If you require providers to accept pre-existing conditions, it's not insurance any more

Little-Acorn

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
10,025
Reaction score
2,404
Points
290
Location
San Diego, CA
It's more like a plain health care payment co-op or commune, where all money is put into a pool and doled out as needed.

Nothing wrong with that (well, see below), but you should call it what it is rather than pretend it's "insurance".

Insurance is something that protects against huge losses by, when a person incurs a huge loss, pays for it out of a pool of money all its customers have paid in. It signs in clients based on the idea that none of them have huge problems at present, but a few might incur them later. If they can restrict their new clientele to just people who presently have nothing wrong with them, their costs will be lower. And they can compete successfully for customers.

If, however, they are required to take in people who have a pre-existing condition, they must (a) charge the people with pre-existing conditions a much higher premium since they are guaranteed to need much higher payouts up front; or (b) charge EVERYONE higher premiums to cover the pre-existing conditions, leaving most of them wondering why their premiums went up so much when they didn't get any sicker. (Sound familiar, Obamacare subjects?). And in a competitive world, most people will opt for the companies with lower premiums: Those that don't accept people with pre-existing conditions.

Companies that don't accept people with pre-existing conditions, are the only ones that can compete or even survive in a normal world of sovereign citizens. Healthy people (that's most of them) will leave the companies that accept the pre-existing conditions, and go instead to those who don't, because they get the same service for less paid in premiums. That leaves the companies that accept pre-existing conditions, with ONLY the people who already have expensive maladies or injuries, and their costs will soar as they pay for high-priced care for ALL their remaining customers.

If a company accepts pre-existing conditions, it's not "insurance". It's simply a co-op for people with problems. No one else will want to be a part of it, and the companies know they CANNOT survive without those usually-healthy people.

If you want to set up a company that accepts pre-existing, fine, go ahead. But don't pretend it's "insurance". Nothing could be further from the truth.
 

Lakhota

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
91,498
Reaction score
12,866
Points
2,220
Location
Native America
It's more like a plain health care payment co-op or commune, where all money is put into a pool and doled out as needed.

Nothing wrong with that (well, see below), but you should call it what it is rather than pretend it's "insurance".

Insurance is something that protects against huge losses by, when a person incurs a huge loss, pays for it out of a pool of money all its customers have paid in. It signs in clients based on the idea that none of them have huge problems at present, but a few might incur them later. If they can restrict their new clientele to just people who presently have nothing wrong with them, their costs will be lower. And they can compete successfully for customers.

If, however, they are required to take in people who have a pre-existing condition, they must (a) charge the people with pre-existing conditions a much higher premium since they are guaranteed to need much higher payouts up front; or (b) charge EVERYONE higher premiums to cover the pre-existing conditions, leaving most of them wondering why their premiums went up so much when they didn't get any sicker. (Sound familiar, Obamacare subjects?). And in a competitive world, most people will opt for the companies with lower premiums: Those that don't accept people with pre-existing conditions.

Companies that don't accept people with pre-existing conditions, are the only ones that can compete or even survive in a normal world of sovereign citizens. Healthy people (that's most of them) will leave the companies that accept the pre-existing conditions, and go instead to those who don't, because they get the same service for less paid in premiums. That leaves the companies that accept pre-existing conditions, with ONLY the people who already have expensive maladies or injuries, and their costs will soar as they pay for high-priced care for ALL their remaining customers.

If a company accepts pre-existing conditions, it's not "insurance". It's simply a co-op for people with problems. No one else will want to be a part of it, and the companies know they CANNOT survive without those usually-healthy people.

If you want to set up a company that accepts pre-existing, fine, go ahead. But don't pretend it's "insurance". Nothing could be further from the truth.
Well, when you get a little older and smarter, you will realized the advantages of pooling risks across ages and health conditions. Do you want us to return to the days of Soup Nazi insurance providers before Obamacare?

 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
78,815
Reaction score
7,087
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
It's more like a plain health care payment co-op or commune, where all money is put into a pool and doled out as needed.

Nothing wrong with that (well, see below), but you should call it what it is rather than pretend it's "insurance".

