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.
It's more like a plain health care payment co-op or commune, where all money is put into a pool and doled out as needed.
Nothing wrong with that (well, see below), but you should call it what it is rather than pretend it's "insurance".
Perhaps government should set up programs that cover only pre-existing conditions patients, and leave genuine insurance (i.e. without pre-existing conditions) to the free market.
Insurance is something that protects against huge losses by, when a person incurs a huge loss, pays for it out of a pool of money all its customers have paid in. It signs in clients based on the idea that none of them have huge problems at present, but a few might incur them later. If they can restrict their new clientele to just people who presently have nothing wrong with them, their costs will be lower. And they can compete successfully for customers.
If, however, they are required to take in people who have a pre-existing condition, they must (a) charge the people with pre-existing conditions a much higher premium since they are guaranteed to need much higher payouts up front; or (b) charge EVERYONE higher premiums to cover the pre-existing conditions, leaving most of them wondering why their premiums went up so much when they didn't get any sicker. (Sound familiar, Obamacare subjects?). And in a competitive world, most people will opt for the companies with lower premiums: Those that don't accept people with pre-existing conditions.
Companies that don't accept people with pre-existing conditions, are the only ones that can compete or even survive in a normal world of sovereign citizens. Healthy people (that's most of them) will leave the companies that accept the pre-existing conditions, and go instead to those who don't, because they get the same service for less paid in premiums. That leaves the companies that accept pre-existing conditions, with ONLY the people who already have expensive maladies or injuries, and their costs will soar as they pay for high-priced care for ALL their remaining customers.
If a company accepts pre-existing conditions, it's not "insurance". It's simply a co-op for people with problems. No one else will want to be a part of it, and the companies know they CANNOT survive without those usually-healthy people.
If you want to set up a company that accepts pre-existing, fine, go ahead. But don't pretend it's "insurance". Nothing could be further from the truth.
Perhaps government should set up programs that cover only pre-existing conditions patients, and leave genuine insurance (i.e. without pre-existing conditions) to the free market.
Socialize losses and privatize profits, it's the American way.
Perhaps government should set up programs that cover only pre-existing conditions patients, and leave genuine insurance (i.e. without pre-existing conditions) to the free market.
THAT is exactly what they are trying to do! Replacing a failing mess the dems created all on their own, even as millions said it would fail, with a hybrid of a portable private market and government subsidized system to cover those with existing health issues.
Insurance doesn't cover pre-existing conditions, period. Its a business model that was set up with some very sound statistical and mathematical concepts behind it.
Covering pre-existing conditions is important, but needs to be done outside of traditional insurance plans, because conceptually this isn't "insurance" and its not what that product was designed to do.
Insurance doesn't cover pre-existing conditions, period. Its a business model that was set up with some very sound statistical and mathematical concepts behind it.
Covering pre-existing conditions is important, but needs to be done outside of traditional insurance plans, because conceptually this isn't "insurance" and its not what that product was designed to do.
It's designed to make profits for Wall Street and that aspect needs removed.
Universal coverage paid for by robust payroll tax that everyone including congress pays. Covers dollars 1 to 200 (checkup) and 2700 and up. 2x for a family. The middle money is your problem, possibly from private insurance like Medigap.
Paying 2500 sucks if you have an operation but it beats a million dollar bill.
Hey, just do it. Stop covering pre-existing conditions, take away coverage from millions, increase prices three to five times for seniors, just do it. This is the GOP way. I am not on Obamacare but a ton of Republicans in the south are. Take it all way from them and there better not be one single complaint from them. They voted for this and they deserve to get a belly full of it. And when they start crying about loss of coverage, price increases for seniors, etc. Republicans can call them snowflakes. I'm tired of caring more about them than they care themselves. They voted to lose it, take it away. They so deserve this.
It's designed to make profits for Wall Street and that aspect needs removed.
Nope. Thats where you also get innovation, improved services, and competition. Basic health insurance to cover broken bones, blood tests, stitches, minor surgery is perfectly fine in a for profit model.
Catastrophic risks, life and death conditions, sure, figure out something else for that.
Wall St. isn't always the boogie man / monster people like to make it out to be. Heck, some of our very own American citizens have wished for their other citizens to be killed in war before, so there are definitely bigger monsters out there than Wall St.
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.