To ration or not

[Cecilie1200]

Um, no. You don't - because you don't know me.

This old bullshit. "I shoot my mouth off on things, but I'm a big mystery and you can't possibly know what I think, because you've never met me in person."

I DO know you default automatically to the government, for one very simple reason: you just did. Anything that follows is you trying to rationalize what you did.

I not a blind believer in the market shall be the bearer of all good things.

Clearly not, since you believe that the GOVERNMENT shall be the bearer of all good things.

The market only offers incentives where there is a profit.

That's because the profit IS the incentive. Duhhh.

Incentives do not equal a moral compass and that is what this sort of problem needs to be resolved.

Who asked for a freaking moral compass? God save us all from do-gooders who want to enslave the world to their "moral compass". I'd ask if you think it's moral to take from people with or without their consent - without even CARING about their consent - to give to others who haven't earned it, but I'm fairly certain you wouldn't even understand the question. It's pretty clear that you have a shining image in your head of what the "ultimate morality" is here, and the idea that there could be other moral questions that you're violating in service to your goal of feeling like a warm, fuzzy, compassionate person are about as much good as speaking to you in Esperanto.

A good example of "incentive" here was the link posted by another poster, to an article where patients were abandoned on the street. There's market incentive for you.

Oh, spare me the buzzwords. If you want someone who's going to hear "people abandoned in the street!", clap her hands to her face in horror, and stampede off into socialized medicine in terror, you have the wrong woman. Try a nice, brainless liberal. We've got tons.

Not every undertaking is going to be profitable - or, at best in order to be profitable some group ends up excluded. Traditionally the government takes on those unprofitable tasks. I see insuring certain groups of people as falling within that category.

Guess what, Sparky? Those groups are already covered by the government AND by charities, so tell me again why the REST of us need to be drawn to the teat of the Great Government Wetnurse.

Exactly - even though that may not be any fault of their own but only a matter of statistics. Or, they may fall into an economic gap where they aren't covered or are undercovered. Those who are "undesirable" risk prospects may also be those facing large medical bills and poor employment prospect - not exactly in a good position to pay the substantially higher premiums required.

Life sucks sometimes. Tell me again why this indicates turning over the entire healthcare system to the government to control?

True, but life insurance is strictly optional and you can do just fine without it.

Lots of people can. Some people can't, which you would know if you had ever watched costs associated with death eat up a family's savings. And medical insurance works the same way. Lots of people can do without it just fine, and in fact opt to do so. Some people can't.

Either way, "optional" has diddly squat to do with my point. In point of fact, the more necessary and less optional something is, the more likely it is that someone is going to decide to find a way to fill that niche.

In terms of auto insurance - because it's mandatory if you are a driver - some option must be available for every legal driver but you can't force companies to insure people they feel are too high a risk even with higher premiums. As a result the state steps in to fill the gap and offers insurance for those who can't get it otherwise (at a higher cost probably).

Who suggested forcing any company to do anything? That's YOUR schtick, not mine. And I'm not aware of any state insurance coverage in my area. I could be wrong, but I certainly wasn't talking about it. Try to focus on the fact that I'm talking about private companies who filled that gap. I am not talking about the Great Benevolent Government, from which all bounties flow. I'm fairly certain that by the time that no private company whatsoever will touch you for any amount of money, your license has been revoked anyway.

Like the market handled the financial industry? No thanks....I think we've seen what a bad idea it is to have insufficient oversight.

::snicker:: The market? Insufficient oversight? I'd ask if you seriously believe that, but I can see the glowing light of crazed government fanaticism coming off of you, so I won't bother.

I think it's a bit naive to trust everything to the market given the events of the past year (representative of some 25 years of systemic de-regulation and a hands-off philosophy).

Honey, I think it's naive to trust the government and politicians for ANYTHING, given the events of human history, but I can see you have trouble untying the apron strings from Mommy and standing independent like an adult.

Yeah, the government has really been "hands off".

 

[PixieStix]

Denying someone healthcare because it will cut into profits is the ultimate in rationing.

Or how about denying healthcare because of pre existing conditions?

Health care is not denied because of pre-existing conditions. Not even health insurance is denied because of pre-existing conditions. Every state has an agency with assigned risk health insurance policies available for virtually any pre-existing condition.

