Should Insurance Charge You for Your Pre-existing Condition?

  
Via:  perrie-halpern  •  3 months ago  •  197 comments

Should Insurance Charge You for Your Pre-existing Condition?
Pre-existing conditions: That's insurance speak for a disease, injury, or medical condition you had before you got a health insurance policy. As the democrats and republicans gear up for how to fix the American healthcare system, you can be sure that pre-existing conditions will either be on the table, or on the chopping block. The bottom line question: should an insurance company have the right to turn you down or charge you more money if you have one?

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.    3 months ago

Everybody at some point in their life will have a pre-existing condition, so what are we really discussing here? 

I think it's the right for insurance companies to charge you more. 

What do you think? 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
1.1  Raven Wing  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1    3 months ago
What do you think? 

I agree that it is just a scam by the insurance companies to rip off their customers.  If a person moves to a new location and their prior insurance company does not serve that new area, they would need to find a new insurance company. This happened to me when I moved from California to No Virginia and my prior insurer did not have coverage in Virginia. Thus, I had to find a new insurance company. 

Thus, any illnesses or such that they had while with the prior insurer would be considered as pre-existing, and subject to either a higher rate or no coverage for those pre-existing conditions. Luckily, I didn't not have any pre-existing condition that fell into that category. 

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1.1  MUVA  replied to  Raven Wing @1.1    3 months ago

Where is the scam?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.2  XDm9mm  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1    3 months ago
I think it's the right for insurance companies to charge you more.  What do you think? 

We agree.  At least for 'known' conditions, diabetes or cancer, or other such known type conditions.   Not allowing that is akin to a vehicle owner totaling a car or truck then insuring it with collision coverage and claiming the damages.

HOWEVER....   if you have insurance coverage and are simply changing carriers, no.   And changing carriers is not that uncommon, especially in the era of that catastrophe known as the ACA (aka Obamacare).  

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
1.3  Thrawn 31  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1    3 months ago

I think health insurance is a total scam. When I have been paying my premiums for several years, never had a medical issue, but my wife's miscarriage goes badly and I still have to pay $900, what would you call it? I mean, in what other industry do you pay for a product monthly, and then have to pay more when you actually need the product you are already paying for? 

No other modern nations deal with this kind of bullshit, we are the only outlier. 

 
 
 
MUVA
1.3.1  MUVA  replied to  Thrawn 31 @1.3    3 months ago

It is called a copay or deductible you were made aware of the terms when you signed up.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
1.3.2  Thrawn 31  replied to  MUVA @1.3.1    3 months ago

And it is horseshit.

Health insurance in the US is more or less a hostage situation. You have to get it because if something actually happens almost no one has the money to pay for it out of pocket, but when you do have it you pay out the ass for it monthly and then pay even more when something actually happens. And that doesn't even take into account that a lot of people can't leave their current jobs because they can't lose their insurance. 

Universal healthcare would be just about the best thing to ever happen to this country. 

 
 
 
MUVA
1.3.3  MUVA  replied to  Thrawn 31 @1.3.2    3 months ago

Would everyone pay the same and could you opt out if you don't want that shitty system?  

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
1.3.4  Thrawn 31  replied to  MUVA @1.3.3    3 months ago

Yep. Opting out that is. Everyone still pays via taxes, but you can choose a private company or to pay out of pocket if you want. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.3.5  XDm9mm  replied to  Thrawn 31 @1.3.2    3 months ago
Universal healthcare would be just about the best thing to ever happen to this country.

Sure, if you want to see it bankrupt, or operated like Amtrak.  

I can see it now.  Emergency room care with a two week waiting list, and that's for the most urgent needs like heart attacks strokes and bleeding out.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.3.6  MUVA  replied to  Thrawn 31 @1.3.4    3 months ago

So I have to pay even though I opt out  and everyone pays the same or is sliding scale?

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
1.3.7  Thrawn 31  replied to  XDm9mm @1.3.5    3 months ago
Sure, if you want to see it bankrupt, or operated like Amtrak

So basically where we are now? 

I can see it now.  Emergency room care with a two week waiting list, and that's for the most urgent needs like heart attacks strokes and bleeding out.

So basically what we have now? Except now after you wait for forever you also get to shell out a couple grand. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.3.8  Greg Jones  replied to  Thrawn 31 @1.3.2    3 months ago
Universal healthcare would be just about the best thing to ever happen to this country. 

You would pay more for less coverage, fewer options, and long waiting periods for appointments and procedures.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.3.9  Sean Treacy  replied to  Greg Jones @1.3.8    3 months ago
are would be just about the best thing to ever happen to this country. 

Universal healthcare is great as long as you don't get sick.  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.3.10  Jack_TX  replied to  Thrawn 31 @1.3.2    3 months ago
Health insurance in the US is more or less a hostage situation.

Health CARE is the hostage situation.

You have to get it because if something actually happens almost no one has the money to pay for it out of pocket,

And yet people bitch about the one thing that pays those bills.....

but when you do have it you pay out the ass for it monthly and then pay even more when something actually happens. And that doesn't even take into account that a lot of people can't leave their current jobs because they can't lose their insurance. 

Their insurance has been portable since 1985.  

Universal healthcare would be just about the best thing to ever happen to this country. 

"Universal" healthcare doesn't solve the problem, which is that we pay more for care than every other nation, often by a factor of 10 more.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.4  TᵢG  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1    3 months ago

I have more to say @10, but briefly I can see individuals paying more based on poor lifestyle choices; not strictly because of a pre-existing condition outside of their control.   Consider the extreme cost of healthcare when dealing with certain forms of cancer that manifest not from poor lifestyle choices (not from individual choice) but as a result of genetics and the environment.    So often shit just happens to people that is outside of their domain of choice.   This is the main reason why the notion of distributed risk makes sense.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.4.1  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  TᵢG @1.4    3 months ago
I have more to say @10, but briefly I can see individuals paying more based on poor lifestyle choices; not strictly because of a pre-existing condition outside of their control. 

