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 am sorry for the loss but what about personal responsibility?
He had the money to go to the doctor. Yet he choose to not go.
The information was clearly available that preexisting were covered under Obama Care regardless of what channel you watch. Yet he choose not to buy it.
Insurance was required by law. Yet he choose not to buy it.
I am surprised he could not get insurance before Obamacare most states had special preexisting condition rules and programs. But I don't know what all the state laws were. Sometimes the insurance is more costly.
Personally I am in favor of providing insurance to those who truly not afford it and I am in favor of a reasonable preexisting coverage law. What is reasonable I am not sure. But I am also in favor of not being forced to buy insurance but I do not believe it is a right that should be free for all.
In spite of the OP headline it was a rare occurrence when someone who could not afford care would die because they could not afford care before the health insurance law.
Some states had high risk insurance pools before the ACA. At peak, only 200,000 people were covered by such pools throughout the US. These pools were designed to exclude the vast majority of people with pre-existing conditions. Tactics used to exclude include:
Capping the number of enrollees
Capping annual claims
Excluding claims related to the preexisting condition
High deductibles
50% co- insurance payments
The basis for Universal Healthcare is that healthcare is a human right and a mandate that everyone maintains basic healthcare insurance. “ Basic” is highly variable, country to country. No two countries do Universal Healthcare the same way.
Given that 75% of us are overweight/ obese, it is obvious there is an acute lack of personal responsibility in the US. Such lack of personal responsibility is incompatible with so called affordable healthcare.
It’s obviously easier to blamethrow than take personal responsibility for ourselves.
In the case of health care, however, there’s an even deeper problem: The G.O.P. can’t come up with an alternative to the Affordable Care Act because no such alternative exists. In particular, if you want to preserve protection for people with pre-existing conditions — the health issue that matters most to voters, including half of Republicans — Obamacare is the most conservative policy that can do that...
And except for health insurance under ObamaCare mandates, exactly none of the insurance types listed will cover something already ruined/broken/uninsurable. There is no preexisting condition for auto, home, workers comp, etc. You don't buy a totaled car at the junkyard, get it insured under a preexisting mandate, then pay a deductible and have the insurance company either fix that car or buy you a new one.
No concept of risk mitigation works under a law that says the insurer must insure that which is already in need of repair. It is no longer insurance under such rules, and adverse selection and human nature guarantee that any such system will fail.
The preexisting mandate was always the singular point of failure in ObamaCare. All the other crap was just icing on the cake.
Insurance is the transfer of risk in exchange for a premium.
No shortage of properties are located in areas where there is no question of repeat flooding, thus claims. Private insurers declined to insure flood risks. Lenders are unwilling to to write mortgages for such properties unless flood insurance is maintained. In absence of a private sector solution, the Federal Government filled the gap. Premiums do not cover claims. Deficit spending pays for it.
No one has to live in an area highly prone to flood risk. It’s a personal choice and the Federal Government insures the risk. Municipalities/ counties and states look to the Federal government for massive bailouts when flooding occurs. Since Katrina, it’s water damage, not wind, causing the most damage.
Unlike flooding, sooner or later most people need healthcare. Heart Disese and Cancer were at one time nearly always fatal Both are now often treatable and increasingly curable, if and when caught early enough. Treatment costs $.
Heart disease and cancer remain the top two causes of death in the US. Nearly everyone knows someone who has been diagnosed with these diseases.
It’s a tad ironic that the Federal Government deems flood insurance a right and ignores healthcare.
The Federal government is the single largest employer in the US. The Eisenhower Admin created the Federal Employees Healthcare Benefit Plan in 1960. It subsidizes healthcare premiums of Federal employees and retirees by 72-75%. Subsidized healthcare premiums are a granted right of every Federal employee and retiree. It is paid for out of general revenues. State / county/ municipal employees are another massive block of public employees who receive substantially subsidized insurance from their respective employers funded out of general revenues.
The people who work for the people tend to have better healthcare benefits than many people who pay for it.
Given that 75% of us are overweight/ obese, it is obvious there is an acute lack of personal responsibility in the US. Such lack of personal responsibility is incompatible with so called affordable healthcare.