Insurance is something that protects against huge losses by, when a person incurs a huge loss, pays for it out of a pool of money all its customers have paid in. It signs in clients based on the idea that none of them have huge problems at present, but a few might incur them later. If they can restrict their new clientele to just people who presently have nothing wrong with them, their costs will be lower. And they can compete successfully for customers.

If, however, they are required to take in people who have a pre-existing condition, they must (a) charge the people with pre-existing conditions a much higher premium since they are guaranteed to need much higher payouts up front; or (b) charge EVERYONE higher premiums to cover the pre-existing conditions, leaving most of them wondering why their premiums went up so much when they didn't get any sicker. (Sound familiar, Obamacare subjects?). And in a competitive world, most people will opt for the companies with lower premiums: Those that don't accept people with pre-existing conditions.

Companies that don't accept people with pre-existing conditions, are the only ones that can compete or even survive in a normal world of sovereign citizens. Healthy people (that's most of them) will leave the companies that accept the pre-existing conditions, and go instead to those who don't, because they get the same service for less paid in premiums. That leaves the companies that accept pre-existing conditions, with ONLY the people who already have expensive maladies or injuries, and their costs will soar as they pay for high-priced care for ALL their remaining customers.

If a company accepts pre-existing conditions, it's not "insurance". It's simply a co-op for people with problems. No one else will want to be a part of it, and the companies know they CANNOT survive without those usually-healthy people.

If you want to set up a company that accepts pre-existing, fine, go ahead. But don't pretend it's "insurance". Nothing could be further from the truth.
Well, when you get a little older and smarter, you will realized the advantages of pooling risks across ages and health conditions.
And when will you realize that as long as they are required to cover pre-existing conditions, people will wait until they have a condition to sign up?
 

Lakhota

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
91,498
Reaction score
12,866
Points
2,220
Location
Native America
It's more like a plain health care payment co-op or commune, where all money is put into a pool and doled out as needed.

Nothing wrong with that (well, see below), but you should call it what it is rather than pretend it's "insurance".

Insurance is something that protects against huge losses by, when a person incurs a huge loss, pays for it out of a pool of money all its customers have paid in. It signs in clients based on the idea that none of them have huge problems at present, but a few might incur them later. If they can restrict their new clientele to just people who presently have nothing wrong with them, their costs will be lower. And they can compete successfully for customers.

If, however, they are required to take in people who have a pre-existing condition, they must (a) charge the people with pre-existing conditions a much higher premium since they are guaranteed to need much higher payouts up front; or (b) charge EVERYONE higher premiums to cover the pre-existing conditions, leaving most of them wondering why their premiums went up so much when they didn't get any sicker. (Sound familiar, Obamacare subjects?). And in a competitive world, most people will opt for the companies with lower premiums: Those that don't accept people with pre-existing conditions.

Companies that don't accept people with pre-existing conditions, are the only ones that can compete or even survive in a normal world of sovereign citizens. Healthy people (that's most of them) will leave the companies that accept the pre-existing conditions, and go instead to those who don't, because they get the same service for less paid in premiums. That leaves the companies that accept pre-existing conditions, with ONLY the people who already have expensive maladies or injuries, and their costs will soar as they pay for high-priced care for ALL their remaining customers.

If a company accepts pre-existing conditions, it's not "insurance". It's simply a co-op for people with problems. No one else will want to be a part of it, and the companies know they CANNOT survive without those usually-healthy people.

If you want to set up a company that accepts pre-existing, fine, go ahead. But don't pretend it's "insurance". Nothing could be further from the truth.
Well, when you get a little older and smarter, you will realized the advantages of pooling risks across ages and health conditions.
And when will you realize that as long as they are required to cover pre-existing conditions, people will wait until they have a condition to sign up?
They can't do that now under Obamacare without paying a penalty, right?

Health Law Tax Penalty? I’ll Take It, Millions Say - The New York Times

How Much Is the Obamacare Penalty? What You'll Pay for Not Having Health Insurance
 
Last edited:

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
78,815
Reaction score
7,087
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
It's more like a plain health care payment co-op or commune, where all money is put into a pool and doled out as needed.