That is exactly right. There is a difference between what you can control and what you can't.

 
 
 
Kathleen
1.4.2  Kathleen  replied to  TᵢG @1.4    3 months ago

I agree, “Preventative” measures are what we need to do. Smoking, too much drinking and weight issues are something we can control. Exercise is very important for all ages.  Many of the diseases associated with these issues can be prevented.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.4.3  TᵢG  replied to  Kathleen @1.4.2    3 months ago

Lifestyle choices are fair game when determining participation 'price' in the system.   We can choose to smoke or work out.   We cannot, however, choose our genes or (to a large degree) our environment.   And we have very little choice when it comes to the basic 'luck of the draw' factors.

 
 
 
Kathleen
1.4.4  Kathleen  replied to  TᵢG @1.4.3    3 months ago

True, there are some things we cannot avoid.  Family history and where you live and work. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.5  Jack_TX  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1    3 months ago
Everybody at some point in their life will have a pre-existing condition, so what are we really discussing here? 

Actually most people won't.

Most people stay insured, therefore any conditions they develop are not pre-existing.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.    3 months ago

As we learn more about genes, we learn that hidden conditions we didn't know about. And as our DNA becomes more and more of the public domain, it can be used against us. 

Be careful with that 23 and me you were going to take.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
2.1  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2    3 months ago

I was going to add that point myself Perrie.  The movie Gattica from 1997 yields a very possible scenario where biological predispositions are identified in your DNA and are qualifiers/disqualifiers for work, and even basic survival.  Knowing how human greed works, you can bet insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industry will try to capitalize/monetize knowledge gained from our DNA.

With respect to pre-existing conditions, there is much to work out.  I'm now leaning towards the system we have here in Germany where there is a public medical system that everyone has access to, while there is still a private system available for those that want or need it.  This would work in the US. 

The real money saver is access to preventative medicine and dental care.  That's what we should be focusing our efforts on as it stretches every dollar further to cover more people.     

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1.1  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @2.1    3 months ago

Germany is supposed to have the best healthcare system in the world. I have been reading up on it. I think it's worth thinking about. 

The real money saver is access topreventative medicine and dental care.  That's what we should be focusing our efforts on as it stretches every dollar further to cover more people. 

I have to agree. If you can stop a health issue before it becomes critical, then you are saving money

brw.. loved the movie GATTACA. Very much a cautionary tale. 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
2.1.2  Thrawn 31  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.1    3 months ago

Germany is the model we should follow when it comes to healthcare. I have been saying that for years.

 
 
 
Enoch
2.2  Enoch  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2    3 months ago

Dear Friend Perrie: I took the 23 and Me test.

Turns out 8.5% of me is New York State sales tax.

They rated my policy to accodmodate accountant fees as a pre-existing condition.

Enoch, Filing My Lab Tests Jointly with Mrs. E.

 
 
 
MUVA
2.2.1  MUVA  replied to  Enoch @2.2    3 months ago

Very funny have a great day.  

 
 
 
Enoch
2.2.2  Enoch  replied to  MUVA @2.2.1    3 months ago

You too, dear friend.

E.

 
 
 
MUVA
3  MUVA    3 months ago

Buying  health insurance after you get sick is like buying car insurance after a wreck.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
3.1  Thrawn 31  replied to  MUVA @3    3 months ago

What about when you get sick while you have insurance and they drop you? Oh wait, thanks to Obama they can't do that shit anymore. 

 
 
 
MUVA
3.1.1  MUVA  replied to  Thrawn 31 @3.1    3 months ago

That isn't a pre-existing condition and Obama didn't do what you are claiming. 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
3.1.2  Thrawn 31  replied to  MUVA @3.1.1    3 months ago
hat isn't a pre-existing condition

Didn't stop them from calling it that.

Obama did do what you are claiming. 

Yeah, the ACA did.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
3.1.3  FLYNAVY1  replied to  MUVA @3.1.1    3 months ago

Yes MUVA, the ACA did exactly that! 

It prevented insurance companies from dropping your or raising your rates once you got sick or needed medical help...

 
 
 
Jack_TX
3.1.4  Jack_TX  replied to  Thrawn 31 @3.1    2 months ago
What about when you get sick while you have insurance and they drop you? Oh wait, thanks to Obama they can't do that shit anymore. 

That was already illegal in almost every state in America.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
3.1.5  Jack_TX  replied to  Thrawn 31 @3.1.2    2 months ago
Didn't stop them from calling it that.

That's not what a "pre-existing condition" is or was.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
3.1.6  Jack_TX  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @3.1.3    2 months ago
It prevented insurance companies from dropping your or raising your rates once you got sick or needed medical help...

That was already illegal.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
4  sandy-2021492    3 months ago

Unsafe drivers pay more.

Homeowners who live far from a fire department pay more.

So, yes, people with pre-existing conditions should pay more.  They are more likely to require care, often expensive care.  If insurance companies don't charge them higher premiums, then we all end up paying higher premiums to cover their increased utilization.

I have no problem with subsidizing them to some extent, either by way of a government subsidy or through premiums that are higher, but not reflective of their actual increased risk.  But it is not fair for someone with uncontrolled type II diabetes to pay the same premiums as someone who eats right, exercises, and either controls their disease or never develops it in the first place.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
4.1  Thrawn 31  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4    3 months ago
So, yes, people with pre-existing conditions should pay more. 

But what counts as a pre-existing condition? I had an asthma attack brought on by an allergy to cats 16 years ago. I have not had a single incident of asthma since (I was running 5 minute miles in my 20s just fine) but prior to the ACA my insurance labeled me as a high risk asthmatic and tried to charge through the roof. Should I really be charged far more, because I had an allergic reaction 16 years ago, than most people even though I am far healthier than 97% of the people in this country? 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
4.1.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  Thrawn 31 @4.1    3 months ago

That would be something that would have to be hashed out.  It seems to me that, if a condition has not required treatment for a long period of time, it should no longer be considered to be a condition from which you suffer.

