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.
Except the cost of the services far out pace the premiums. In order to remain profitable, the premiums would then need to cover not only the expense of the subscribers use, but an addition in order to gain profit.
Insurance is a concept of an emergency use product. That is, most of the subscribers do not end up using the insurance. This allows the company to cover those that end up using in emergency situations and continue to gain a profit. It is an odds game and depending on the odds, the premiums will reflect the rate of occurrence of that covered issue. If everyone used the insurance, it would no longer be an odds game, but a direct service and the premiums would then need to reflect the rate of use and cost.
There are options though to aid those who run into this issue.
Charity is a big one. Many churches/organizations/money drives have stepped in and helped those in these situations to gain medical care for various illness. This is the option for those who were born with an illness or did not take the steps to gain insurance.
Another is to carry catastrophic insurance privately that is designed specifically for these issues. Before the ACA, there were many private plans of this nature which were quite affordable, allowing even the lowest wage worker to add such protections (50-80 bucks a month).
Charities help. But not enough for enough patients in most any locale at any one point in time. Many patients would need ongoing charitable assistance if their medical condition is chronic and expensive.
Obamacare is essentially catastrophic for most, and we both know how that is working out. So make the yearly deductible $20K, and yes premiums would be lower.
I think the problem, and why the Heritage Foundation recommended mandatory enrollment (the part of Obama Care that most conservatives don't like), is that there may not be enough participants who are healthy (paying more in premiums than they use in coverage) to make up for the losses an insurance company takes on people that have an expensive condition at the onset of their coverage.
How should we handle that shortfall in profits for the insurance companies? They'll just stop participating if they lose money, right? That's happened (insurance companies have left state markets) in many states even with the mandatory participation element of Obama Care.
This all very true. But many feel the Mandate is un-American, and too many of our healthy young do not take it seriously enough.
Even worse, he fails to realize that pumping trillions of more newly printed $$$ into the economy levies an invisible "inflation tax" on everyone that harms the no/low-income, middle class, and anyone on a fixed income the most. Their purchasing power decreases as more new money is printed and pumped into the economy.
I would bet that most people rich or poor would rather have sensible HC access than worry about a bit more inflation. I can think of no better money creation/spending program and more useful for so many of our people than one supporting more HC access.
I would bet that most people rich or poor would rather have sensible HC access than worry about a bit more inflation.
A bit more inflation? The US spending on health care is $3.2 trillion/year. Printing an extra $3-4 trillion/year in new money just to pay for health care will result in significantly more inflation than "a bit."
The US has printed $4.5 trillion in new money and injected it into the economy over the past 8 years (QE 1, 2, and 3). Do you understand now why hyperinflation would result from printing about that much in new money each year?
There are options though to aid those who run into this issue.
Charity is a big one. Many churches/organizations/money drives have stepped in and helped those in these situations to gain medical care for various illness. This is the option for those who were born with an illness or did not take the steps to gain insurance.
Another is to carry catastrophic insurance privately that is designed specifically for these issues. Before the ACA, there were many private plans of this nature which were quite affordable, allowing even the lowest wage worker to add such protections (50-80 bucks a month).
Oh you sweet summer child.
Even though I was insured and working (though a relatively low-paying, entry level job) when I was diagnosed with cancer, there wasn't nearly enough charity to ensure that I wasn't skipping medications and appointments because I couldn't afford the copays, nor help to allow me to take time off of work as recommended by my oncologist. Luckily, food banks ensured that I ate most of the time. I can't imagine looking to charity to cover the whole $500,000 bill for my chemo and related appointments had I not been insured. I was treated at one of the best funded hospitals in the world with a robust financial assistance program, but you're out of your mind if you think they forgive/cover more than a small fraction of the bills.
Right now, I volunteer as an application reviewer for one of the charities that turned me down. We help a very small segment (young adult cancer survivors) and comb through their finances in great detail when they apply for assistance. It's easier to get into Harvard than to get financial assistance from us, and we're the largest charity of our kind for this vulnerable population. We routinely have to turn down people who are homeless while going through a cancer relapse at the ripe old age of 25, or other similarly heartbreaking circumstances.
Pre-ACA, the "quite affordable" catastrophic insurance was $800. I was 22 and this was before my cancer diagnosis. Fairly minor preexisting conditions barred me from all but one carrier, and the $800 plus 5 figure deductible was not feasible. I'd love to know where all these $50-80 a month plans were since I've heard them recommended several times in this thread.