Nothing wrong with that (well, see below), but you should call it what it is rather than pretend it's "insurance".

Insurance is something that protects against huge losses by, when a person incurs a huge loss, pays for it out of a pool of money all its customers have paid in. It signs in clients based on the idea that none of them have huge problems at present, but a few might incur them later. If they can restrict their new clientele to just people who presently have nothing wrong with them, their costs will be lower. And they can compete successfully for customers.

If, however, they are required to take in people who have a pre-existing condition, they must (a) charge the people with pre-existing conditions a much higher premium since they are guaranteed to need much higher payouts up front; or (b) charge EVERYONE higher premiums to cover the pre-existing conditions, leaving most of them wondering why their premiums went up so much when they didn't get any sicker. (Sound familiar, Obamacare subjects?). And in a competitive world, most people will opt for the companies with lower premiums: Those that don't accept people with pre-existing conditions.

Companies that don't accept people with pre-existing conditions, are the only ones that can compete or even survive in a normal world of sovereign citizens. Healthy people (that's most of them) will leave the companies that accept the pre-existing conditions, and go instead to those who don't, because they get the same service for less paid in premiums. That leaves the companies that accept pre-existing conditions, with ONLY the people who already have expensive maladies or injuries, and their costs will soar as they pay for high-priced care for ALL their remaining customers.

If a company accepts pre-existing conditions, it's not "insurance". It's simply a co-op for people with problems. No one else will want to be a part of it, and the companies know they CANNOT survive without those usually-healthy people.

If you want to set up a company that accepts pre-existing, fine, go ahead. But don't pretend it's "insurance". Nothing could be further from the truth.
Well, when you get a little older and smarter, you will realized the advantages of pooling risks across ages and health conditions.
And when will you realize that as long as they are required to cover pre-existing conditions, people will wait until they have a condition to sign up?
They can't do that now under Obamacare without paying a penalty, right?

Health Law Tax Penalty? I’ll Take It, Millions Say - The New York Times

How Much Is the Obamacare Penalty? What You'll Pay for Not Having Health Insurance
So what? They pay the penalty every year because it is cheaper than paying the premiums for a high deductible policy that will never pay out. They pay for the small stuff out of pocket and if they have any big stuff they sign up. It's called gaming the system. Besides, the system was designed to fail.
 

Lakhota

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
91,498
Reaction score
12,866
Points
2,220
Location
Native America
It's more like a plain health care payment co-op or commune, where all money is put into a pool and doled out as needed.

Nothing wrong with that (well, see below), but you should call it what it is rather than pretend it's "insurance".

Insurance is something that protects against huge losses by, when a person incurs a huge loss, pays for it out of a pool of money all its customers have paid in. It signs in clients based on the idea that none of them have huge problems at present, but a few might incur them later. If they can restrict their new clientele to just people who presently have nothing wrong with them, their costs will be lower. And they can compete successfully for customers.

If, however, they are required to take in people who have a pre-existing condition, they must (a) charge the people with pre-existing conditions a much higher premium since they are guaranteed to need much higher payouts up front; or (b) charge EVERYONE higher premiums to cover the pre-existing conditions, leaving most of them wondering why their premiums went up so much when they didn't get any sicker. (Sound familiar, Obamacare subjects?). And in a competitive world, most people will opt for the companies with lower premiums: Those that don't accept people with pre-existing conditions.

Companies that don't accept people with pre-existing conditions, are the only ones that can compete or even survive in a normal world of sovereign citizens. Healthy people (that's most of them) will leave the companies that accept the pre-existing conditions, and go instead to those who don't, because they get the same service for less paid in premiums. That leaves the companies that accept pre-existing conditions, with ONLY the people who already have expensive maladies or injuries, and their costs will soar as they pay for high-priced care for ALL their remaining customers.

If a company accepts pre-existing conditions, it's not "insurance". It's simply a co-op for people with problems. No one else will want to be a part of it, and the companies know they CANNOT survive without those usually-healthy people.