But for people who have chronic conditions that are still being treated, yes, IMO, that should qualify as a pre-existing condition.  You do not contribute to increasing the risk of the pool of insured members.  A person with uncontrolled diabetes or COPD does, though.  If insurance companies don't charge them higher premiums, the costs get passed along to every other insured member.  That's just math.  The money has to come from somewhere.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.1.2  XDm9mm  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.1    3 months ago
It seems to me that, if a condition has not required treatment for a long period of time, it should no longer be considered to be a condition from which you suffer.

That would be predicated on the condition.  Some cancers for instance can go into 'remission' for years and then flair up again.  It didn't require treatment, but it was none the less existing.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
4.1.3  sandy-2021492  replied to  XDm9mm @4.1.2    3 months ago

Unfortunately true.

Companies selling life insurance policies are fairly good at estimating their odds of having to pay out benefits vs. how much they'll receive in premiums via actuarial science.  I believe the same could be done for health insurance.  We know enough of the pathologies of most diseases to determine their likelihood of returning to say whether they should be considered pre-existing or not.  One asthma attack in decades - probably shouldn't be considered pre-existing.  Breast cancer, unfortunately, should.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.1.4  XDm9mm  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.3    3 months ago
Companies selling life insurance policies are fairly good at estimating their odds of having to pay out benefits vs. how much they'll receive in premiums via actuarial science.

Hell, that was the smoke and mirrors used to establish Social Security.  The actuarial tables showed the people with a life expectancy of about 60 years at the time.  Benefits would only theoretically commence after the individual was dead and buried.  Hence the burial stipend and Uncle Sam kept all the rest.  SS was a ponzi scheme scam perpetrated on the American people because FDR was in dire need of additional tax revenue but didn't have the balls to say so.  So, they conjured up Social Security and the people bought it hook line and sinker....  never realizing exactly how big that sinker actually would become.

 
 
 
MUVA
4.1.5  MUVA  replied to  XDm9mm @4.1.4    3 months ago

Now most people collect far more than they ever paid in.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.1.6  XDm9mm  replied to  MUVA @4.1.5    3 months ago
Now most people collect far more than they ever paid in.

That was the failure of the system.  Plus the fact that it was greatly expanded over the years to include 'disability', and things like SSI and survivor benefits.

It simply goes to prove the point that once the government has it's hand in your pocket or bank account, you'll essentially never be able to get it out...  even in death it will steal what you earned.

 
 
 
MUVA
4.1.7  MUVA  replied to  XDm9mm @4.1.6    3 months ago

I think  it is usually only 7 years for most people to get back what they paid in 43 % of the retired population is living off SS only.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
4.1.8  Thrawn 31  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.1    3 months ago
That would be something that would have to be hashed out.

And that is the sticking point isn't it? 

It seems to me that, if a condition has not required treatment for a long period of time, it should no longer be considered to be a condition from which you suffer.

But if I am a for profit health insurance company, fuck that. I am not taking the risk. Not without significant compensation that is.

But for people who have chronic conditions that are still being treated, yes, IMO, that should qualify as a pre-existing condition. 

So when a person like a coworker of mine develops breast cancer at age 50 (she is dead now) and requires constant treatment for almost 2 years is that a pre-existing condition? Or what about my mother-in-law who was diagnosed with Parkinson's at age 58 and has required treatment over the last 10 years? Does she have a pre-existing condition? What about people born with various disabilities that will require lifelong treatment? Aren't they the living definition of a pre-existing condition? You see how this becomes very tricky very quickly. 

  If insurance companies don't charge them higher premiums, the costs get passed along to every other insured member.  That's just math.  The money has to come from somewhere.

Oh I know, to the tune of thousands per year. 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
4.1.9  Thrawn 31  replied to  XDm9mm @4.1.6    3 months ago
That was the failure of the system. 

I have dual solutions. Raise the age and eliminate the cap. Problem solved.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
4.1.10  sandy-2021492  replied to  Thrawn 31 @4.1.8    3 months ago
But if I am a for profit health insurance company, fuck that. I am not taking the risk. Not without significant compensation that is.

That is where we could introduce government oversight.  It is not new for contracts of any kind to have requirements to be considered legal, to protect all involved.  Certain exclusions could be made illegal.

So when a person like a coworker of mine develops breast cancer at age 50 (she is dead now) and requires constant treatment for almost 2 years is that a pre-existing condition? Or what about my mother-in-law who was diagnosed with Parkinson's at age 58 and has required treatment over the last 10 years? Does she have a pre-existing condition?

If they weren't insured when they were diagnosed, yes.

For those born with certain disabilities, we as a civilized society should be caring for them, preferably without them needing to purchase private health insurance.

to the tune of thousands per year.

Yes, unfortunately.  I pay for my own health insurance, as I'm self-employed.  So, yeah, I know it's expensive.  And I've been turned down for disability insurance because, like you, I had issues with my hands almost 20 years ago for which I've never needed treatment since.  Sucks, but there it is.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
4.1.11  sandy-2021492  replied to  Thrawn 31 @4.1.9    3 months ago
Raise the age and eliminate the cap.

I agree, but a lot of people get pissed when you mention raising the age, especially if they're close to their retirement age.

 
 
 
MUVA
4.1.12  MUVA  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.11    3 months ago

What pisses me off is the democrat politicians that call for means testing.When my father in law went to start his SS benefits it took several months he went to the office to see what was the hold up the women told him she had seen his finacels and didn't the money what was  his hurry.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
4.1.13  sandy-2021492  replied to  MUVA @4.1.12    3 months ago

IMO, there should be no means testing for SS benefits.  We all pay in, and we should all receive that to which paying in entitles us.