That is simply false
Socializing healthcare has done nothing but make people sicker, the government has control of everything and you people cannot see just what a web they weave.

Damn anyone who tries to deny my son healthcare on the basis of his progressive and awful disease. I pay for it, and work extra hours to pay for the one medication that helps with the pain, while the state tries to push a 20,000 dollar a year medicine into his veins. Which by the way we decided against, The side affects could kill him

Damn the government to hell

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Ration by market works because there is no "moral compass." The "Moral compass " of many folks is pretty badly broken, and is their normal self interest sort of makes a huge amount of electronic interference with it.

to get slammed by fate is one thing, to get slammed by a person whose "moral compass" is backwards or badly calibrated it something else again.

 

[American Horse]

Health care is not denied because of pre-existing conditions. Not even health insurance is denied because of pre-existing conditions. Every state has an agency with assigned risk health insurance policies available for virtually any pre-existing condition.

That is simply false
Socializing healthcare has done nothing but make people sicker, the government has control of everything and you people cannot see just what a web they weave.

Damn anyone who tries to deny my son healthcare on the basis of his progressive and awful disease. I pay for it, and work extra hours to pay for the one medication that helps with the pain, while the state tries to push a 20,000 dollar a year medicine into his veins. Which by the way we decided against, The side affects could kill him

Damn the government to hell

Huhh...? I think we are in agreement here.

 

[PixieStix]

Health care is not denied because of pre-existing conditions. Not even health insurance is denied because of pre-existing conditions. Every state has an agency with assigned risk health insurance policies available for virtually any pre-existing condition.

That is simply false
Socializing healthcare has done nothing but make people sicker, the government has control of everything and you people cannot see just what a web they weave.

Damn anyone who tries to deny my son healthcare on the basis of his progressive and awful disease. I pay for it, and work extra hours to pay for the one medication that helps with the pain, while the state tries to push a 20,000 dollar a year medicine into his veins. Which by the way we decided against, The side affects could kill him

Damn the government to hell

Huhh...? I think we are in agreement here.

Yeah, we are, I quoted the wrong post, sorry all is good

 

[Nik]

Ration by market works because there is no "moral compass." The "Moral compass " of many folks is pretty badly broken, and is their normal self interest sort of makes a huge amount of electronic interference with it.

to get slammed by fate is one thing, to get slammed by a person whose "moral compass" is backwards or badly calibrated it something else again.

Bullshit.

Each person was slammed by fate (the disease). However the abscence of a moral compass in the market system means that people DIE because nobody is caring for them. That doesn't mean the morality of the tragedy disappears, merely that people excuse it because if they are poor, well its ok that they die a horrible death.

 

[PixieStix]

Before the great health-care debate of 2009 is over, some Democrats and even some Republicans will reassure us that we can reach universal coverage without creating a new government entitlement if only we mandate "personal responsibility" the way Massachusetts did. If Massachusetts has taught us anything, it is that individual and employer mandates are a new government program. They effectively socialize health care by compelling participation in the marketplace, dictating what consumers purchase and at what price, eliminating both economical and comprehensive health plans, and raising taxes. Massachusetts shows that mandates lead ultimately to government rationing by granting government even more power to decide how providers will be paid and how they will practice medicine.
The coming debate is not just about the freedom to make one's own medical decisions. It is about life and death. If we insist on a dynamic and competitive market, health care will be better, cheaper, safer, and more secure. If we go in the direction of new government programs, mandates, and price controls, we will see higher costs, more medical errors, more uncoordinated care, and more lives lost because people with government "insurance" nevertheless couldn't find a doctor who would treat them.

Some good reading at the link provided, read and weep, because it means the end of the freedom to choose, which means "rationing, health care"

Placebo - Why the Democrats' Proposals Will Not Work | Michael F. Cannon | Cato Institute: Commentary

 

[Nik]

Before the great health-care debate of 2009 is over, some Democrats and even some Republicans will reassure us that we can reach universal coverage without creating a new government entitlement if only we mandate "personal responsibility" the way Massachusetts did. If Massachusetts has taught us anything, it is that individual and employer mandates are a new government program. They effectively socialize health care by compelling participation in the marketplace, dictating what consumers purchase and at what price, eliminating both economical and comprehensive health plans, and raising taxes. Massachusetts shows that mandates lead ultimately to government rationing by granting government even more power to decide how providers will be paid and how they will practice medicine.
The coming debate is not just about the freedom to make one's own medical decisions. It is about life and death. If we insist on a dynamic and competitive market, health care will be better, cheaper, safer, and more secure. If we go in the direction of new government programs, mandates, and price controls, we will see higher costs, more medical errors, more uncoordinated care, and more lives lost because people with government "insurance" nevertheless couldn't find a doctor who would treat them.