If you want to set up a company that accepts pre-existing, fine, go ahead. But don't pretend it's "insurance". Nothing could be further from the truth.
Well, when you get a little older and smarter, you will realized the advantages of pooling risks across ages and health conditions.
And when will you realize that as long as they are required to cover pre-existing conditions, people will wait until they have a condition to sign up?
They can't do that now under Obamacare without paying a penalty, right?

Health Law Tax Penalty? I’ll Take It, Millions Say - The New York Times

How Much Is the Obamacare Penalty? What You'll Pay for Not Having Health Insurance
So what? They pay the penalty every year because it is cheaper than paying the premiums for a high deductible policy that will never pay out. They pay for the small stuff out of pocket and if they have any big stuff they sign up. It's called gaming the system. Besides, the system was designed to fail.
That's why we need single-payer, Medicare-for-all. We also need to get a grip on the pharmaceutical industry.

Big Pharma Is America's New Mafia
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
78,815
Reaction score
7,087
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
It's more like a plain health care payment co-op or commune, where all money is put into a pool and doled out as needed.

Nothing wrong with that (well, see below), but you should call it what it is rather than pretend it's "insurance".

Insurance is something that protects against huge losses by, when a person incurs a huge loss, pays for it out of a pool of money all its customers have paid in. It signs in clients based on the idea that none of them have huge problems at present, but a few might incur them later. If they can restrict their new clientele to just people who presently have nothing wrong with them, their costs will be lower. And they can compete successfully for customers.

If, however, they are required to take in people who have a pre-existing condition, they must (a) charge the people with pre-existing conditions a much higher premium since they are guaranteed to need much higher payouts up front; or (b) charge EVERYONE higher premiums to cover the pre-existing conditions, leaving most of them wondering why their premiums went up so much when they didn't get any sicker. (Sound familiar, Obamacare subjects?). And in a competitive world, most people will opt for the companies with lower premiums: Those that don't accept people with pre-existing conditions.

Companies that don't accept people with pre-existing conditions, are the only ones that can compete or even survive in a normal world of sovereign citizens. Healthy people (that's most of them) will leave the companies that accept the pre-existing conditions, and go instead to those who don't, because they get the same service for less paid in premiums. That leaves the companies that accept pre-existing conditions, with ONLY the people who already have expensive maladies or injuries, and their costs will soar as they pay for high-priced care for ALL their remaining customers.

If a company accepts pre-existing conditions, it's not "insurance". It's simply a co-op for people with problems. No one else will want to be a part of it, and the companies know they CANNOT survive without those usually-healthy people.

If you want to set up a company that accepts pre-existing, fine, go ahead. But don't pretend it's "insurance". Nothing could be further from the truth.
Well, when you get a little older and smarter, you will realized the advantages of pooling risks across ages and health conditions.
And when will you realize that as long as they are required to cover pre-existing conditions, people will wait until they have a condition to sign up?

They can't do that now under Obamacare without paying a penalty, right?

Health Law Tax Penalty? I’ll Take It, Millions Say - The New York Times

How Much Is the Obamacare Penalty? What You'll Pay for Not Having Health Insurance
So what? They pay the penalty every year because it is cheaper than paying the premiums for a high deductible policy that will never pay out. They pay for the small stuff out of pocket and if they have any big stuff they sign up. It's called gaming the system. Besides, the system was designed to fail.
That's why we need single-payer, Medicare-for-all. We also need to get a grip on the pharmaceutical industry.

Big Pharma Is America's New Mafia
No, it's not. We don't need a single-payer, Medicare-for-all. We need to stop misusing insurance for things it was never intended to cover.
 

Redfish

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2013
Messages
42,976
Reaction score
6,612
Points
1,870
Location
The Big Easy
Well, when you get a little older and smarter, you will realized the advantages of pooling risks across ages and health conditions.
And when will you realize that as long as they are required to cover pre-existing conditions, people will wait until they have a condition to sign up?

They can't do that now under Obamacare without paying a penalty, right?