 
 
 
JBB
4.1.14  JBB  replied to  MUVA @4.1.12    3 months ago

I sincerely doubt that. At full retirement age Social Security is not means tested so if you are eligible the application is fast and easy either in person or online. Besides, Social Security has nothing to do with either health insurance or preexisting conditions. Everyone must apply several monts before they anticipate starting to receive benefits. It does not start automatically or immediately and all payments are always one month behind. I applied about three months ahead of my eligibility date yet my first check came in exactly on time about two months after I reached eligibility. It is though based on your income up until full retirement age. If you apply early while still working and you still have income above, I believe, $18,500.00 per year then your benefit check is either reduced or any excess received is due back to the Treasury at tax time. In any case, that whopping story your FIL told is implausible...

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.15  TᵢG  replied to  MUVA @4.1.12    3 months ago

I agree.   Means testing is a consequence of inept management of SS over the decades; it will no doubt be in effect.   Government as usual goes to the people to correct its mistakes.   In this case, those who contributed to the system (by force) during their careers may be challenged so that they get a lesser return than what they have been promised (and no doubt counted on in their retirement planning).

 
 
 
MUVA
4.1.16  MUVA  replied to  JBB @4.1.14    3 months ago

I didn't say SS was means tested   I said after 4 months my father in law had to go to SS office because he hadn't seen his first check and was told you don't need the money what is your hurry.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.1.17  XDm9mm  replied to  MUVA @4.1.7    3 months ago
43 % of the retired population is living off SS only.

That's also close to the number of people that don't pay federal income tax.   

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.1.18  XDm9mm  replied to  Thrawn 31 @4.1.9    3 months ago
Raise the age and eliminate the cap. Problem solved.

We've raised the age.  Didn't work.  We could raise the age over a period taking into account and carving out a 'time" for those currently nearing retirement age.

As to raising the cap, remember that benefits are predicated on total contributions made, so if you raise the cap, you need to raise the benefit amount a corresponding amount.

Personally, it wouldn't bother me all that much.  I maxed out my (and the company) contributions long before the end of the year so I saw yearly pay raises when the deductions stopped.  I loved it.   Plus, my current monthly check is the max allowed by law.   My 401k just continues to grow.  Unfortunately, I'll be forced by law to tap into that in another year.  I'm just mulling whether I should make one massive 'withdrawal' and pay the tax, or do it over time.  That will be predicated on politics when that time comes.  If Trump looks good, I might stay the course.  If Democrats and their promise of tax increases are better bets at the ballot box, out it comes at current low rates and stashed away from prying government claws.

 
 
 
lib50
4.1.19  lib50  replied to  MUVA @4.1.12    3 months ago

If you apply for SSI I believe they can look into your bank accounts. but not regular Social Security, which has nothing to do with how much you have.  Sounds like an anomaly.  

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.1.20  XDm9mm  replied to  JBB @4.1.14    3 months ago
In any case, that whopping story your FIL told is implausible...

Not necessarily.  If he applied late, as in the month or month before he was eligible, it could most certainly have happened.

Mine was right on time since I applied several months prior and waited for full retirement benefits age since I was still working and didn't want to give them a dime back!

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
4.1.21  Freedom Warrior  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.15    3 months ago

SSI is already means tested by the IRS.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.22  Texan1211  replied to  XDm9mm @4.1.18    3 months ago
As to raising the cap, remember that benefits are predicated on total contributions made, so if you raise the cap, you need to raise the benefit amount a corresponding amount.

You nailed it. Some want to pretend that benefits aren't determined by contributions.

They simply want successful people to pay for others' retirements.

They want to raise the cap but don't want to raise benefits for those who pay in the most.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.1.23  XDm9mm  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.22    3 months ago
They simply want successful people to pay for others' retirements.

They simply want successful people to pay for others' EVERYTHING from cradle to grave.

Sorry, I just had to make that minor correction.

 
 
 
MUVA
4.1.24  MUVA  replied to  XDm9mm @4.1.18    3 months ago

At one point Obama threw around the idea of taking 401ks and rolling them into SS because no one needs that much.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.25  Texan1211  replied to  XDm9mm @4.1.23    3 months ago

I stand happily corrected!

 
 
 
 
Ender
4.1.27  Ender  replied to  Thrawn 31 @4.1.9    3 months ago

Don't agree with raising the age. Waiting for full retirement now is close to seventy.

Average life expectancy in the US is about 78.

From what I gather, most people would collect 10 years or less.

 
 
 
Ender
4.1.28  Ender  replied to  XDm9mm @4.1.17    3 months ago

Federal general funds and SS funds are separate accounts.

If someone gets a refund at the end of the year, it does not come out of SS funds.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
4.1.29  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.22    3 months ago

They wouldn't need to do much other than raise the tax since SSI already has a maximum cap on the monthly benefit.  That's of course is their plan if you want to be generous.   Plus, they don't ever mention the impact to employers who pay half of that tax and for sure the self employed who pay the full monty.

It's just another left wing brain fart stinking up the place as usual.

 

 
 
 
Ender
4.1.30  Ender  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.1    3 months ago

Raising cost on certain people would not help that much. The price they raised the monthly bill to on the people would likely not even cover their cost for treatment.

Imo it would only make it to where the people that need it most could not afford it.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
4.1.31  sandy-2021492  replied to  Ender @4.1.30    3 months ago

That would depend on the condition.  For those with conditions maintained primarily with medication, such as high blood pressure, diabetes, and some autoimmune conditions, it would.  Many of those can be managed at a reasonable cost, but higher than the cost of care for a healthy person.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.1.32  XDm9mm  replied to  Ender @4.1.27    3 months ago
Waiting for full retirement now is close to seventy.

Full retirement is 66 and 2 months for those born in 1955 and will raise to 67 for those born in 1960.

Not really "that" close, but close enough I guess.

But life expectancy was the creators (FDR and his administration) downfall.  When initiated, people would have already been dead before collecting or very quickly after.  They never anticipated actually having to pay out benefits other than a minor burial stipend.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.1.33  XDm9mm  replied to  Ender @4.1.28    3 months ago
Federal general funds and SS funds are separate accounts.