Is it really? New Zealand has almost the same share of overweight as America and the same share of people with diabetes and pre-diabetes. And one of the lowest health care costs in the developed world.
People with pre-existing conditions that can't afford a higher premium will not get medical help and they may die.
This is something that should not ever happen in the US.
Both republicans and Dems need to put aside their differences and do something once and for all about this health care debacle.
These politicians get premium health care and they have all forgotten they work for the people of this country.
Shame on all of them.
Bah. Unskilled losers need to accept that is natures way.
(sarcasm alert for the clueless)
One of my friends went two for three on the headline. He ALMOST died but has almost nothing after a lifetime of work as the Hospital took everything after he maxxed his health insurance cap.
He may have had money to see a doctor but how much do you think the treatment would have amounted to? In my area, the people are constantly having fundraisers for someone with cancer or needing a transplant. Check out the medical needs section of on the GoFundMe site. Only in the US do we have to beg like paupers to get the medical care we need to live!
There are 200 different types of Cancer.
About 1.8 million new cases of Cancer are diagnosed each year.
More than 15 million people have a history of Cancer.
More than $1 Trillion is spent on Cancer Treatment each year. 44% is paid by private insurers/ employers. 33% is paid for by Medicare. 4% is paid by Medicaid. The rest is some form of self pay.
There is no such thing as one treatment fits all. 60% of Cancers are treated in hospital outpatient or office facilities. The first priority in Cancer Treatment is determining how it will be paid for. Uninsured / underinsured are often declined treatment.
It can easily cost $1 million to treat a breast cancer, a top three killer.
Public options for treatment are highly variable and often subject to lengthy wait lists and can involve substantial travel. Many are unable to travel without assistance.
Dependent on the type of cancer and treatment, some are unable to work. Some are self employed and if they don’t work they can’t pay their bills. No shortage of people don’t have paid sick leave or short/ long term disability benefits that may pay a percentage of income. Some quickly exhaust their paid sick leave. Again, if they can’t work, many don’t have the ability to pay their bills. The entire family can find themselves in financial distress. Savings, if any can be exhausted.
Survival often depends on the state that Cancer was detected. Uninsured people are less likely to proactively seek Cancer screening, even when experiencing symptoms.
Bah. Unskilled losers need to accept that is natures way.
(sarcasm alert for the clueless)
One of my friends went two for three on the headline. He ALMOST died but has almost nothing after a lifetime of work as the Hospital took everything after he maxxed his health insurance cap.
ACA compliant healthcare insurance has no annual/ lifetime cap.
The ACA provided for medically-underwritten short term ( 1 year) plans that were exempt from ACA rules. The intent of the exemption was to create very limited, more affordable insurance for people between jobs. Short- term plans are wildly profitable for insurers because of their limitations. A new, Trump era rule extends the maximum term to 3 years.
Medically- underwritten means preexisting conditions ( there are hundreds) are used to deny insurance or decline claims related to the condition.
Claims are often capped at $250,000. There is no maximum out of pocket.
Preventative care and Cancer screening are excluded risks.
Cancer treatment may be excluded or there are predetermined gaps between new diagnosis’s of Cancer and the start of treatment.
Deductibles can be higher than than ACA.
Networks may be non- existent and all claims are treated as out of network with the insured required topay the balance.
50% coinsurance is common.
These junk plans are marketed online to people who think all insurance is alike who are more likely to click the cheapest premium. Negatives are sold as positives- such as you can choose your doctor and are not restricted by network. It is not made clear preventative care is excluded and you will be balance billed for most things.
Is it really? New Zealand has almost the same share of overweight as America and the same share of people with diabetes and pre-diabetes. And one of the lowest health care costs in the developed world.
Bah. Unskilled losers need to accept that is natures way.
(sarcasm alert for the clueless)
One of my friends went two for three on the headline. He ALMOST died but has almost nothing after a lifetime of work as the Hospital took everything after he maxxed his health insurance cap.
It IS nature's way. It always has been. Oh well, when it's your time, it's your time.