Health Law Tax Penalty? I’ll Take It, Millions Say - The New York Times

How Much Is the Obamacare Penalty? What You'll Pay for Not Having Health Insurance
So what? They pay the penalty every year because it is cheaper than paying the premiums for a high deductible policy that will never pay out. They pay for the small stuff out of pocket and if they have any big stuff they sign up. It's called gaming the system. Besides, the system was designed to fail.
That's why we need single-payer, Medicare-for-all. We also need to get a grip on the pharmaceutical industry.

Big Pharma Is America's New Mafia
No, it's not. We don't need a single-payer, Medicare-for-all. We need to stop misusing insurance for things it was never intended to cover.

true, 40 years ago "medical insurance" was only to cover major health events-----hospital stays, accidents, major illnesses, etc. Not every day routine doctor visits or a Rx for an infection. You paid your own routine Doc visits and prescriptions.

The idea that insurance should pay ALL of your medical expenses is what caused this mess.
 

Timmy

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2015
Messages
22,432
Reaction score
2,823
Points
290
Or just tell people to stop having pre conditions!

Oh, you can't . That's why you can't look at medicine like you do other markets . It's a necessity. Typical supply/demand doesn't apply .

Unless u want to leave people to die in the street .
 

there4eyeM

unlicensed metaphysician
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
16,377
Reaction score
2,905
Points
280
Humane healthcare would be normal if thinking were clear.
 
Last edited:

occupied

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2011
Messages
26,034
Reaction score
6,765
Points
280
And when will you realize that as long as they are required to cover pre-existing conditions, people will wait until they have a condition to sign up?

They can't do that now under Obamacare without paying a penalty, right?

Health Law Tax Penalty? I’ll Take It, Millions Say - The New York Times

How Much Is the Obamacare Penalty? What You'll Pay for Not Having Health Insurance
So what? They pay the penalty every year because it is cheaper than paying the premiums for a high deductible policy that will never pay out. They pay for the small stuff out of pocket and if they have any big stuff they sign up. It's called gaming the system. Besides, the system was designed to fail.
That's why we need single-payer, Medicare-for-all. We also need to get a grip on the pharmaceutical industry.

Big Pharma Is America's New Mafia
No, it's not. We don't need a single-payer, Medicare-for-all. We need to stop misusing insurance for things it was never intended to cover.

true, 40 years ago "medical insurance" was only to cover major health events-----hospital stays, accidents, major illnesses, etc. Not every day routine doctor visits or a Rx for an infection. You paid your own routine Doc visits and prescriptions.

The idea that insurance should pay ALL of your medical expenses is what caused this mess.
The mess was caused when big corporations got into the health care business and decided profits are more important than patient outcomes.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
78,815
Reaction score
7,087
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
And when will you realize that as long as they are required to cover pre-existing conditions, people will wait until they have a condition to sign up?

They can't do that now under Obamacare without paying a penalty, right?

Health Law Tax Penalty? I’ll Take It, Millions Say - The New York Times

How Much Is the Obamacare Penalty? What You'll Pay for Not Having Health Insurance
So what? They pay the penalty every year because it is cheaper than paying the premiums for a high deductible policy that will never pay out. They pay for the small stuff out of pocket and if they have any big stuff they sign up. It's called gaming the system. Besides, the system was designed to fail.
That's why we need single-payer, Medicare-for-all. We also need to get a grip on the pharmaceutical industry.

Big Pharma Is America's New Mafia
No, it's not. We don't need a single-payer, Medicare-for-all. We need to stop misusing insurance for things it was never intended to cover.

true, 40 years ago "medical insurance" was only to cover major health events-----hospital stays, accidents, major illnesses, etc. Not every day routine doctor visits or a Rx for an infection. You paid your own routine Doc visits and prescriptions.

The idea that insurance should pay ALL of your medical expenses is what caused this mess.
And prices did not skyrocket then. They only began to skyrocket when we started misusing insurance to cover things we had no business covering with insurance.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
78,815
Reaction score
7,087
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
So what? They pay the penalty every year because it is cheaper than paying the premiums for a high deductible policy that will never pay out. They pay for the small stuff out of pocket and if they have any big stuff they sign up. It's called gaming the system. Besides, the system was designed to fail.
That's why we need single-payer, Medicare-for-all. We also need to get a grip on the pharmaceutical industry.

