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 hope you never have a condition that requires you to get blood tests every few months, take medication on a regular basis to control it, lose your job or simply change your job, etc. Would suck for you mighty hard.
While it would suck, you miss the point of the post entirely. Do you actually think insurance companies ought to be required to "insure" someone for something that has already happened? Does that mean I don't need fire insurance until AFTER my house burns down? No car insurance until after I am in a pileup?
You do realize there are conditions that happen that you have absolutely no control over, right? Surely someone couldn't be that thick, could they?
Do you understand what a PRE EXISTING CONDITION is? It's a condition that one has already, before they attempt to purchase the insurance. And while you may have no control over getting the illness, that doesn't explain why someone else (the insurance company, and indirectly, it's other clients) should have to pay for it. Insurance is there to manage risk. To protect against things that MAY happen in the future. No to pay for things you already know you are DEFINITELY going to happen or have already happened.
I hope you never have a condition that requires you to get blood tests every few months, take medication on a regular basis to control it, lose your job or simply change your job, etc. Would suck for you mighty hard.
Sorry, you lose. I do, I have, and did it. It can be done.
Negotiating benefits and negotiating what is covered and what is not - two different ballgames.
Of course pre-existing conditions should not be excluded. Say . . you get cancer and lose your job. You find another one but, guess what? They have insurance but won't cover your cancer treatment.
What would you do?
Either way - the taxpayer will foot the bill. Medicaid ain't free, you know.
This is an entirely different issue. You have insurance. That insurance should NOT be tied to your job. You should keep your insurance when you move jobs. If you get cancer after you bought that policy, you are covered, as the condition did not exist when you purchased the insurance.
Insurance companies do cover pre-existing medical conditions. They just charge through the nose for the coverage.
Obamcare was the best thing that ever happened to the industry. With such a huge base of coverage, no single company has to bear the great risk they all face now individually. Their actuaries know this full well, and that's why many companies have already lowered their rates. They all want to be first in line when the exchanges are in place.
Lowered their rates? Seriously? Everyone I know is paying outrageous increases in their insurance over the past couple of years, ALL BECAUSE OF THIS!
DID YOUR insurance costs go down? Mine went up almost 28% AND my benefits decreased.
Sorry, profit matters very much. Healthcare is not like buying a car, it shouldn't be for profit - somethings, like medical care should be provided on a not-for-profit basis.
If you want medical care to be not for profit, how will you convince people to spend all that time and effort and money on medical school? Most of the best & brightest will find other avenues for their aptitudes, where they can earn far more money. Not for profit medical care will result in not very effective medical care.
health CARE costs lots of money...insurance is a WAY OF PAYING IT
we would NOT save a penny...why because singlepayer (or UHC/NHC) would not control the costs of CARE..or any of the RELATED COSTS for providing that care
Agreed. If health care was seen as free, as with federally run UHC, the costs would go thru the roof.
Health care costs are the most costly item to the budgets in these countries with UHC. Costs are so high, that all any politician talks about during an election, are their schemes and grand plans to bring down the costs of state run UHC.
Health care in this country is focused on providing the best health care possible. Our doctors don't use the cost of health care to base their decisions, if they think you need a CT scan or a blood test, the schedule you one as soon as possible.
Health care in countries with UHC are focused on keeping costs down, one of the ways to keep down costs is reducced availability of various services, like limiting the use of expensive MRI scanners, medical procedures and drugs. there is a reason Canada has a shortage of these scanners, it keeps costs down, with waiting periods to use the few they do have.
Every medium sized town in the US has more then one CT, MRI, PET scanner, ultrasound, fluoroscopy, x-ray machine, and much more. Go to the UK or even Canada, and they don't invest as much in these devices, they have weeks long waiting lines for these.
If the US went to UHC, we too would switch from focusing on the best care, to focusing on keeping down costs.
Switching to UHC will not lower costs. The bureaucrats will take it over, and they won't care about lowering the costs, it won't be any of their concern. It would be like a US Air force truck driver or jet engine mechanic worrying about finding ways to keep costs down for their job. The politicians will just wallpaper over the root causes with the endless well of taxpayer money. The focus will not be on eliminating the root causes to high health care costs either, and we will join every other country with UHC, and blame the people and their lifestyle choices for high costs, and simply limit patient access to care.
Sorry, profit matters very much. Healthcare is not like buying a car, it shouldn't be for profit - somethings, like medical care should be provided on a not-for-profit basis.
Spoiler
Also looking at your numbers you expand the mortgage/lease/fixed costs over the entire population. They are fixed. The mortgage is the same whether 100 or 10,000 people use the facility.
All I see in looking at your numbers is blatant manipulation and distortion to point a spin on your viewpoint.
Oh yeah, the Canadian Healthcare System is doing just fine; your 2006 article is as relevant today as is talking about an article about Bush.
That's just a load of socialist crap and one very big reason government should not be a part of healthcare.
Pre-existing conditions can make sense to cover for the same reason that someone with a bad driving history can get subsidized insurance.
At least then they are paying *something* in and managing their health.
The alternative is you will just see them at the emergency room and never be able to collect from them.
This is covered in various non-partisan actuarial literature. I would suggest further reading and less ranting.
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.