Some good reading at the link provided, read and weep, because it means the end of the freedom to choose, which means "rationing, health care"

Placebo - Why the Democrats' Proposals Will Not Work | Michael F. Cannon | Cato Institute: Commentary

Ah yes, the freedom to choose.

So why did my mom have to sue to get reimbursed for out of network treatment that saved her life when in network treatment would only refer her to a psychologist to help her deal with death?

Some "freedom" that was.

 

[PixieStix]

Before the great health-care debate of 2009 is over, some Democrats and even some Republicans will reassure us that we can reach universal coverage without creating a new government entitlement if only we mandate "personal responsibility" the way Massachusetts did. If Massachusetts has taught us anything, it is that individual and employer mandates are a new government program. They effectively socialize health care by compelling participation in the marketplace, dictating what consumers purchase and at what price, eliminating both economical and comprehensive health plans, and raising taxes. Massachusetts shows that mandates lead ultimately to government rationing by granting government even more power to decide how providers will be paid and how they will practice medicine.
The coming debate is not just about the freedom to make one's own medical decisions. It is about life and death. If we insist on a dynamic and competitive market, health care will be better, cheaper, safer, and more secure. If we go in the direction of new government programs, mandates, and price controls, we will see higher costs, more medical errors, more uncoordinated care, and more lives lost because people with government "insurance" nevertheless couldn't find a doctor who would treat them.

Some good reading at the link provided, read and weep, because it means the end of the freedom to choose, which means "rationing, health care"

Placebo - Why the Democrats' Proposals Will Not Work | Michael F. Cannon | Cato Institute: Commentary

Ah yes, the freedom to choose.

So why did my mom have to sue to get reimbursed for out of network treatment that saved her life when in network treatment would only refer her to a psychologist to help her deal with death?

Some "freedom" that was.

I don't know, but the answer may be at the link

Price controls on insurance premiums create another form of implicit rationing. Premium caps, which Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick is currently threatening to impose, force private insurers to manage care more tightly — i.e., to deny coverage for more services. Rating restrictions prevent insurers from pricing health insurance according to a purchaser's risk. According to Harvard economist and Obama adviser David Cutler, rating restrictions unleash adverse selection, which drives comprehensive health plans from the market. That rations care by forcing many consumers to accept less coverage than they would prefer. Rating restrictions also encourage insurers to avoid the sickest patients or skimp on their care — another form of implicit rationing.

Placebo - Why the Democrats' Proposals Will Not Work | Michael F. Cannon | Cato Institute: Commentary

 

[Coyote]

This old bullshit. "I shoot my mouth off on things, but I'm a big mystery and you can't possibly know what I think, because you've never met me in person."

I DO know you default automatically to the government, for one very simple reason: you just did. Anything that follows is you trying to rationalize what you did.

I make one statement - supporting government intervention on one particular subject and you draw a sweeping generalization from that?

There is a word for that: retarded.

Clearly not, since you believe that the GOVERNMENT shall be the bearer of all good things.

Huh? Where did I say that?

Next time give me a heads up when you aren't dealing in reality.

That's because the profit IS the incentive. Duhhh.

Then what happens when there is something to be done but no profit possible? Duhhhh.

For example - take the school system. Private schools are often more successful....well woopdie do - do you ever wonder why? Because they can pick and choose - they don't need to take everyone. If they did - their profit would go down as would their success rate. Someone has to take the problem kids and give them an education too or they end up a burden on society or in the criminal justice system.

Who asked for a freaking moral compass? God save us all from do-gooders who want to enslave the world to their "moral compass". I'd ask if you think it's moral to take from people with or without their consent - without even CARING about their consent - to give to others who haven't earned it, but I'm fairly certain you wouldn't even understand the question.

Oh not that old and tired Libertarian whine again!