Big Pharma Is America's New Mafia
No, it's not. We don't need a single-payer, Medicare-for-all. We need to stop misusing insurance for things it was never intended to cover.

true, 40 years ago "medical insurance" was only to cover major health events-----hospital stays, accidents, major illnesses, etc. Not every day routine doctor visits or a Rx for an infection. You paid your own routine Doc visits and prescriptions.

The idea that insurance should pay ALL of your medical expenses is what caused this mess.
The mess was caused when big corporations got into the health care business and decided profits are more important than patient outcomes.
Yes and no. We allowed it. We accepted it. We are part of the problem too.
 

occupied

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2011
Messages
26,034
Reaction score
6,765
Points
280
So what? They pay the penalty every year because it is cheaper than paying the premiums for a high deductible policy that will never pay out. They pay for the small stuff out of pocket and if they have any big stuff they sign up. It's called gaming the system. Besides, the system was designed to fail.
That's why we need single-payer, Medicare-for-all. We also need to get a grip on the pharmaceutical industry.

Big Pharma Is America's New Mafia
No, it's not. We don't need a single-payer, Medicare-for-all. We need to stop misusing insurance for things it was never intended to cover.

true, 40 years ago "medical insurance" was only to cover major health events-----hospital stays, accidents, major illnesses, etc. Not every day routine doctor visits or a Rx for an infection. You paid your own routine Doc visits and prescriptions.

The idea that insurance should pay ALL of your medical expenses is what caused this mess.
The mess was caused when big corporations got into the health care business and decided profits are more important than patient outcomes.
Yes and no. We allowed it. We accepted it. We are part of the problem too.
Speak for yourself, a whole lot of people saw this coming a very long time ago. Now we are trying to fix health care and also protect the profits of people who have nothing to do with actually treating patients. We cannot have both.
 

Crixus

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2015
Messages
24,291
Reaction score
3,619
Points
290
Location
BFE Texas.
It's more like a plain health care payment co-op or commune, where all money is put into a pool and doled out as needed.

Nothing wrong with that (well, see below), but you should call it what it is rather than pretend it's "insurance".

Insurance is something that protects against huge losses by, when a person incurs a huge loss, pays for it out of a pool of money all its customers have paid in. It signs in clients based on the idea that none of them have huge problems at present, but a few might incur them later. If they can restrict their new clientele to just people who presently have nothing wrong with them, their costs will be lower. And they can compete successfully for customers.

If, however, they are required to take in people who have a pre-existing condition, they must (a) charge the people with pre-existing conditions a much higher premium since they are guaranteed to need much higher payouts up front; or (b) charge EVERYONE higher premiums to cover the pre-existing conditions, leaving most of them wondering why their premiums went up so much when they didn't get any sicker. (Sound familiar, Obamacare subjects?). And in a competitive world, most people will opt for the companies with lower premiums: Those that don't accept people with pre-existing conditions.

Companies that don't accept people with pre-existing conditions, are the only ones that can compete or even survive in a normal world of sovereign citizens. Healthy people (that's most of them) will leave the companies that accept the pre-existing conditions, and go instead to those who don't, because they get the same service for less paid in premiums. That leaves the companies that accept pre-existing conditions, with ONLY the people who already have expensive maladies or injuries, and their costs will soar as they pay for high-priced care for ALL their remaining customers.

If a company accepts pre-existing conditions, it's not "insurance". It's simply a co-op for people with problems. No one else will want to be a part of it, and the companies know they CANNOT survive without those usually-healthy people.

If you want to set up a company that accepts pre-existing, fine, go ahead. But don't pretend it's "insurance". Nothing could be further from the truth.

Even so, not covering preexisting conditions is a well crafted lie by the left and nothing more. Only the very ignorant even fall for that stupid shit.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
78,815
Reaction score
7,087
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
That's why we need single-payer, Medicare-for-all. We also need to get a grip on the pharmaceutical industry.

