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.
Poor people will more than likely afford or receive FREE health care, this is the reason why a lot of folks are against the proposal due to the fact that those high tax payers will be footing the bill.
Well said.
Not only that but the average quality of of healthcare will decline. So not only will the high tax payers be paying but they will have a poorer quality product.
Not only that but the average quality of of healthcare will decline. So not only will the high tax payers be paying but they will have a poorer quality product.
- Reel
I don't know if I agree with the declining of quality health care. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. If more people of health coverage, they will seek medical help more often, medical help that could potentially catch serious deseases before they escalate.
Disease like cancer, heart disease and diabetes. If these illness are caught early enough, then the high cost of medical care will decrease.
Poor people would not be fined. The fines are progressive based on income. I believe the $3800 figure is the maximum fine proposed based on a family of four with a household income of at least $66,000 or so.
- Reel
Big deal $3800. So I save thousands on not buying and when I get the $500,000 heart attack, I get fined $3800.
I can't wait till they start the gubmint option to homeowners insurance.
I don't know if I agree with the declining of quality health care. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. If more people of health coverage, they will seek medical help more often, medical help that could potentially catch serious deseases before they escalate.
Disease like cancer, heart disease and diabetes. If these illness are caught early enough, then the high cost of medical care will decrease.
There will be many more people seeking care without the necessary increase in resources. The quality will have to suffer.
The reason you disagree with me seems to focus on cost and not quality. I was talking about quality and not cost. You seem to have missed my point.
If health insurance is available at a reasonable price and it's guaranteed issue (I cannot be turned down) and there are no pre-existing condition limitations, why the heck would I purchase health insurance until I needed it? That's called 'adverse selection'. It would soon either bankrupt the system or cause the price to go so high that nobody could afford it.
Can you imagine waiting until your home caught on fire to buy home insurance, or you car is involved in an accident before you get car insurance? I'm sure the insurance company would be thrilled. Then you can drop the insurance until the next fire or accident, and let the other shlubs pay your way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reelist in Atlanta
Another way might be to offer a hybrid plan. It could be guaranteed issue during some sign up period. From then on you would be guaranteed any plan from any insurance company as long as there has never been a lapse in coverage. Young people could be given a certain sign up period after turning age 18. If you do not sign up during the sign up period or there is ever a lapse in your coverage then the plan would become medically underwritten with the possibility of being turned down or increased rates.
The plan simply cannot work the way a lot of you think it should. You think anyone should be able to sign up anytime they want to and have the produce guaranteed with no pre-existing condition limitation. No can do!
- Reel
I think what you are asking for is some low cost, catastrophic only, insurance plan that does not cover hair transplants, sex change operations, tattoo removal, runny noses and mundane things, but will cover you if you run into serious troubles. This way you stay covered, and pay minimal Costa, but can upgrade to a better plan later, or buy medical insurance to cover those mundane problems separately.
Can you imagine waiting until your home caught on fire to buy home insurance, or you car is involved in an accident before you get car insurance? I'm sure the insurance company would be thrilled. Then you can drop the insurance until the next fire or accident, and let the other shlubs pay your way.
I think what you are asking for is some low cost, catastrophic only, insurance plan that does not cover hair transplants, sex change operations, tattoo removal, runny noses and mundane things, but will cover you if you run into serious troubles. This way you stay covered, and pay minimal Costa, but can upgrade to a better plan later, or buy medical insurance to cover those mundane problems separately.
No, I was simply talking about adverse selection and ways to reduce it.
I can't wait till they start the gubmint option to homeowners insurance.
It already exists, at the state level.
How do I know? Because this month I had my already-overpriced homeowners insurance cancelled because my house is "too close" to the coastline. It was already costing me almost $4000/year, with a huge hurricane deductible, and this time Liberty Mutual just non-renewed me.
I've spent the last 3 weeks frantically shopping for homeowners insurance. Regular companies won't touch anything within a mile of the coastline anymore. The only ones that will write policies are what's called "excess lines" companies, and they charge just as much if not more than the regular ones did, but offer less coverage.
Here's an example, my regular homeowners covered me for UNLIMITED LOSS OF USE, in other words if my home gets destroyed and I have to live in a trailer or apartment or hotel for 4 years like Katrina people, my insurance would cover every cent of that. But these Excess Lines policies have a much lower limit, usually $25,000 or $50,000 total. It costs at least $2500/month for a normal legal apartment, if you can find one, in my area which means the Loss of Use would run out after 1 or 2 years max. And for that I'd have to pay between $3600 and $4000/yr with a $10,000 deductible. Less coverage for more money.
My only other option is the state-run plan which has a maximum limit that is less than the replacement cost of my house. It would still cost me $3000/yr to cover only 75% of what it would cost to rebuild my house, plus $50K for contents, and up to $200,000 in Loss of Use coverage. I'd have a $2500 deductible BUT if my house was damaged by a hurricane my deductible would be $20,000 instead of $2500. So in the event of a hurricane, the policy would cover ONLY 75% of the cost to replace my house, LESS 20 GRAND! !!! AND the kicker is....... unlike all policies issued by insurance companies, under the state policy there is NO liability coverage offered, so if someone got hurt on my property I'd be screwed. I'd have to buy separate private liability insurance from a regular company via a "renters policy" which would cost me about $300/yr.
No homeowners policy, either private or "state", covers flood. I have to have a FEMA policy which has a max of $250K for the house, which is about half of what it would cost to rebuild. (the average cost to build a house from scratch in my area is around $500K for an average sized house) It costs me $350/yr for that flood policy.To get full flood insurance to its replacement value, so I wouldn't end up like the Katrina people, would be an additional $2500/yr (because I'd have to get it from one of those Excess Lines companies) . And that policy would ONLY cover flood... absolutely NOTHING else.
So the government option for homeowners is not much cheaper than private insurance and they give you LESS insurance for your money.
People in Florida have it even worse, ask anyone there who lives near the coast. Homeowners policies down there EXCLUDE hurricane damage completely, so people there have to buy it from the state ("gubmint"). The state policy is Florida's BIGGEST insurer! And they are having financial problems themselves (Florida plan would shift hurricane insurance coverage to state - Legislature - MiamiHerald.com (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/legislature/story/927072.html - broken link))
Sorry for derailing the thread but I wanted to bring up the fact that "government plans" for homeowners already exist and are not much of a help to people who either get cancelled or just can't afford a normal homeowners policy. These policies exist because mortgage lenders make homeowners insurance MANDATORY and the homeowner is thus over a barrel. In a sense it's worse than the Baucus health plan because homeowners with a mortgage can't even opt out and pay a fine if they do want to self-insure!
Last edited by A_Cooler_Head; 09-10-2009 at 12:57 PM..
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.