My tax money pays for other people's kids to get an education, it pays for an interstate highway system, road repair, emergency services, affordable public transport, police, military protection, social services for the needy and - you know, I may not agree with it all and yes, there may well be some cheaters - but I don't have a problem with my tax money going for those service and "do gooder" has precious little to do with it.

It's pretty clear that you have a shining image in your head of what the "ultimate morality" is here, and the idea that there could be other moral questions that you're violating in service to your goal of feeling like a warm, fuzzy, compassionate person are about as much good as speaking to you in Esperanto.

It's pretty clear you don't know what you're talking about. Ever consider departing from stale old ideological talking points? Might make an interesting change.

Then again, that might be overly optimistic on my part.

Oh, spare me the buzzwords. If you want someone who's going to hear "people abandoned in the street!", clap her hands to her face in horror, and stampede off into socialized medicine in terror, you have the wrong woman. Try a nice, brainless liberal. We've got tons.

Wow, you're just so full of wonderful insights and witty comments not to mention gross exaggerations.

Yup...overly optimistic. Guess I should ratchet it down a notch or ten.

Guess what, Sparky? Those groups are already covered by the government AND by charities, so tell me again why the REST of us need to be drawn to the teat of the Great Government Wetnurse.

Again...is it possible for you to deviate from ideological talking points and actually make sense...? Or are lame insults your only forte?

Life sucks sometimes. Tell me again why this indicates turning over the entire healthcare system to the government to control?

WHO is talking about " turning over the entire healthcare system to the government to control"? Do you have a problem with reading comprehension or something?

Lots of people can. Some people can't, which you would know if you had ever watched costs associated with death eat up a family's savings. And medical insurance works the same way. Lots of people can do without it just fine, and in fact opt to do so. Some people can't.

Who is this vague "lots of people"? "Lots of people" opt not to but it's not "just fine" - many of them end up abusing emergency room services or avoiding medical care until they are seriously sick and costing either the medical profession or the public in unpaid bills. Maybe that's part of what drives the costs up.

Either way, "optional" has diddly squat to do with my point. In point of fact, the more necessary and less optional something is, the more likely it is that someone is going to decide to find a way to fill that niche.

Who suggested forcing any company to do anything? That's YOUR schtick, not mine. And I'm not aware of any state insurance coverage in my area. I could be wrong, but I certainly wasn't talking about it. Try to focus on the fact that I'm talking about private companies who filled that gap. I am not talking about the Great Benevolent Government, from which all bounties flow. I'm fairly certain that by the time that no private company whatsoever will touch you for any amount of money, your license has been revoked anyway.

Try and focus on the fact that we are talking "real world" here - not some mythical ideological utopia. In my state at least, you can be in a position to have a legal license and not be insurable - no company will insure you. The state has an insurance for that purpose and only that purpose. So tell again - when private insurance companies decide the risk is too great - how are they going to fill the gap? Stick to reality please.

::snicker:: The market? Insufficient oversight? I'd ask if you seriously believe that, but I can see the glowing light of crazed government fanaticism coming off of you, so I won't bother.

Another brilliant bit of ideological "wit" in lieu of facts. Can you come up with anything better?

Never mind, rhetorical question.

Honey, I think it's naive to trust the government and politicians for ANYTHING, given the events of human history, but I can see you have trouble untying the apron strings from Mommy and standing independent like an adult.

Yeah, the government has really been "hands off".

Hands off...oh, you mean totally hands off...like, in the days of the sweatshop industries? Ah, the good old days. The market can do no wrong....

 

[American Horse]

Ah yes, the freedom to choose.

So why did my mom have to sue to get reimbursed for out of network treatment that saved her life when in network treatment would only refer her to a psychologist to help her deal with death?

Some "freedom" that was.

Well at least she could sue. Try that when a government agency is determining your mom's health treatments. And furthermore with a private (corporate) insurance company you (or your mom) have the power to drag them into small claims court, in your own state and town, while acting as your own attorney, while they have to incur the costs of sending an attorney to plead their case. Did you know that? Try that with the coming Burea-of-federal-cost-accounting-and-medical treatment or whatever they end up calling it.

 

[Coyote]

Ration by market works because there is no "moral compass." The "Moral compass " of many folks is pretty badly broken, and is their normal self interest sort of makes a huge amount of electronic interference with it.

to get slammed by fate is one thing, to get slammed by a person whose "moral compass" is backwards or badly calibrated it something else again.