Reread the post.  I never said they were.  

I simply noted that the number was close to the number of people that don't pay any federal income tax.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.1.34  XDm9mm  replied to  Freedom Warrior @4.1.29    3 months ago
They wouldn't need to do much other than raise the tax since SSI already has a maximum cap on the monthly benefit.

That monthly cap is determined by the maximum amount contributed.

Now if they raise the tax without raising the benefit amount, it will need additional regulation changes.  And that would likely be like a lead balloon going over Niagara Falls!

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.35  TᵢG  replied to  Freedom Warrior @4.1.21    3 months ago
SSI is already means tested by the IRS.

We are talking about a future condition which would be a pure means test based on the financial situation of the individual upon the distribution of their SS benefits.

You are referring to the graduation formulas for income which provide progressively lower social security credits at each level of earned income.   This occurs during earning, not during distribution.

But, as I noted, I fully expect means testing (reduced benefits at distribution time based on one's financial position) to be implemented by politicians passing on their mistakes to the public.

 
 
 
Ender
4.1.36  Ender  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.31    3 months ago

Ok, but if those that need certain medications have to pay an increase and higher premiums to cover the cost, what would be the purpose of having the insurance.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
4.1.37  sandy-2021492  replied to  Ender @4.1.36    3 months ago

To avoid paying the even higher costs they would have if they were uninsured.  Same as high-risk drivers are still better off paying for auto insurance, even though their premiums are higher.

 
 
 
Ender
4.1.38  Ender  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.37    3 months ago

I don't see how it would be higher if they are basically paying for the medication.

If they are basically paying for the medication themselves they could drop the general plan and just get a catastrophic plan.

Just like a driver could get collision only. (liability, whatever)

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
4.1.39  sandy-2021492  replied to  Ender @4.1.38    3 months ago

They're not paying just for the medication.  They are also paying to defray the risks that go along with their conditions, if not maintained.  Heart attack, kidney disease, stroke, for example.  But for many with those conditions, they can be maintained on medications for decades without developing the sequelae.  Their risk is higher than average, though, so IMO it is fair to expect them to pay more, if they had those conditions when they became insured.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
4.1.40  sandy-2021492  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.39    3 months ago

They're also paying for the same care as any healthy person - they get coverage for preventive care, routine care like acute care visits for minor illnesses like strep and flu, accidents, unpredictable illnesses like cancer.

 
 
 
Ender
4.1.41  Ender  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.39    3 months ago

If someone is paying extra to cover their medication and then there is a thousand dollar deductible, they are paying for their doctor visit as well.

They could maintain on the meds and doctor visits without dipping into the pool, paying their higher price. If they are going to do that anyway, no point in the general policy.

Imo it is basically saying people that are not as healthy as others should pay more to live.

So guess we gotta agree to disagree on this one.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
4.1.42  sandy-2021492  replied to  Ender @4.1.41    3 months ago

Insurance premiums are determined only by actual costs.  They're also determined by the risk one introduces to the insured pool.  Certain conditions carry higher risks.  If those with those conditions don't pay higher premiums, we all do.

I can agree to disagree.

 
 
 
Ender
4.1.43  Ender  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.42    3 months ago
we  all  do

My point is someone that needs medication should not have any impact on premiums overall when the insurance companies are raking in record profits.

Big 8 health insurers rake in more than $7B in Q3, setting up strong finish to 2018

So them saying that everyone needs to pay more because of one or two people is a lie.

Frank was startled to see that Aetna had agreed to pay NYU Langone $70,000. That's more than three times the Medicare rate for the surgery and more than double the estimate of what other insurance companies would pay for such a procedure, according to a nonprofit that tracks prices.

Fuming, Frank reached for the phone. He couldn't see how NYU Langone could justify these fees. And what was Aetna doing? As his insurer, wasn't its duty to represent him, its "member"? So why had it agreed to pay a grossly inflated rate, one that stuck him with a $7,088 bill for his portion?

"You pay for everything, but you can't see what you pay for," he said.

With a practiced eye, Frank scanned the billing codes hospitals use to get paid and immediately saw red flags: There were charges for physical therapy sessions that never took place and drugs he never received.

One line stood out — the cost of the implant and related supplies. Aetna said NYU Langone paid a "member rate" of $26,068 for "supply/implants." But Frank didn't see how that could be accurate. He called and emailed Smith & Nephew, the maker of his implant, until a representative told him the hospital would have paid about $1,500. His NYU Langone surgeon confirmed the amount, Frank said. The device company and surgeon did not respond to ProPublica's requests for comment.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/05/25/613685732/why-your-health-insurer-doesnt-care-about-your-big-bills

They are wildly inflating prices. An implant that costs 1,500 is being charged at 26,000. The man in this article even with his coverage still had to pay over 7k.

Until we have regulation over the industry, this will continue. It should not be a for profit industry where the insurance companies rake in millions while saying that people with conditions need to pay more.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
4.1.44  sandy-2021492  replied to  Ender @4.1.43    3 months ago

It's not the insurance company that's inflating the cost of the implant.  That's the hospital.  Same for many medications.  And it's the hospital that charged fraudulently for PT sessions.  I agree that insurance company profits are obscene, but we should place blame where blame lies.

 
 
 
Ender
4.1.45  Ender  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.44    3 months ago

True. I blame both though as they negotiate the prices.

 
 
 
Ender
4.1.46  Ender  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.44    3 months ago

Anyway, have a happy 4th!

Heading out in a little bit. Having a BBQ and a few libations on the beach and watch the show around here. It is wild as everyone shoots of fireworks on the beach, quite a spectacle.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
4.1.47  sandy-2021492  replied to  Ender @4.1.46    3 months ago

Have a great time. I'm travelling to my parents'.  We have a family reunion this Saturday.  The crazy side is getting together. If I post an address, it means I need to be rescued jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Karri
4.1.48  Karri  replied to  Thrawn 31 @4.1.9    3 months ago
eliminate the cap

I've seen that, too.  I agree that eliminating the cap would save SS -- and even allow for more benefits.