Insurance is the transfer of risk in exchange for a premium.
A preexisting condition is not a risk, it is a known fault. In the preexisting condition case, you do not transfer risk, you transfer financial responsibility after the cost event has already occurred.
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom
No shortage of properties are located in areas where there is no question of repeat flooding, thus claims. Private insurers declined to insure flood risks. Lenders are unwilling to to write mortgages for such properties unless flood insurance is maintained. In absence of a private sector solution, the Federal Government filled the gap. Premiums do not cover claims. Deficit spending pays for it.
Exactly. A known flood plain is not a risk, it's a guarantee. No insurer who needs profit to maintain their existence could survive long if they insured property on known flood plains, unless they priced said "insurance" according to proper actuarial models. Considering the single family home that statistics predict will incur say $100k in damages over the next 10 years, the cost of flood insurance for such a house would need to be about $1,000-1,100 per month minimum. That's not fair or unfair, it's simply expected cost vs revenue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom
No one has to live in an area highly prone to flood risk. It’s a personal choice and the Federal Government insures the risk. Municipalities/ counties and states look to the Federal government for massive bailouts when flooding occurs. Since Katrina, it’s water damage, not wind, causing the most damage.
And since people do choose to live in areas prone to flooding, and our system is as it is, their choice to live in an area where a natural disaster is all but guaranteed to happen every 5-10 years, I am obligated to fund that choice. Because they make a choice and refuse to bear the full financial burden of that choice, I am now obligated to help them. How anyone thinks that is the way a society should work is literally beyond my comprehension.
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom
Unlike flooding, sooner or later most people need healthcare. Heart Disese and Cancer were at one time nearly always fatal Both are now often treatable and increasingly curable, if and when caught early enough. Treatment costs $.
But very much like flooding, some people are far more at risk for heart disease and/or cancer than others, and the actuarial tables are what they are. If I am insuring a physically fit 25 year old, I am charging that person about 1/20th what I charge an obese 65 year old, and maybe 1/50th what I charge someone who ALREADY HAS CANCER OR HEART DISEASE. Profit says I MUST.
If the government took over only preexisting condition people, fine. Insurer of last resort and all that. But no private company (actually, nobody who isn't a currency sovereign with a monopoly on force, violence and laws) can survive under both "must cover preexisting" and "cannot charge too much to the bad risks" mandates. This is not a moral question, it's freaking math.
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom
Heart disease and cancer remain the top two causes of death in the US. Nearly everyone knows someone who has been diagnosed with these diseases.
Yes, my sister died from cancer 20 months ago. I get it. Fatal diseases suck, but the math is still the math.
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom
It’s a tad ironic that the Federal Government deems flood insurance a right and ignores healthcare.
Flood insurance is a pittance compared to the cost of healthcare, and the government represents 330 million people, not just the sick ones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom
The Federal government is the single largest employer in the US. The Eisenhower Admin created the Federal Employees Healthcare Benefit Plan in 1960. It subsidizes healthcare premiums of Federal employees and retirees by 72-75%. Subsidized healthcare premiums are a granted right of every Federal employee and retiree. It is paid for out of general revenues. State / county/ municipal employees are another massive block of public employees who receive substantially subsidized insurance from their respective employers funded out of general revenues.
The people who work for the people tend to have better healthcare benefits than many people who pay for it.
National health care will cost, under even the rosiest estimates, about $3 trillion extra per year. EXTRA. Not "replaces current spending" or "$3 trillion saved" no. $3 trillion EXTRA by the most optimistic estimate.
That's $10k per person per year EXTRA. A family of four = $40k EXTRA, per year. That's a hard sell, when no insurance plan in existence costs that much. When people ask about the cost, you simply cannot avoid the numbers. And the numbers says you have to sell people on spending $10k extra of their own money so that somebody they don't know can have healthcare. That is what you are selling. I want 9 of you to pay $10k extra EACH so that 1 person can have something for free.
Now, if you have a way to sell people on spending $10k more per year to get the same or worse stuff than they currently have, by ll means, go run that pitch and see how it fairs in an election.
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.