If profit is the only "moral compass" in use - exactly HOW is that better then someone who's "moral compass" is badly calibrated?

What makes profit so "good" or "ethical" when it has a history of leaving a lot of suffering in it's wake?

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Ration by market works because there is no "moral compass." The "Moral compass " of many folks is pretty badly broken, and is their normal self interest sort of makes a huge amount of electronic interference with it.

to get slammed by fate is one thing, to get slammed by a person whose "moral compass" is backwards or badly calibrated it something else again.

Bullshit.

Each person was slammed by fate (the disease). However the abscence of a moral compass in the market system means that people DIE because nobody is caring for them. That doesn't mean the morality of the tragedy disappears, merely that people excuse it because if they are poor, well its ok that they die a horrible death.

I didn't say it was ok, I just said it was the way things happen. It is not lovely, it just is.

In a market system, you bid up the price of a doctor visit and you pay for the health care you can afford. In the case of Pixie here, you give up a lot of extra to get the extra health care.

Lack of government does not mean a lack of doctors. Given the way the world works, quite the reverse. The government restricts entry into the medical profession quite severely. For both good reasons and bad, but we can argue that in another thread.

But in a government controlled system, health care is rationed by political need. Hillarycare would have assigned doctors to communities. 0bamacare isn't as bad as that. (Or good, ymmv depending on if you were the doctor or the community)
but politics is different and very smelly kettle of fish entirely. Do you want your health care determined by cheese paring republicans out to do some budget cuts, or by a doctor who has a clue, but is kind of expensive? elections go both ways, and health care just plain is expensive. Do we shut down schools to provide more health care, or do we euthenize to support the schools? What about national parks? Close em down or leave granny to rot on her gurney? Right now, that is not a question here. In much of the world, it is. Which way do you want to go on these questions?

And politics goes back and forth anyway. Sometimes you win, sometimes you loose, and pork barrel politics are forever. Government health care means West VA gets a terrific state of the art hospital, whereas you have a short staffed clinic with not enough nurses, beds or medications if the city where you live voted the wrong way. That is not the issue with private care. You get the health care you vote for, rather than the health care congress vote for. And unless you live in WV, you will probably loose out on that one.

 

[Nik]

Ah yes, the freedom to choose.

So why did my mom have to sue to get reimbursed for out of network treatment that saved her life when in network treatment would only refer her to a psychologist to help her deal with death?

Some "freedom" that was.

Well at least she could sue. Try that when a government agency is determining your mom's health treatments. And furthermore with a private (corporate) insurance company you (or your mom) have the power to drag them into small claims court, in your own state and town, while acting as your own attorney, while they have to incur the costs of sending an attorney to plead their case. Did you know that? Try that with the coming Burea-of-federal-cost-accounting-and-medical treatment or whatever they end up calling it.

Right, because nobody can ever sue the government

Smalls claim court? For medical bills? Are you joking me? Small claims court is limited to, I believe, $5,000. That would cover maybe a day in the hospital. Maybe.

The only reason my parents avoided declaring bankruptcy because of hundreds of thousands of medical fees is because my mom is a lawyer and she knows her rights. They improperly denied her, she was able to fight it and get them to reimburse her.

 

[American Horse]

Ah yes, the freedom to choose.

So why did my mom have to sue to get reimbursed for out of network treatment that saved her life when in network treatment would only refer her to a psychologist to help her deal with death?

Some "freedom" that was.

Well at least she could sue. Try that when a government agency is determining your mom's health treatments. And furthermore with a private (corporate) insurance company you (or your mom) have the power to drag them into small claims court, in your own state and town, while acting as your own attorney, while they have to incur the costs of sending an attorney to plead their case. Did you know that? Try that with the coming Burea-of-federal-cost-accounting-and-medical treatment or whatever they end up calling it.

Right, because nobody can ever sue the government

Cuckoo yourself, and right back atcha. Ask your mom then, about the possibility of suing the FedGov on an issue like this and see what she tells you. I think you're being rediculously optimistic about getting better results suing the Gov than suing a Corp.

Smalls claim court? For medical bills? Are you joking me? Small claims court is limited to, I believe, $5,000. That would cover maybe a day in the hospital. Maybe.