In fact, I would even make it a progressive system.  Double the amount paid (by both person and company) for anyone who receives over a million dollars/year.  Maybe we should triple and quadruple it at higher levels.  It would definitely help with the current funding issues, but it might also help with income inequality.

 
 
 
MUVA
4.1.49  MUVA  replied to  Karri @4.1.48    3 months ago

That idea sucks.

 
 
 
Karri
4.1.50  Karri  replied to  MUVA @4.1.49    2 months ago

Okay, so we disagree.  If we are to have a productive dialogue, you will have to elaborate. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5  JohnRussell    3 months ago

Many conditions are not pre-existing conditions in the sense that they developed before the individual got health insurance. 

Most people got their health insurance through their jobs, and start working in their mid 20's at the latest. If you had health insurance when you were 27 and you develop diabetes when you are 40 that is not a pre-existing condition in terms of you having insurance. Let's say you change jobs when you are 42 and need new health insurance. Should the new insurance company be able to charge you more for a pre-existing condition, when you have had health insurance dating back to before you developed the diabetes? NO. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6  JohnRussell    3 months ago

If someone is 50 years old and has never bought health insurance before, and has heart disease, it makes sense that this individual might have problems getting insured. That would be like having an unsafe car which could cause an accident at any time and expecting to get auto insurance anyway. 

But people who have had insurance continually should not be penalized because their "car" goes bad all of a sudden. Such a thing would negate the concept of "insurance", which is a large group of people pooling their funds into one fund which is then drawn from as needed. 

 
 
 
charger 383
7  charger 383    3 months ago

Insurance companies have failed the American Citizens, they can not be trusted

I have been covered by health insurance from birth, never had a gap so nothing can be a pre existing condition 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.1  JohnRussell  replied to  charger 383 @7    3 months ago

You are correct. 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
7.2  Thrawn 31  replied to  charger 383 @7    3 months ago

Being alive is a pre-existing condition to them. 

But you are right, private insurance has failed our country super hard. There is a reason we pay significantly more and achieve similar (if not worse) results. 

 
 
 
MUVA
7.3  MUVA  replied to  charger 383 @7    3 months ago

Have you changed insurance company's?

 
 
 
charger 383
7.3.1  charger 383  replied to  MUVA @7.3    3 months ago

yes and in my experience in the past 20 years they have all become liars, cheats and crooks.  Earlier they were not that bad 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.3.2  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  charger 383 @7.3.1    3 months ago

I agree Charger. That is because the paradigm for both how insurance is viewed by the companies that offer it and the ever increasing cost of medicine because Americans pick up the bulk of the R&D on drugs and hospitals charge insane amounts of money for cheap items, like aspirin. 

I know people who have lost their homes to hospitals because of their cancer. How can that be right?

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.3.3  TᵢG  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.3.2    3 months ago
I know people who have lost their homes to hospitals because of their cancer. How can that be right?

Spot on.   This is a clear problem that should be addressed because the solution (a large risk pool) is obvious and doable (in theory).   As Sandy notes, however, our extant political system and the divisiveness inherent in our nation pretty much kills any initiative of value.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
7.3.4  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.3.2    3 months ago
I know people who have lost their homes to hospitals because of their cancer. How can that be right?

that is a state by state problem. one that does not exist in states with homestead acts.

I would like to see a national homestead law so no one losses their house over healthcare debt.

in texas no one can touch a homesteaded property except the mortgage lender and taxing authorities.... every other debt collector is simply out of luck. including hospitals and the like.   house, car, tools of one's trade = safe.   

most peoples problems are best solved at the state level.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
7.4  Freedom Warrior  replied to  charger 383 @7    3 months ago

Government is what has failed. And it will continue to do so until it has destroyed our health care system.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
8  Thrawn 31    3 months ago

Fuck no, they try to define everything as a pre-existing condition. In the eyes of insurance companies, unless you have never gotten hurt or sick in your entire life then you are a walking pre-existing condition. 

It made me so happy to see our insurance have to eat the entire bill for my last daughter's birth. 

 
 
 
MUVA
8.1  MUVA  replied to  Thrawn 31 @8    3 months ago

You actually paid for it.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
8.1.1  Thrawn 31  replied to  MUVA @8.1    3 months ago

Oh I pay my premiums sure, but my health insurance is gonna be in the red for quite some time given what they had to pay.

 
 
 
luther28
9  luther28    3 months ago

Should Insurance Charge You for Your Pre-existing Condition?

Not unless one gets to send the insurance company their pre-insurance medical bills. I should have done it in one word, no.

 
 
 
TᵢG
10  TᵢG    3 months ago

Logically it makes sense for everyone to pay according to their own health, but this is very problematic.   Take a person who develops cancer.   The treatment of that common affliction can bankrupt a family.   Because medical costs can vary so dramatically it makes sense to distribute them across a large population.   Same thing goes for pre-existing conditions.   If cancer was a pre-existing condition for an individual (continuing the example), the insurance costs for the individual will be staggering.    The need to distribute applies here as well.

But pre-existing conditions pose a substantial problem.   Unless everyone is participating as part of the paying population, those who are not participating have a loop hole.   If they are healthy, they can pay medical bills without insurance until the point in time when they get really sick.  Then, and only then, can they opt into the system with their pre-existing condition and get the benefits.   This is of course grossly unfair to this who were participating all along.

Thus pre-existing conditions should be covered due to the staggering individual financial burden but this means the loophole has to be closed.    This is a profound problem.

The obvious resolution is to have everyone contribute to the national pool.    Everyone pays for basic insurance (healthy or not) and the risk is distributed across the entire population.   That could cover the problems outlined.   On top of that, it makes good sense to have tiered support where individuals can pay more for special services (picking their own doctors, access to advanced treatments, bypass waiting lines, etc.).    The tiered support provides a market for continued R&D by providing an avenue for those who can and wish to spend more for health services to do so.

