- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Would you have supported a smaller healthcare reform act, specifically one that
Posted on 7/28/14 at 10:42 am to Rex
Posted on 7/28/14 at 10:42 am to Rex
quote:
merely outlawed insurance companies from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions?
No because the entire premise is flawed. "Insurance" is not "medical care". Going after insurance costs to drive them down instead of focusing on medical care costs (which is the driver of insurance costs) is akin to trying to force home prices down by making banking institutions give more loans to sub-primes instead of focusing on creating jobs (for people to actually have money to buy homes).
And we all know how that scenario has played out.
0
Posted on 7/28/14 at 10:49 am to Rex
quote:
Would you have supported a smaller healthcare reform act, specifically one that
merely outlawed insurance companies from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions?
No but I would have supported a bill that helped people with pre-existing conditions and no healthcare in general rather than screwing up the entire healthcare system. Basically it could have been an expansion of medicaid. It could have been paid for with a fair/flat tax bill that could eliminate much of the IRS, would streamline tax preparation for everyone including corporations. This would likely have led to real job creation instead mostly part-time jobs and significant economic expansion which would translate into higher tax revenues; possibly enough to pay for the medicaid expansion.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 10:51 am to Rex
Why not run it like a car insurance?
Have a ton of accidents? Guess what? You pay more.
Have a ton of pre-existing conditions? Guess what? You pay more.
Wait, that's how it worked before right?
I'm not sure why insurance companies are being forced to cover problems you had before getting insurance.
That's like asking an insurance company to cover an accident I had last year before getting insurance.
Have a ton of accidents? Guess what? You pay more.
Have a ton of pre-existing conditions? Guess what? You pay more.
Wait, that's how it worked before right?
I'm not sure why insurance companies are being forced to cover problems you had before getting insurance.
That's like asking an insurance company to cover an accident I had last year before getting insurance.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 11:23 am to Rex
quote:
merely outlawed insurance companies from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions?
One of the major principles of insurance is "adverse selection". Removing pre existing conditions alters that to the point it is no longer insurance which is based on shared risk with actuarial likihood of loss based on chance.
I would suggest putting those with preexisting conditions in a state run risk risk pool and taxed on all citizens for the costs.
Just so you know, my youngest has cystic fibrosis and her medical costs are very very high. I am very happy the ACA removed preexisting conditions and removed indemnity caps but understand this will cause costs to dramatically increase. I am not sure it is fair either.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 11:31 am to Rex
quote:The assistance should be for people who develop conditions to never lose insurance in the first place. Leaving a job shouldn't require you to get a new insurance policy. And most importantly, people should be required to have insurance now.
So, now, what would have been your remedy for people with pre-existing conditions who couldn't afford health care coverage? Just let them die?
The only "extra" support you would need would be for pre-existing conditions to get from a point where people don't have coverage to where everyone has coverage.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 11:33 am to mmcgrath
There should be some kind of mechanism where you could roll over your insurance when changing jobs instead of having to buy Cobra during your probationary period at your new job
Posted on 7/28/14 at 11:35 am to Rex
quote:
So, now, what would have been your remedy for people with pre-existing conditions who couldn't afford health care coverage? Just let them die?
How about a "tax' on insurance companies and thus their customers setting up a pool of last resort to catch those that have a preexisting condition and can't get insurance through regular means?
Posted on 7/28/14 at 11:42 am to fleaux
quote:
There should be some kind of mechanism where you could roll over your insurance when changing jobs instead of having to buy Cobra during your probationary period at your new job
Taking it beyond that, if you develop cancer under a policy then that policy should pay for all cancer treatments even if you lose your job. Why should they be able to pass on the costs to medicaid just because you lost your job, likely due to a disability from the illness.
In many cases people lose their jobs or try switching jobs due to symptoms and the underlying illness isn't discovered until later. Someone who quits a job in the city because they think it is too stressful or the commute is killing them only to find out later they have late stage cancer should be able to get coverage from the policy they may have had only a few months before. Obviously with a stronger ObamaCare they would never be allowed to drop their coverage.
This post was edited on 7/28/14 at 11:43 am
Posted on 7/28/14 at 11:51 am to fleaux
quote:
There should be some kind of mechanism where you could roll over your insurance when changing jobs instead of having to buy Cobra during your probationary period at your new job
If we got away from employers paying for health insurance and letting individuals pay then this would not be a problem.
Of course employers would need to pass on their "savings" to the employee in the form of pay, and the govt. would need to let the employers enjoy a tax break as they previously had.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 12:45 pm to Rex
No, I didn't support ACA because I don't think it went far enough. I fully support a national health care plan where every citizen is given insurance that covers catastrophic injuries/illnesses/hospitalizations, and the private insurance industry covers only routine medical, dental, and vision care.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 12:46 pm to The Spleen
quote:
where every citizen is given insurance
Why this instead of the government just paying for everything directly? Why include insurance at all?
Posted on 7/28/14 at 12:52 pm to The Spleen
quote:
No, I didn't support ACA because I don't think it went far enough. I fully support a national health care plan where every citizen is given insurance that covers catastrophic injuries/illnesses/hospitalizations, and the private insurance industry covers only routine medical, dental, and vision care.
I guess you are unfamiliar with the VA and NHS (UK) wait times?
Posted on 7/28/14 at 12:57 pm to Bard
quote:
Why this instead of the government just paying for everything directly? Why include insurance at all?
Either one I would support. I just don't think catastrophic health events should financially ruin someone in this country.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 1:30 pm to The Spleen
quote:
I just don't think catastrophic health events should financially ruin someone in this country.
I've got no problem with that, it's just that it annoys me that everyone is focusing on insurance costs instead of the ACTUAL costs of medical care.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 1:36 pm to Bard
quote:
it's just that it annoys me that everyone is focusing on insurance costs instead of the ACTUAL costs of medical care.
No doubt. There is also a lack of physicians,and it's only going to get worse the more college and medical school costs increase. Who wants to go to school/residency for 10 years only to graduate with $300,000 in student loans these days?
Posted on 7/28/14 at 1:38 pm to The Spleen
quote:
No doubt. There is also a lack of physicians,and it's only going to get worse the more college and medical school costs increase. Who wants to go to school/residency for 10 years only to graduate with $300,000 in student loans these days?
Tru.
Dat.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 1:40 pm to Bard
I think the troll might be half full.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 3:22 pm to gatorrocks
quote:
Why not run it like a car insurance?
Because people FEEL.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 5:40 pm to Rex
quote:
Because people FEEL.
Feel what?
Posted on 7/28/14 at 6:09 pm to Rex
quote:
The whole point of insurance is determining risk....
Derp rex derp.
Page 7 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News