Big Pharma Is America's New Mafia
No, it's not. We don't need a single-payer, Medicare-for-all. We need to stop misusing insurance for things it was never intended to cover.

true, 40 years ago "medical insurance" was only to cover major health events-----hospital stays, accidents, major illnesses, etc. Not every day routine doctor visits or a Rx for an infection. You paid your own routine Doc visits and prescriptions.

The idea that insurance should pay ALL of your medical expenses is what caused this mess.
The mess was caused when big corporations got into the health care business and decided profits are more important than patient outcomes.
Yes and no. We allowed it. We accepted it. We are part of the problem too.
Speak for yourself, a whole lot of people saw this coming a very long time ago. Now we are trying to fix health care and also protect the profits of people who have nothing to do with actually treating patients. We cannot have both.
Really? What exactly did you do about it?
 

occupied

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2011
Messages
26,034
Reaction score
6,765
Points
280
It's more like a plain health care payment co-op or commune, where all money is put into a pool and doled out as needed.

Nothing wrong with that (well, see below), but you should call it what it is rather than pretend it's "insurance".

Insurance is something that protects against huge losses by, when a person incurs a huge loss, pays for it out of a pool of money all its customers have paid in. It signs in clients based on the idea that none of them have huge problems at present, but a few might incur them later. If they can restrict their new clientele to just people who presently have nothing wrong with them, their costs will be lower. And they can compete successfully for customers.

If, however, they are required to take in people who have a pre-existing condition, they must (a) charge the people with pre-existing conditions a much higher premium since they are guaranteed to need much higher payouts up front; or (b) charge EVERYONE higher premiums to cover the pre-existing conditions, leaving most of them wondering why their premiums went up so much when they didn't get any sicker. (Sound familiar, Obamacare subjects?). And in a competitive world, most people will opt for the companies with lower premiums: Those that don't accept people with pre-existing conditions.

Companies that don't accept people with pre-existing conditions, are the only ones that can compete or even survive in a normal world of sovereign citizens. Healthy people (that's most of them) will leave the companies that accept the pre-existing conditions, and go instead to those who don't, because they get the same service for less paid in premiums. That leaves the companies that accept pre-existing conditions, with ONLY the people who already have expensive maladies or injuries, and their costs will soar as they pay for high-priced care for ALL their remaining customers.

If a company accepts pre-existing conditions, it's not "insurance". It's simply a co-op for people with problems. No one else will want to be a part of it, and the companies know they CANNOT survive without those usually-healthy people.

If you want to set up a company that accepts pre-existing, fine, go ahead. But don't pretend it's "insurance". Nothing could be further from the truth.

Even so, not covering preexisting conditions is a well crafted lie by the left and nothing more. Only the very ignorant even fall for that stupid shit.
You are going to have to explain that one.
 

Flash

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2014
Messages
41,082
Reaction score
19,711
Points
2,330
Location
Florida
That precondition bullshit is nothing more than a form a welfare.

If you haven't been paying into an insurance pool then you shouldn't be able to get money out of it. The filthy ass government should never have the authority to make some somebody else pay your bills.
 

there4eyeM

unlicensed metaphysician
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
16,377
Reaction score
2,905
Points
280
Who pays for police protection?
 

occupied

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2011
Messages
26,034
Reaction score
6,765
Points
280
No, it's not. We don't need a single-payer, Medicare-for-all. We need to stop misusing insurance for things it was never intended to cover.

true, 40 years ago "medical insurance" was only to cover major health events-----hospital stays, accidents, major illnesses, etc. Not every day routine doctor visits or a Rx for an infection. You paid your own routine Doc visits and prescriptions.

The idea that insurance should pay ALL of your medical expenses is what caused this mess.
The mess was caused when big corporations got into the health care business and decided profits are more important than patient outcomes.
Yes and no. We allowed it. We accepted it. We are part of the problem too.
Speak for yourself, a whole lot of people saw this coming a very long time ago. Now we are trying to fix health care and also protect the profits of people who have nothing to do with actually treating patients. We cannot have both.
Really? What exactly did you do about it?
Why you let drug prices get so high? Ridiculous question. The feelings and opinions of regular everyday people never entered health care policy until Obama attempted to reform the mess, even then nothing could happen until insurance industry profits were protected.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top