 
 
 
MUVA
10.1  MUVA  replied to  TᵢG @10    3 months ago

What if you underwrite your healthcare and don't need the system?

 
 
 
TᵢG
10.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  MUVA @10.1    3 months ago
What if you underwrite your healthcare and don't need the system?

In my view you would still contribute to the basic healthcare.   But, in your case, you would likely use your financial position to acquire higher tiers of service.

Key concern is this.   Life happens.   People who at one time could handle the risk themselves (or worked for an employer who underwrote the company insurance) could find themselves financially unable to do so (for any number of reasons).   What then?   Are they forever locked out of the system?   

We know from our existing system that denying human beings medical attention is simply not how civil society functions (nor should it).    We need a system where human beings can get necessary health care and that system should provide good quality with effective cost management.   To me a basic system paid by everyone and available to everyone is inevitable.   How that system functions is the interesting question.

 
 
 
luther28
10.2  luther28  replied to  TᵢG @10    3 months ago
The obvious resolution is to have everyone contribute to the national pool.    Everyone pays for basic insurance (healthy or not) and the risk is distributed across the entire population.
A sensible solution in my estimation.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
10.2.1  Thrawn 31  replied to  luther28 @10.2    3 months ago

And one that every other modern nation on the planet has adopted, except us. 

 
 
 
MUVA
10.2.2  MUVA  replied to  luther28 @10.2    3 months ago

Not if you don't want that system. I'm fine with the system we have now and don't want the government involved in my or my family's healthcare.#pay for your own healthcare.

 
 
 
TᵢG
10.2.3  TᵢG  replied to  MUVA @10.2.2    3 months ago

You are presuming the government is making medical decisions.   I did not stipulate that (and I too am against government being involved except in an administrative capacity).

 
 
 
MUVA
10.2.4  MUVA  replied to  TᵢG @10.2.3    3 months ago

The administrative part is what scares me the government making decisions

 
 
 
TᵢG
10.2.5  TᵢG  replied to  MUVA @10.2.4    3 months ago
The administrative part is what scares me the government making decisions

The concept of government administration has a very broad range.   At its very core, a government is an administrative agent.   Unless you envision civil society without a government, the notion of administration is inevitable.

The specifics is what matters.

As I noted, I also am against government making medical decisions.

 
 
 
MUVA
10.2.6  MUVA  replied to  TᵢG @10.2.5    3 months ago

We agree going to play the lottery have a great fourth!

 
 
 
lib50
10.2.7  lib50  replied to  MUVA @10.2.2    3 months ago

The government doesn't make healthcare decisions.  And how can one underwrite a massive medical incident?   It costs MILLIONS.   And national healthcare is paying for your own heathcare.  

 
 
 
livefreeordie
10.2.8  livefreeordie  replied to  lib50 @10.2.7    3 months ago

Sure it does. With Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare and VA 

when you have statutory definitions, limits of coverage, and or limits of reimbursement to doctors and hospitals, then government is making those decisions 

we need to repeal them all except VA care for disabled Vets (thats the same as Workman’s Compensation)

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
10.3  sandy-2021492  replied to  TᵢG @10    3 months ago

This is sensible, but too many have ideological objections.  Frankly, I doubt that we'll ever have such a system. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
10.3.1  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.3    3 months ago

Having discussed this topic for years, I agree that no matter what is proposed people will zero in on the parts they dislike and then reject the entire proposal.

There is no such thing as a system that makes everyone happy.   It is quite possible that the USA is so divided (and divisive) at this point that we will wallow in our own shit for perpetuity.   Clearly we cannot rely upon our politicians to devise a good quality, cost effective system and put it into effect.   At best, they will deliver a political gesture and move on to the next political battle in the endless pursuit of gratuitous power.

My view is that healthcare in the USA is overly expensive and that is due, in part, to our inability to standardize and achieve economies of scale.   While I focused on the risk aspect @10, we are just tossing $ into the fire by leaving economies of scale on the table.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
10.3.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  TᵢG @10.3.1    3 months ago

Some are angry at the idea of government replacing private insurers as administrators.  They think it's too much government intrusion.

Many who don't mind government "intrusion" balk at the notion of a tiered system, as it's too elitist.  Never mind that the wealthy have always had access to better food, housing, clothing, etc.  Health care, for some, must be egalitarian.

I heard a phrase last week that applies - "perfection is the enemy of good enough."  Perfection would be pleasing everybody.  Since we can't do that, we won't do anything.

 
 
 
MUVA
10.3.3  MUVA  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.3.2    3 months ago

I would say if we did what some want we would punish people for being successful like the income tax system. 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
10.3.4  Thrawn 31  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.3.2    3 months ago

Pretty much. In America perfect is now the enemy of the good. We cannot make any progress because if we cannot get it perfect all at once it just isn't even worth striving for.

 
 
 
MUVA
10.3.5  MUVA  replied to  Thrawn 31 @10.3.4    3 months ago

No wealth redistribution sucks and isn't a good idea even if you want to pay less for healthcare.

 
 
 
TᵢG
10.3.6  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.3.2    3 months ago
Some are angry at the idea of government replacing private insurers as administrators.

There are so many ways to tackle this.   For one, I am not in favor of government official making medical decisions.   The administration I have in mind is more along the lines of administering the process of standardization, distributing resources, collecting funds, etc.   There is plenty of ways to architect a national system, administered in a federated fashion by government and implemented by private sector organizations.

Many who don't mind government "intrusion" balk at the notion of a tiered system, as it's too elitist.  Never mind that the wealthy have always had access to better food, housing, clothing, etc.  Health care, for some, must be egalitarian.

Those with the means will be funding R&D (in effect) that will benefit everyone.   Besides that, those with the attitude you outlined have a major personal problem to deal with because they will never be in an egalitarian society (nor would they want to be if they understand what that would mean).   People with more money (and power) get better things.   No way that is going to change.    Given the nature our our society, no way that should change either; the inequality is critical and net good.

