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 amazing how many people do not know how insurance works. My mother recently had a bad health issue. The bills came to a few hundred grand. Long hospital stays and rehab. If she didn't have excellent insurance she would have had to pay . Now let's say had those kinds of issues monthly? How would the insurance company make a profit off of her?
Without insurance, your mother would have had to pay for the care she received. Instead, other people had to pay for it. The insurance company will never make a profit off of her. She will never pay back a few hundred grand in premiums.
That's great... But there are things we can't control. As a previous poster also said. Children born with lifetime health issues. Adults who develop mental issues. Stuff happens. I would rather pay a few bucks out of my paycheck for the good of all my fellow citizens.
So if your wife is pregnant and you change jobs to get a higher salary, you are okay with your new employer's health plan refusing to pay for any of the pregnancy or birth related expenses because the pregnancy is a pre existing condition.
There are a myriad of things that would be considered pre existing.
That, but even worse:
You give birth to a baby with Cystic Fibrosis (like my ex wife did with our child). You didn't know about it before hand because insurance wouldn't cover a second ultrasound and would not do a DNA test.
By OP's model, you might as well just throw your kid in the Dumpster, because very few people have the millions of dollars we've been billed to cover medical expenses. As it is, with good (private) insurance, we paid an extra $20k per year on average.
While I realize that another human's problem is not a problem of any republican, what is your proposal? You claim to be pro-life, so you can't abort them. You claim to be fiscally responsible so you can't borrow to take care of them. What is your solution for someone who gives birth to a child with a genetic disorder that is no fault of anyone's? It simply happens sometimes.
I feel like our extra $20k, we more than paid our dues. Had to sacrifice some things, but never once complained or second guessed it. You seem to feel that is not enough?
How would that work? A previous poster already said that insurance only works if those who don't need it buy into it.
I don't know details. But an insurance company might pay any loss up to say $1M. And then the insurance company has a policy with another company that pays excess claims over the $1M. Like a Lloyd's of London.
It's amazing how many people do not know how insurance works. My mother recently had a bad health issue. The bills came to a few hundred grand. Long hospital stays and rehab. If she didn't have excellent insurance she would have had to pay . Now let's say had those kinds of issues monthly? How would the insurance company make a profit off of her?
I don't know details. But an insurance company might pay any loss up to say $1M. And then the insurance company has a policy with another company that pays excess claims over the $1M. Like a Lloyd's of London.
Insurers typically buy re-insurance. It is to provide liquidity in times of unusually heavy claims. But that is a short term fluctuation not a long term model.
Your response was to the quote "There is NO business model on Earth that takes in a premium of 100 a month and pays out 1000 a month for your med bills."
The point is that paying more in claims than you collect in premiums is not sustainable over the long term.
Patients with pre-existing conditions want insurance so that they do not have to pay the full cost of their medical care. They want to pay a $100 premium and have insurance pay $1000 for their care.
Insurers typically buy re-insurance. It is to provide liquidity in times of unusually heavy claims. But that is a short term fluctuation not a long term model.
Your response was to the quote "There is NO business model on Earth that takes in a premium of 100 a month and pays out 1000 a month for your med bills."
The point is that paying more in claims than you collect in premiums is not sustainable over the long term.
Patients with pre-existing conditions want insurance so that they do not have to pay the full cost of their medical care. They want to pay a $100 premium and have insurance pay $1000 for their care.
Patients with pre-existing simply have more HC needs. Their $100 or $1000 premium could easily be but a pittance as compared to their losses. So of course their higher risks cost more. We would hope to spread that risk conventionally with insurance. But those buggers of accelerated HC costs make this about impossible without some central mandates, controls, and many times subsidies of one sort or another.
In our/my wife's case, we have been high earners for almost 40 years now. Paid millions in taxes. Have had major medical coverage all our adult lives, and needed it. Never subsidized directly. But as two with pre-existing - and rich - if we can't do it, then God help our middle class!
Patients with pre-existing simply have more HC needs. Their $100 or $1000 premium could easily be but a pittance as compared to their losses. So of course their higher risks cost more. We would hope to spread that risk conventionally with insurance. But those buggers of accelerated HC costs make this about impossible without some central mandates, controls, and many times subsidies of one sort or another.
In our/my wife's case, we have been high earners for almost 40 years now. Paid millions in taxes. Have had major medical coverage all our adult lives, and needed it. Never subsidized directly. But as two with pre-existing - and rich - if we can't do it, then God help our middle class!
I've said it many times - all this debate about health insurance plans is just a fuss over whose pocket to pick. The core issue is health care costs. If we don't solve that, we are just moving dirt around.
Well, with the current for-profit, mostly privately run model, there is more administrative bloat and overhead costs due to the fact that there are numerous insurance companies that all operate as independent businesses. A government model could theoretically consolidate all of that waste into one organization, eliminating redundancies, cutting unnecessary jobs (i.e. marketing/sales), all of which would reduce the cost to the patient.
With the for-profit model, part of your healthcare costs also go directly towards paying the profits for both insurance and drug companies. That's great for the companies and shareholders of those companies, but as far as the patient is concerned, that's money right down the toilet!
So yes, theoretically speaking, a single payer system has the potential to lower healthcare costs by: 1) Cutting down on administrative bloat, 2) Not-for-profit means patients aren't throwing money away paying for a company's profit, and 3) Regulations could cut down on drug price gouging, which is a real problem that libertarians don't like to talk about.
It's hilarious that you think the government bureaucracy would be more efficient than a private company. Ever been to the DMV?
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.
