On October 2, 2013 at 05:12, iform said...
Wow. There is a lot of misinformation going on.
In my case, the health insurance companies refused to cover me due to the fact I had a pre-existing condition. I was willing to pay a reasonable amount for health coverage, but I couldn't.
The current U.S. health insurance coverage is very flawed if any one is denied coverage because they might not make as much profit on them as someone else.
What does my age, gender or lifestyle choice have ANYTHING to do with health coverage? Mogul, can you please explain this to me?
Is a government run health system, like Canada or almost any European country, perfect? No. But if you are wealthy and you want a procedure done right now, come to the states. But in a government run system, your wealth has no bearing of when you get treatment, you're condition is the only factor. Someone can't jump ahead in the cue just because of their wealth.
Is every story about the Canadian health system positive? Is every story about the U.S. system the same? No. There will always be horror stories about both. This is about trying to get coverage for everyone so that no one is left out. This shouldn't be about how much profit can be made off of these same people.
*edit. removed some personal information.
Not sure what misinformation you are referring to...Please elaborate.
As for, "What does my age, gender or lifestyle choice have ANYTHING to do with health coverage?" I am going to assume that you are not asking this facetiously...
Your age, gender and lifestyle choices contribute significantly to the
probability of illness and the resulting costs of treating those illnesses. Men and women have different bodies with differing costs to maintain and treat--that's reality. Smokers tend to devolop diseases that non-smokers do not--Even OCare charges penalties for this lifestyle choice. Should you be forced to pay higher premiums because my (hypothetical) cousin decided to have 9 children...? Is that "fairness?"
It's just math based on empirical data...Where allowed, insurance companies use actuarial math to determine potential risk based on various factors presented by an individual and then charge enough to pay doctors (so that they can pay back their student loans, exhorbitant malpractice insurance and feed their families) and still make enough profit to feed themselves and their families when those risks pan out.
As for "uninsurable" individuals, I absolutely believe there should be mechanisms in place to assist with coverage costs for high risk individuals. And, as it happens, insurance companies funded high risk pools in 37 of 50 states BEFORE OCare. My state's pool was taken over by the Feds and went bankrupt a year into its 2 year funding allotment because the federal idealists running the pool refused to honor reality and actuarial arithmetic.
Also, it's important to understand the massive health care cost distortions caused by Medicare/Medicaid. What happens when a hospital is forced to deliver services at prices below their cost to deliver those services...? What happens when a doctor's office is forced to hire fulltime administrative staff to mitigate Medicare red tape and compliance requirements? Those costs do not just disappear into the ether...they are shifted elsewhere. In our medical care system, those costs are largely shifted to those with privately funded insurance.
An ER visit costs what it does in part because 5 of 10 patients before you paid reduced fees or paid nothing for their visits...You and your insurance company get to make up part of the difference. At a certain point, doctors and hospitals will choose to stop delivering services at a loss and your government funded healthcare will afford you fewer and fewer options for care.
Lastly, it's important to remember that you have no natural or constitutional right to someone else's labor. Doctors and insurance agents are PEOPLE who voluntarily offer services in a free market in efforts to better themselves and their families. The notion that they OWE you their labor simply because they chose a particular profession--and its considerable risk and expense--is tantamount to slavery. The notion that the government OWES you someone else's money to pay for medical services is socialism and statism and also tantamount to slavery.
Last edited by Mogul on October 2, 2013 10:22.