You didn't say we were talking about a hospital stay, but instead a course of treatment. I still think you are exagerating on that cost, first day maybe, because it includes lots of possibllities, but every subsequent day mayby not so much.

The only reason my parents avoided declaring bankruptcy because of hundreds of thousands of medical fees is because my mom is a lawyer and she knows her rights. They improperly denied her, she was able to fight it and get them to reimburse her.

Which is good to hear, but she did succeed, proving my point; so go ahead and ask her.....and try not coming on with the Cuckoos when someone is trying to have a civil conversation with you.

 

[Coyote]

When it comes to lawsuit...I'm not sure there is that much difference between suing the government or a corporation. Unless you have a lot of money - or the potential to win a lot of money and thus interest a lawyer - or a class action suit - you have little leverage. A lot of corporations look at the risk/benifit ratio when it comes to lawsuits - it is often worth the risk of simply paying off a potential lawsuit in order to get your potentially faulty product on the market and realize the profit - particularly pharmaceuticals.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Ration by market works because there is no "moral compass." The "Moral compass " of many folks is pretty badly broken, and is their normal self interest sort of makes a huge amount of electronic interference with it.

to get slammed by fate is one thing, to get slammed by a person whose "moral compass" is backwards or badly calibrated it something else again.

Bullshit.

Each person was slammed by fate (the disease). However the abscence of a moral compass in the market system means that people DIE because nobody is caring for them. That doesn't mean the morality of the tragedy disappears, merely that people excuse it because if they are poor, well its ok that they die a horrible death.

Horseshit, "no one is caring for them". Frankly, I'd much rather depend on having someone care for me medically because it's in HIS interests to do so than waiting for someone to come do it just because they're remarkably generous, altruistic creature with a strong "moral compass". THAT really WOULD have me dead.

And here's a newsflash for you, Sparky. Death is never pleasant, and everyone does it anyway, rich or poor, no matter how much medical care they get or who pays for it. Life sucks, and if you're looking for the government to change that, well . . . I for one just hope you're holding your breath while you wait.

 

[American Horse]

When it comes to lawsuit...I'm not sure there is that much difference between suing the government or a corporation. Unless you have a lot of money - or the potential to win a lot of money and thus interest a lawyer - or a class action suit - you have little leverage. A lot of corporations look at the risk/benifit ratio when it comes to lawsuits - it is often worth the risk of simply paying off a potential lawsuit in order to get your potentially faulty product on the market and realize the profit - particularly pharmaceuticals.

Thanks Coyote, and I noticed that you qualified your statement in a couple of interesting ways. This conversation was not about winning a lot of money in a lawsuit but to get an insurance company to adhere to a needed treatment procedure.

A government agency might be more or less compliant, but the lines of communications in bureaucracies are sclerotic, and those of corporations are more reactionary to bad publicity while the option of government to interfere at some point still remains open, but that is non existent when the government is the single review authority; well, except for appealing to one's congressional representative.

I'd rather to try to force an insurance company to do the right thing than to force the government to do the right thing. One thing about it, when that becomes the government't purview to decide which procedure is cost effective, there will be lots of people complaining and few remedies for their situation.

 

[MaggieMae]

Well, gee whiz. You mean insurance depends on your circumstances? I guess that explains why my car insurance is higher if I get into an accident than it is if I don't. And I don't notice anyone grousing about what a horrible crime THAT is. It's just reality. Some things happen in life that just suck. Why is it MY job to foot the bill to make YOUR life suck less?

Sounds to me like what we need is more incentive for companies to offer policies for those with pre-existing conditions, so that competition brings the prices down some. What we DON'T need is for the government to take over so it can just tell those people to die quietly because they cost too much.

There is a world of difference between health insurance and auto insurance.

And exactly WHO would offer those incentives? What would they be? Who would bear the cost subsidizing because that's what "incentives" would likely amount to.

The government.

Not to mention - you seem to keep ignoring the facts. No one is talking about the "government taking over" - they are talking about adding a public plan to cover those not currently covered and to promote real competition. Why are you so afraid of that?

Um, no. I realize that you automatically default to "the government has to do it" on everything, but actually, if you take the government out of the equation, the market offers the incentives. Yeah, people who aren't the most desirable insurance prospects are always going to have to pay more than those who are, because they're going to end up costing the insurance company more in claims.

