edit/add:
MichaelB, I didn't see your cross-post #33, and I have to run, so realize that as you read this... thanks.
I haven't taken the time to understand (if in fact anyone can) the new healthcare laws, BUT the one thing of which I am certain is worthwhile is to no longer allow insurance companies to deny coverage based upon pre-existing conditions.
But what do you do about the person who has a condition that results in yearly costs of thousands of dollars? You can't expect the insurance companies to insure them at the same rate as someone who spends nothing. I think they should have written the law that previous 2 years of health expenses could be used to set your insurance rate, that would eliminate all these pseudo pre-existing conditions but still allow the insurance companies to price their insurance accordingly.
TJ
I think this is a great exchange. I certainly understand the view
LARS takes on an emotional level. Some of these cases are heart-wrenching and certainly make us all want to "do something". But we have to look at the reality, and I think
teejayevans points out one path worth considering in one form or another. We can't just demonize the ins cos over the pre-existing condition issue (we can for fraud, abuse), we need to address the underlying issue.
Let me go back and take these one at a time:
"If and question marks" are window dressing to core points:
First post: But, isn't coming into an insurance pool with a pre-existing condition kind of like wrecking your car first and then calling State Farm to initiate a retroactive policy?
The analogy is flawed (IMO) in that it is incomplete. It is absolutely accurate for some cases though, and I personally know some. But, many conditions (especially health related) just happen to us. And sometimes it can be hard to get coverage, then you are stuck when it hits the fan. Bad. So there is a real problem there. But this analogy does address the problem that some people absolutely will not pay for the ins if they think they don't need it. It skews the risk pool and pushes costs onto others. I know of one case in our extended family that I'll use as an example - the 'kid' was no longer covered by Dad's employer ins. Rather than go out and buy a high deductible policy on him (like I did when my son was in this position - it was $60/month), the went naked. The kid got hurt (goofing around in a risky and illegal behavior, so this wasn't just bad luck), spent weeks in the hospital and rehab. As far as I know, they never collected a cent from the family for all that care - the kid has zero assets.
So yes, I'm a bit peeved that I jumped through all the hoops to obtain ins, paid for it, and someone else gets off Scott Free on my dime. And before someone jumps in, that doesn't mean I want to see people like that left on the street to rot.
But I can still be peeved that they didn't take responsibility for themselves, and pushed it off on me (thrice: I pay their bills in taxes, I paid for my insurance, and I bet my ins is higher because of people like that).
So the analogy is flawed/incomplete - but the OP doesn't deserve a beating for it. Discuss it instead.
Second post: I would guess the healthy people would think they were getting ripped off and the unhealthy would think this a great deal for them
Maybe the wording comes across as harsh, but there is something of value in there. We want to promote healthy lifestyles/choices - and charging everyone the same regardless doesn't help promote this (not that it should be the only way to do it). We charge drivers with bad records more. Again, some of this isn't the 'fault' of the insured, so it is complex. But it is still worth discussing, IMO.
Third post: If I get sick and cannot pay for the treatment, am I morally justified to demand that others pay my bill for me?[/
Yes, it's an uncomfortable question, but again I think it merits discussion. I don't see it as B&W, but in degrees. I don't want to see someone driven into bankruptcy over a non-preventable condition, that 'someone' might be me someday. But as you go down the scale, you hit ranges of things that people could have prevented, and some could have saved up an emergency fund but blew it instead, and now the grasshoppers want the ants to pay.
There is a balance there somewhere, no?
Absolutely, this is exactly what insurance is all about. We pool our resources so when one get sick we have the money to take care of him or her. If insurance companies only take in the healthy then we don't really need them.
Also, the current system is being unfair to people who purchase insurance through the individual market or small businesses. This 2 groups are forced to subsidy the uninsured and the large employee group. For a free market system to work, we must eliminate the employer provided insurance so everyone can get insurance at the same rate like other type of insurances.
True, and some of express a lot of frustration with the current HC 'reform' as it didn't attack this employer-tied ins issue.
-ERD50
)
