Catastrophic Medical Insurance

Discussion in 'Healthcare/Insurance/Govt Healthcare' started by Supposn, Jul 8, 2017.

  1. debbiedowner
    Offline

    debbiedowner Silver Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2017
    Messages:
    3,151
    Thanks Received:
    374
    Trophy Points:
    90
    Ratings:
    +1,602
    Then you're talking about underwriting that isn't in the bill because they still say anyone can get insured regardless of health. You involve underwriting then people will get turned down or charged more money for certain pre x conditions.
     
  2. dblack
    Offline

    dblack Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    Messages:
    22,669
    Thanks Received:
    2,180
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +4,746
    What you're talking about (what ACA tries to "mandate") isn't insurance.
     
  3. Supposn
    Offline

    Supposn VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Messages:
    1,097
    Thanks Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Ratings:
    +66
    DBlack, many products are sold as packages of individual gods and/or services. Due to economies of scale or other factors or concepts, sellers are able to offer some goods and/or service products at more attractive prices, if they package the items into standard item groups.

    DebbieDowner's post correctly implied its unlikely that an insurance company could offer any meaningful price savings for insuring ONLY the right breast; in fact that might require special handling that may be of GREATER expense to the insurance company and would INCREASE the cost to the purchaser.

    The insurance broker on the other hand, (and I'm assuming the broker has two hands), may be pleased to handle both of the lady's breasts.

    Two handed insurance brokers came to mind when I thought of president Truman wanting to hire only one handed economists that wouldn't be telling him “but on the other hand”.
    Respectfully, Supposn
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2017
  4. dblack
    Offline

    dblack Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    Messages:
    22,669
    Thanks Received:
    2,180
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +4,746
    WTF?
     
  5. MadChemist
    Offline

    MadChemist Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2017
    Messages:
    378
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +75
    "Paul Ryan’s economic positions but federal funding of catastrophic medical costs for the catastrophys’ duration of times and extents of their costs is a concept that both sides of the political ailse could agree upon."

    Could you be more clear on what you are proposing here. An example would be useful.

    "Our federal government should accept fiscal responsibility for catastrophic medical condition regardless if patients were or were not previously insured."

    Why should the federal government accept fiscal responsibility ? What is the basis for that comment ?

    Do you have any figures that indicate what that liability might be ?

    "That federal responsibility should continue until the catastrophic financial condition no longer exists."

    Who makes that call ?
     
  6. MadChemist
    Offline

    MadChemist Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2017
    Messages:
    378
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +75
    Supposn,

    The example that DebbieDowner puts forth is an Appeal To The Extreme.

    What is for certain is that Obamacare requires 10 Essential Health Benefits:

    Affordable Care Act's 10 Essential Health Benefits

    The level of those benefits can vary...but they must be present at some level.

    It is clear that companies do offer categories of insurance (car insurance can be tailored within certain categories) with different levels of benefit which can, again be tailored.

    The removal of basic catastrophic insurance from the menu is an example of a reduction in the kind of flexibility people enjoyed before.

    My point being that:

    1. You can offered insurance tailored to a degree.
    2. Obamacare is not good in that regard.

    Now, how that relates to you original post is not clear to me. I am still interested to see what you are proposing.

    I agree that people with extreme conditions must be addressed outside the normal insurance model. However, I am not convinced turning it over to the Federal Government is the correct way to take care of it.

    Looking for a better argument as to what that would be the case.
     
  7. Supposn
    Offline

    Supposn VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Messages:
    1,097
    Thanks Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Ratings:
    +66
    A possible proposal for catastrophic medical insurance?

    The “moment” a patient's annual medical costs attain or exceed the catastrophic amount, their status should be that of a catastrophic-patient.

    Catastrophic patient's status continues for no less than a year after that “moment” and until the patient's annual medical costs no longer exceed a third of the catastrophic-amount.
    The federal government will pay or reimburse half of the payments for medical providers' medical costs during the year prior to their acquiring catastrophic-patient status, and their entire medical costs while they retain catastrophic-patient status.

    After a patient is no longer a catastrophic patient, their catastrophic-amount throughout the remainder of their lives is effectively half of the generally legal catastrophic-amount.
    After a patient is no longer a catastrophic patient, and if the patient had been at the “moment” medically insured, the medical insurer is obliged to re-accept the patient as a client with no disfavoring penalties.

    Definitions:
    Catastrophic- amount: It's suggested an individual's accrued medical expenses of $15,000 within a year's duration be considered as catastrophic annual medical costs. That amount's subject to annual cost-of-living adjustment. But that initial amount now, in the year 2017 is suggested as a start for congressional debate.

    Medical costs: reasonable medical expenditures on behalf of the patient. Medical costs are subject to review similar to that done within Medicare.

    Patient: the individual beneficiary of medical costs.

    Year's duration: 365 days, (i.e. an annual duration).
    Respectfully, Supposn
     
  8. dblack
    Offline

    dblack Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    Messages:
    22,669
    Thanks Received:
    2,180
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +4,746
    In effect, we already have this. We have solid safety net programs for people who are driven to bankruptcy by health care bills. The shift in thinking promoted by "reformers" is that government needs to step in before then; that health care bills should never drive one to bankruptcy in the first place. But they never really say why.

    Why should an unfortunate investment drive someone to bankruptcy, but not health care costs? Why should we let the loss of a job, or a divorce, drive someone to bankruptcy, but not health care bills? Why should a freak accident drive someone to bankruptcy, but not health care costs?
     
  9. Supposn
    Offline

    Supposn VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Messages:
    1,097
    Thanks Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Ratings:
    +66
    DBlack, for the same reasons that contracts generally have clauses absolving participants of blame for what's described as “acts of G-D”, and those “acts” substantially increase medical insurers' costs?

    [Insurance contracts usually do cover “acts of G-d” but they're generally offered at lesser prices when the contract excludes some specifically catastrophic “acts G-d”. Additionally, prices upon most insured items are based in part upon the value of the item being insured. Medical insurance prices based upon monetary valuation of the patient would be contrary to our social practices and/or less feasible].

    (1) Whatever generally increases medical insurers' costs, does so for both government and non-government medical insurers, and are directly or indirectly past on as increased costs and/or prices to all those eventually paying for medical insurance.
    (2) Thus, further motivating the younger and/or healthier to refrain from purchasing medical insurance.
    (3) Thus, reducing the remaining insured population to be less young and/or less healthy.
    (4) Thus, further increasing medical insurers' costs and leading back to (1).

    Respectfully, Supposn
     
  10. dblack
    Offline

    dblack Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    Messages:
    22,669
    Thanks Received:
    2,180
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +4,746
    Not really sure what that has to do with anything. I'm asking how we got it in our heads that health care shouldn't cost money.

    The common claim revealing this attitude is usually expressed as "No one should face bankruptcy because of health care bills". Do you agree with that statement?
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

content