Once again, look at auto insurance. When it became necessary for everyone to have at least liability coverage, companies offering plans to those who are routinely turned down for insurance proliferated. And then many of the major companies got in on the act, because they could see there was a niche to be filled and money to be made. The same can be said for life insurance to older people and those with pre-existing health conditions.

Right now, there's comparatively little competition in health insurance (compared to other industries) primarily because of government interference. The solution isn't to just throw up your hands and assume only the government can handle things because they've hamstrung everyone else. The solution is to move them out of the way and let the market handle it.

And if you really think "Oh, we're just suggesting a LITTLE more government intervention, not that they take the whole enchilada", then you're too naive to be allowed out without a babysitter. Try listening to your leaders when they talk once in a while, instead of just sighing happily in your pink, fuzzy clouds.

You keep saying "let the market handle it." But that's the problem. This whole thing wouldn't even be an issue if "the market had handled it" well. Frankly, insurance companies should have seen this coming and started to offer at least more pooled insurance plans for employers. I've noticed in the last few months there are some insurance companies advertising low-cost plans on television. Why did they wait so long?

Using just my own firm that I recently retired from, every time the health plan came up for renewal, Prudential would raise our rates and individual deductibles, even though we consistently had a low claim history. Finally, we did an exhaustive search comparing plans and told Prudential to take a hike. The plan we ultimately decided upon wasn't much better, but the owners decided it was time to send a strong message to Prudential. Not to single out Prudential only, if all companies did this instead of becoming complacent about automatic jumps by their existing insurers and just accepting it as a necessary evil, insurers would have become much more nervous about competition a long time ago and done something about it.

 

[MaggieMae]

Health care is not denied because of pre-existing conditions. Not even health insurance is denied because of pre-existing conditions. Every state has an agency with assigned risk health insurance policies available for virtually any pre-existing condition.

You are correct; every state has a high risk pool or they force insurance companies to offer a guaranteed issue policy with a one year waiting period. This is what I was offered after moving to a different state. I had health insurance at a reasonable price but couldn't take it with me to my new state. So now, instead of paying $329 per month with a maximum out of pocket of $2000 per year, I now would have to pay close to $900 per month with a maximum out of pocket of $5000 per year. That is the rate for someone between 45 to 50. If I was 60, it would be $1375 per month.

Just to take on your figures, because they obviously vary state to state. Six years ago my spouse had first to drop a policy with a well known name to get away from it and into the Indiana "risk pool"; With a rare syndrome with unknown medical risks no one realy wanted to insure for. As her prior insurer knew her conditon, the insurance she needed to drop was costing $1,100/month, and the insurance available in the risk pool was $323/month with a $1,500 deductible. She was 58.

I was 4 years older, a male, and I changed policies to a well known company (Anthem-BlueCross/Blue Shield) and got mine for just $153/month with a $1,000 deductible. Of course that was then and those prices have changed drastically. My comment above in an earlier post (post #100) applies to why I think the government is primarily the cause of that change.

Now I'm on Medicare and SS at 68. My total medicare costs are now $326. no deductible but with co-pays and my insurance takes up almost exactly 27% of my SS check. This means of course that I have to stay in good physical condition to keep some income coming in while drawing down a small part of my savings hoping it all will work out to a big zero in about 15 years on the outside. My physical condition is of primary concern to me.

If all states had all insurance providers available, and of course if the states did not promote government mandates and other costs on an insurance co more onerous than Indiana does, a better situation would prevail nation wide.

Although nominal by comparison, you do pay an annual deductible on Part B as well as a deductible per incident under Part A Medicare. In addition to the monthly Medicare premium for Part B, also nominal by comparison, Medicare will still only cover 80% of approved charges. So it isn't free, and even Medicare is expensive for very poor elders. And when doctors start ordering up expensive tests for old people, 20% of those costs soon become huge debts.

I don't think most doctors intend to put that burden on their patients, they just don't THINK. My neighbor recently had to drive 40 miles to the hospital for a doctor-ordered bone density scan, which cost just under $100 for the actual test by the radiologist. But the hospital charged $300 for filling out a form and a ratty hospital gown while she sat in an ice cold room for only 10 minutes before the actual test. Since she hadn't yet met the Medicare deductible for 2009, you can guess that she was not a happy camper.