Health insurance should always be an option...and it should have the same types of options of life insurance or home/auto insurance. How does it make sense that when shopping for life insurance (something that will only get used once, and I don't see the benefits) I have dozens of options of coverages, time periods, products, companies, and investment plans but when I'm shopping for health insurance from my employer or individually I have one option that is deemed "best for all"? At most I have a few options on the deductible amount.
We need to move towards an a la carte menu style option for all health insurance in this country. It is there if you want it, and it is based on YOUR age and health, not the average age and health of those around you. I want a vision plan so I can get my eye exams and contact lenses when I need them. I want a health insurance plan that covers hospital visits for injuries and checkups. That is it. But yet, I have to buy into this "all encompassing" plan that includes mammograms, pregnancy coverages, and things that I'm pretty sure I will never need.
Another benefit to this is that it will drive prices DRASTICALLY down because now every doctor/insurance company/hospital/dentist/optometrist in the country is competing against one another for customers. The insurance companies that can provide the best options will survive and those that cannot will fail...like a freakin business should.
Health insurance should always be an option...and it should have the same types of options of life insurance or home/auto insurance. How does it make sense that when shopping for life insurance (something that will only get used once, and I don't see the benefits) I have dozens of options of coverages, time periods, products, companies, and investment plans but when I'm shopping for health insurance from my employer or individually I have one option that is deemed "best for all"? At most I have a few options on the deductible amount.
We need to move towards an a la carte menu style option for all health insurance in this country. It is there if you want it, and it is based on YOUR age and health, not the average age and health of those around you. I want a vision plan so I can get my eye exams and contact lenses when I need them. I want a health insurance plan that covers hospital visits for injuries and checkups. That is it. But yet, I have to buy into this "all encompassing" plan that includes mammograms, pregnancy coverages, and things that I'm pretty sure I will never need.
Another benefit to this is that it will drive prices DRASTICALLY down because now every doctor/insurance company/hospital/dentist/optometrist in the country is competing against one another for customers. The insurance companies that can provide the best options will survive and those that cannot will fail...like a freakin business should.
Wouldn't a public option be a good alternative, too? Pooling premiums and paying claims is all an insurance company does, anyways. Why not see if the federal government could keep their overhead lower than these private for profit companies?
Wouldn't a public option be a good alternative, too? Pooling premiums and paying claims is all an insurance company does, anyways. Why not see if the federal government could keep their overhead lower than these private for profit companies?
The Obamacare mandate that insurance companies cannot reject coverage for a pre-existing condition will result in driving private insurance companies out of business (which I think was the goal of the whole legislative scheme IMO). If a company cannot reject coverage for a pre-existing condition, what is to stop healthy people from passing on carrying coverage, paying the penalty, and then only getting coverage once they come down with a sickness or illness that will require lots of care?
Turns the whole concept of "insurance" on its head IMO
The Obamacare mandate that insurance companies cannot reject coverage for a pre-existing condition will result in driving private insurance companies out of business (which I think was the goal of the whole legislative scheme IMO). If a company cannot reject coverage for a pre-existing condition, what is to stop healthy people from passing on carrying coverage, paying the penalty, and then only getting coverage once they come down with a sickness or illness that will require lots of care?
Turns the whole concept of "insurance" on its head IMO
The massive government involvement in health care has led to higher costs.
Just as it has with higher education.
People think government is some sort of answer when it is the problem.
So the premise of a not-for-profit entity being able to lower costs more than a for-profit-company is false in your opinion.
Did you know that the US Postal Service has the lowest rates of all industrialized countries even with the Congressional Mandate that they sock away billions a year for employees pensions who aren't even employed with the USPS yet!!!
The massive government involvement in health care has led to higher costs.
Just as it has with higher education.
People think government is some sort of answer when it is the problem.
So the premise of a not-for-profit entity being able to lower costs more than a for-profit-company is false in your opinion.
Did you know that the US Postal Service has the lowest rates of all industrialized countries even with the Congressional Mandate that they sock away billions a year for employees pensions who aren't even employed with the USPS yet!!!
The Obamacare mandate that insurance companies cannot reject coverage for a pre-existing condition will result in driving private insurance companies out of business (which I think was the goal of the whole legislative scheme IMO). If a company cannot reject coverage for a pre-existing condition, what is to stop healthy people from passing on carrying coverage, paying the penalty, and then only getting coverage once they come down with a sickness or illness that will require lots of care?
