Why Have Medical Insurance?

The current push regarding replacing the ACA is to make those who are sick pay more for insurance than those who are not sick. The details are not clear or will be in flux, but it sure seems to me that it is headed toward making insurance unaffordable for those who get sick.

So what is the point of medical insurance if your rates can be jacked up when you get sick or the condition you are sick with can be removed from the coverage?

--

Rick C
Reply to
rickman
Loading thread data ...

I think you need to review the proposed law. My understanding is that if you had a pre existing condition you could be charged more for one year and after a year of being covered your payments would be lowered as if you had no pre existing condition.

Dan

Reply to
dcaster

"We will make America great again!"

John :-#(#

Reply to
John Robertson

"Pre-existing condition" means that you are sick before you apply for insurance. Like applying for homeowners' insurance when your house is on fire.

The repubs are just doing the usual congressional thing, complex tinkering with a complex mess without addressing the fundamamentals, much less making things cheaper and simpler.

Single-payer would just dump the expensive mess onto the feds, who would borrow money to pay for it.

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 
picosecond timing   precision measurement  
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

"Charged more" meaning what exactly? That's what we had before the ACA. A friend looked around for insurance and was told it would cost him $20,000 a year. Even now that makes it unaffordable for anyone who needs it.

--

Rick C
Reply to
rickman

"Pre-existing condition" includes having *been* sick at some point in the past. If you had cancer and are in remission, you are out of luck. So you have a fire and rebuild your house, now you have to pay triple premiums.

No need to borrow money. Collect insurance premiums from everyone who can afford it and make the insurance mandatory, including those who have it by other means. Employers will happily drop insurance and pay the premiums for employees as this is a *major* hassle for every company. It also takes it out of the equation for new hires. All companies have the same insurance.

--

Rick C
Reply to
rickman

Why are you uninsured? Isn't it the law now?

Reply to
krw
[snip]

PoTUS: "Who knew that health care was so unbelievably complicated?"

The overhead costs of single payer are far less than the U.S. "system". It's a big part of why the U.S. health care system (either before or after ACA) is the most expensive in the world (i.e. results/$). Many European and Asian countries get better results for less money - through a variety of approaches.

There are other approaches to making health care more efficient, but obviously they take money away from drug companies, providers, insurance companies,... all these stake-holders with big lobbying arms to prevent that kind of change.

Whether funding would come from borrowed funds or current income is a separate question (though both parties seem to collude in cutting taxes while expanding outlays, whether those outlays are for programs for right-wing or left-wing favorites). It's not really any different with Trump, his proposals, if enacts, would cause budget deficits that dwarf Obama's.

Reply to
Frank Miles

Only if you have no insurance. Why don't you have insurance?

Often, yes. But to make your analogy work, you only have to pay triple premiums for health insurance after your resurrection. IYou have no worries about that.

Tax the rich! They can afford it!

Reply to
krw

Now with ACA it's unaffordable for everyone. Even if you can afford the premiums, you can't afford to use it. ...and it's broke, to boot. Great system!

Reply to
krw

Indeed!

Isn't it about time that we ignore the forces of the free market, and set the price for health insurance to be the same for all?

Same for Life insurance... why should I have to pay more for a $1 Million policy than a 30 year-old, non-smoker, non-drinker?

{I could use some more Life insurance right now >:-}

[Remove tongue from cheek]

What the Feds should do is get out of the insurance business altogether, and let ObamaCare collapse under its own weight.

Then force ALL medical providers to post price lists per service.

Let the market stabilize on its own. ...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson                                 |    mens     | 
| Analog Innovations                               |     et      | 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jim Thompson

But most of the rich live in blue states where everyone isn't dead broke from a personal income perspective! So I thought you'd be OK with that! We're pleading to give you our money and you won't even take it!

Reply to
bitrex

If everyone were required to have life insurance it wouldn't make a lick of sense for anyone to pay more than anyone else, exactly!

Reply to
bitrex

I should add, not from an society-wide cost-control point of view, at least.

Reply to
bitrex

Good God, you're an idiot. Unbelievable.

Reply to
krw

Please describe to me in very simple terms, that an idiot can understand, what it is that health insurance companies do so efficiently. I know what fire insurance companies do. They insure against the risk of fire. I know what flood insurance companies do. They insure against the risk of flood.

Health insurance companies insure against the risk of...?

It certainly can't be that they provide healthcare efficiently - they're not in that business.

Reply to
bitrex

I suppose "idiot" is a complicated concept for you to grasp.

Who cares where the rich live? If you want to raise their state taxes to 110% of their income, I couldn't care less. Go for it, moron.

Reply to
krw

How about we at least tax them as much as the rest of us?

--

Rick C
Reply to
rickman

That would imply that they're finally just ordinary citizens with responsibilities and duties to people other than themselves to whom society requires them to answer.

It's deeply offensive to them that you would make assumptions like that.

Reply to
bitrex

They're taxed a *LOT* more but you'll never believe simple facts.

Reply to
krw

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.