for these folks instead of trying to revamp the entire thing. Government sells flood insurance to folks who get flooded all the time why not health insurance to those with a pre existing condition that aren't covered? That would be too simple though. Gotta redo it all with a bill nobody had the time to read.
How did humans survive all those years without health insurance?
They paid the doctor in chickens and in installments. If there were no chickens, they died.
Quote:
Originally Posted by northstar22
No, preexisting conditions should not be covered under "regular" health insurance . . . . because there should be no "regular health insurance." I support 100% federally run, single-payer free health insurance for ALL Americans -- including those with preexisting health issues. Healthcare is one aspect of life in which the "free market" should have no say.
Hallelujah! Northstar22 for president and Congress!
Should "Pre-Existing" conditions be covered under regular health insurance?
Yes.
For as long as I can remember, my health insurance plan (Blue Cross/Blue Shield Federal Benefit Plan) has covered any pre-existing condition. And it's not just that plan - regardless of the specific plan, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program does not allow its participating health carriers to deny or delay medical benefits or coverage based on a pre-existing condition.
So why doesn't the government pay for all types of insurance?
Health insurance is fundamentally different than auto or homeowners insurance.
For starters, you don't have the option of 'totaling' a human life (if the damage is too bad) and buying a new one like you do with a car or a home.
You also have the problem of chronic diseases that require lifetime care. This is not a problem with cars or homes.
Thirdly, humans have morality and compassion for one another, which means we dislike watching a person die from an easily treatable ailment. With cars or homes, if someone's car is damaged, nobody is suffering, and we don't feel strongly obliged to help them as we do when someone is dying of leukemia.
There are many other reasons why the health of a human being is fundamentally different than a car or a home and why insuring them is therefore fundamentally different.
Health insurance is a pool. if such conditions are covered its by contract terms and the terms of coverage vary by contract.I fact you will see that the fedweral governamnt in the new heathcare bill is using the 500 billion cut from medicare to subsidise insuring those with pre-existig conditions. It in any pool it adds cost for the pool;so cost more.
Originally Posted by northstar22
No, preexisting conditions should not be covered under "regular" health insurance . . . . because there should be no "regular health insurance." I support 100% federally run, single-payer free health insurance for ALL Americans -- including those with preexisting health issues. Healthcare is one aspect of life in which the "free market" should have no say.
and just HOW would you pay for it
singlepayer would cost about 3 trillion to 6 trillion A YEAR
based on the 105 million taxpayers (IRS numbers of 1040 filers) that would be 30k to 60k to each taxpayer...can YOU afford that????
singlepayer would cost about 3 trillion to 6 trillion A YEAR
based on the 105 million taxpayers (IRS numbers of 1040 filers) that would be 30k to 60k to each taxpayer...can YOU afford that????
I saw a top secret report showing that the US pays more per person than any other country. That "30 to 60k to each taxpayer" is way higher than what countries with single payer pay. But it IS politically impossible to enact.
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.