Turns the whole concept of "insurance" on its head IMO
Agree,
Think about what this is going to do to the quality of care as well.
The Obamacare mandate that insurance companies cannot reject coverage for a pre-existing condition will result in driving private insurance companies out of business (which I think was the goal of the whole legislative scheme IMO). If a company cannot reject coverage for a pre-existing condition, what is to stop healthy people from passing on carrying coverage, paying the penalty, and then only getting coverage once they come down with a sickness or illness that will require lots of care?
Turns the whole concept of "insurance" on its head IMO
Agree,
Think about what this is going to do to the quality of care as well.
The Obamacare mandate that insurance companies cannot reject coverage for a pre-existing condition will result in driving private insurance companies out of business (which I think was the goal of the whole legislative scheme IMO). If a company cannot reject coverage for a pre-existing condition, what is to stop healthy people from passing on carrying coverage, paying the penalty, and then only getting coverage once they come down with a sickness or illness that will require lots of care?
Turns the whole concept of "insurance" on its head IMO
Completely agree.
We should turn away anyone with cancer or any other debilitating disease. We should force such families to sell their houses or any other asset, to cover such expenses.
We should also repeal EMTALA since mandating coverage and forcing hospitals to incur expenses for Emergency Care are not mutually exclusive.
Insurance companies and money are far more important than human life.
The Obamacare mandate that insurance companies cannot reject coverage for a pre-existing condition will result in driving private insurance companies out of business (which I think was the goal of the whole legislative scheme IMO). If a company cannot reject coverage for a pre-existing condition, what is to stop healthy people from passing on carrying coverage, paying the penalty, and then only getting coverage once they come down with a sickness or illness that will require lots of care?
Turns the whole concept of "insurance" on its head IMO
Completely agree.
We should turn away anyone with cancer or any other debilitating disease. We should force such families to sell their houses or any other asset, to cover such expenses.
We should also repeal EMTALA since mandating coverage and forcing hospitals to incur expenses for Emergency Care are not mutually exclusive.
Insurance companies and money are far more important than human life.
In America, healthcare has long been a business. Yet the U.S. has the most unaffordable healthcare system (as percentage of GDP) in the world mainly because of PRIVATE SECTOR. Insurance rates are high because medical costs are high.
In America, healthcare has long been a business. Yet the U.S. has the most unaffordable healthcare system (as percentage of GDP) in the world mainly because of PRIVATE SECTOR. Insurance rates are high because medical costs are high.
We should turn away anyone with cancer or any other debilitating disease. We should force such families to sell their houses or any other asset, to cover such expenses.
We should also repeal EMTALA since mandating coverage and forcing hospitals to incur expenses for Emergency Care are not mutually exclusive.
Insurance companies and money are far more important than human life.
Wow DJ -- such sarcasm. Surely I was advocating that we "should turn away anyone with cancer or any other debilitating disease.
We should force such families to sell their houses or any other asset,
to cover such expenses. "
Come on man, you're fighting against a strawman.
Seriously though, what is the solution to the factual scenario I set forth, and do you disagree that the effect of this will be to drive all private insurers out of business?
We should turn away anyone with cancer or any other debilitating disease. We should force such families to sell their houses or any other asset, to cover such expenses.
We should also repeal EMTALA since mandating coverage and forcing hospitals to incur expenses for Emergency Care are not mutually exclusive.
Insurance companies and money are far more important than human life.
Wow DJ -- such sarcasm. Surely I was advocating that we "should turn away anyone with cancer or any other debilitating disease.
We should force such families to sell their houses or any other asset,
to cover such expenses. "
Come on man, you're fighting against a strawman.
Seriously though, what is the solution to the factual scenario I set forth, and do you disagree that the effect of this will be to drive all private insurers out of business?
kaponofor, cmjohnson, god forbid a mbr of your family gets cancer, how are u going to pay for that under the existing health care structure, you will go bankrupt like thousands of americans do each year, this isnt auto insurance, this is people's health, no other civilized country would even think about making health insurance work like regular insurance
kaponofor, cmjohnson, god forbid a mbr of your family gets cancer, how are u going to pay for that under the existing health care structure, you will go bankrupt like thousands of americans do each year, this isnt auto insurance, this is people's health, no other civilized country would even think about making health insurance work like regular insurance
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.