Even though I was insured and working (though a relatively low-paying, entry level job) when I was diagnosed with cancer, there wasn't nearly enough charity to ensure that I wasn't skipping medications and appointments because I couldn't afford the copays, nor help to allow me to take time off of work as recommended by my oncologist. Luckily, food banks ensured that I ate most of the time. I can't imagine looking to charity to cover the whole $500,000 bill for my chemo and related appointments had I not been insured. I was treated at one of the best funded hospitals in the world with a robust financial assistance program, but you're out of your mind if you think they forgive/cover more than a small fraction of the bills.
Right now, I volunteer as an application reviewer for one of the charities that turned me down. We help a very small segment (young adult cancer survivors) and comb through their finances in great detail when they apply for assistance. It's easier to get into Harvard than to get financial assistance from us, and we're the largest charity of our kind for this vulnerable population. We routinely have to turn down people who are homeless while going through a cancer relapse at the ripe old age of 25, or other similarly heartbreaking circumstances.
Pre-ACA, the "quite affordable" catastrophic insurance was $800. I was 22 and this was before my cancer diagnosis. Fairly minor preexisting conditions barred me from all but one carrier, and the $800 plus 5 figure deductible was not feasible. I'd love to know where all these $50-80 a month plans were since I've heard them recommended several times in this thread.
Cancer is frequently a terminal disease. Severe auto accidents are frequently deadly. Sometimes bad things happen and people die, even though it doesn't seem "fair." We can't all have equal outcomes. It just isn't possible.
Except the cost of the services far out pace the premiums. In order to remain profitable, the premiums would then need to cover not only the expense of the subscribers use, but an addition in order to gain profit.
Insurance is a concept of an emergency use product. That is, most of the subscribers do not end up using the insurance. This allows the company to cover those that end up using in emergency situations and continue to gain a profit. It is an odds game and depending on the odds, the premiums will reflect the rate of occurrence of that covered issue. If everyone used the insurance, it would no longer be an odds game, but a direct service and the premiums would then need to reflect the rate of use and cost.
You don't seem to understand what insurance is.
If the insurance company isn't making money, that's on them. I disagree with the idea that you buy insurance, but then don't use it when the application fits. You have a contract with the insurer to pay for whatever they say they'll pay. There's nothing in any insurance contract about only using it in an emergency.
There are options though to aid those who run into this issue.
Charity is a big one. Many churches/organizations/money drives have stepped in and helped those in these situations to gain medical care for various illness. This is the option for those who were born with an illness or did not take the steps to gain insurance.
Another is to carry catastrophic insurance privately that is designed specifically for these issues. Before the ACA, there were many private plans of this nature which were quite affordable, allowing even the lowest wage worker to add such protections (50-80 bucks a month).
char gave a good response. I'll add, you don't know squat about churches if you think they all have a few mil sitting around somewhere to pay for someone's hospitalization. Churches may help with transportation, maybe have a fund that would help someone with a prescription, etc, but nothing like what you're talking about.
There is no such thing as "catastrophic" insurance and there hasn't been for decades. Every state, prior to the ACA, had mandates for what an insurance company had to provide in a standard policy. Now the ACA mandates are national and broader. The closest there is to "catastrophic" is these high-deductible policies, which still require certain services to be covered and counted towards the deductible, plus some services to be free at point of service regardless of whether one has met their deductible, e.g. immunization services, well care, and some others.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,610,214 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt
char gave a good response. I'll add, you don't know squat about churches if you think they all have a few mil sitting around somewhere to pay for someone's hospitalization. Churches may help with transportation, maybe have a fund that would help someone with a prescription, etc, but nothing like what you're talking about.
There is no such thing as "catastrophic" insurance and there hasn't been for decades. Every state, prior to the ACA, had mandates for what an insurance company had to provide in a standard policy. Now the ACA mandates are national and broader. The closest there is to "catastrophic" is these high-deductible policies, which still require certain services to be covered and counted towards the deductible, plus some services to be free at point of service regardless of whether one has met their deductible, e.g. immunization services, well care, and some others.
The one thing I've learned about libertarians is that they view the rich as good noble people and everyone else as villainous, lecherous thieves; so they don't care if anyone with a sub 7-figure net worth lives or dies
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.