 
 
 
TᵢG
10.3.7  TᵢG  replied to  MUVA @10.3.5    3 months ago
No wealth redistribution sucks and isn't a good idea even if you want to pay less for healthcare.

Any taxation or variant of that is wealth redistribution.   In civil society some level of wealth redistribution is necessary (and good) for the society.   In other words, wealth redistribution is not a single thing that is bad or good, it depends on the specifics.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
10.3.8  sandy-2021492  replied to  TᵢG @10.3.6    3 months ago

Oh, I agree.  I was just pointing out why I think we're unlikely to change anything.  We're too polarized on this issue, as on many others.  We won't compromise.  If some can fine one point on which they disagree with a proposed plan, they'll throw out the baby with the bathwater.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
10.3.9  sandy-2021492  replied to  MUVA @10.3.3    3 months ago
I would say if we did what some want we would punish people for being successful like the income tax system. 

How?  Please be specific.

 
 
 
TᵢG
10.3.10  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.3.8    3 months ago

I understand you were posing the problems.   And the problems do indeed exist.   Hard to imagine how we will ever make progress on important issues in the USA.

 
 
 
MUVA
10.3.11  MUVA  replied to  TᵢG @10.3.7    3 months ago

If you are the one seeing over 70,000 of your income taken a year now a little less thanks Trump I would suggest you think it sucks.

 
 
 
MUVA
10.3.12  MUVA  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.3.9    3 months ago

It is simple some will pay more a lot more while some will pay little to nothing basically have no skin in the game but all the demands for better service.

 
 
 
TᵢG
10.3.13  TᵢG  replied to  MUVA @10.3.11    3 months ago
If you are the one seeing over 70,000 of your income taken a year now a little less thanks Trump I would suggest you think it sucks.

What makes you think that I have not paid dearly in taxes during my career?   Or that I have not paid more than you?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
10.3.14  sandy-2021492  replied to  MUVA @10.3.12    3 months ago

No.  In TiG's scenario, all will pay in and receive basic care.  If you want more, and can afford more, you pay for more yourself, or by purchasing private insurance.  All have skin in the game.

 
 
 
MUVA
10.3.15  MUVA  replied to  TᵢG @10.3.13    3 months ago

I didn't say that I was speaking to my situation I believe from your comments you are very smart and have probably have done very well.Hey that being said can I borrowjrSmiley_11_smiley_image.gif a few bucks

 
 
 
MUVA
10.3.16  MUVA  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.3.14    3 months ago

If you pay nothing or get subsidies do you really have skin in the game? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
10.3.17  TᵢG  replied to  MUVA @10.3.15    3 months ago

You should be able to secure a decent business LOC in this economy.  jrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
MUVA
10.3.18  MUVA  replied to  TᵢG @10.3.17    3 months ago

I was looking for interest free I would like to say this you always have well thought out opinions and I respect that now how about a loanjrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
10.3.19  sandy-2021492  replied to  MUVA @10.3.16    3 months ago
If you pay nothing

You're the only one who's said anything about paying nothing.

Even under the ACA, those who get subsidies are paying part of their premiums.  I'm not sure how that's "nothing".

 
 
 
TᵢG
10.3.20  TᵢG  replied to  MUVA @10.3.18    3 months ago

First, my CPA has told me that I cannot offer an interest free loan - the loan must be above the prime rate.   Second, even if I could offer an interest free loan, you would need to provide a reason for me to do so.   How much of your company equity are you willing to sell?

 
 
 
MUVA
10.3.21  MUVA  replied to  TᵢG @10.3.20    3 months ago

I'll take that as no have a great fourth.

 
 
 
TᵢG
10.3.22  TᵢG  replied to  MUVA @10.3.21    3 months ago

Happy 4th MUVA.

 
 
 
Ender
10.4  Ender  replied to  TᵢG @10    3 months ago

I have liked the Australian system. They basically have Medicare for all yet still have private insurance, private hospitals etc. for those that can afford it or choose to go that route.

 
 
 
Kavika
10.4.1  Kavika   replied to  Ender @10.4    3 months ago

That is correct. My kids, grandkids and great grandkids are all covered by their Medicare for all. A couple feel that they need private insurance so they purchase it. It much much much less expensive in Aussie than it is here in the US (private insurance).

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
11  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh    3 months ago

Insurance should charge smokers, fat people  and addicts more for insurance.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
11.1  Thrawn 31  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @11    3 months ago

Why do you want to send Trump's base into even deeper poverty? 

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
11.1.1  Dean Moriarty  replied to  Thrawn 31 @11.1    3 months ago

Why would you want to subsidize their expenses? 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
11.1.2  Thrawn 31  replied to  Dean Moriarty @11.1.1    3 months ago
Why would you want to subsidize their expenses?

Because I am not a total piece of shit?

 
 
 
JBB
11.1.3  JBB  replied to  Dean Moriarty @11.1.1    3 months ago

Because if we did not subsidize healthcare for the very poor we would end up with a huge chronically ill and ultimately underproductive underclass which is forced to utilize emergency rooms for what should be inexpensive primary care resulting in exhorbatent unsustainable total real and societal cost...

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
11.1.4  Thrawn 31  replied to  JBB @11.1.3    3 months ago

You are speaking logic to a Trump supporter...

 
 
 
JBB
12  JBB    3 months ago

We all pay one way or the other. We pay in higher premiums, padded billls to cover all those who don't or can't pay or lack insurance. We all pay in higher taxes to cover the poor and the elderly. We pay too often for emergency care for chronic conditions that would be better and cheaper to address woth comprehensive care but because so many lack insurance gets poorly treated on an emergency basis costing exhorbatently more. In the end, Americans in total pay about twice as much per person compared with other industrialized nation for a less effective less efficient system resulting in a sicker, less happy and less productive population. This effects everything else in our economy adversely especially businesses. What we will eventually end up with is a two tier system of basic non-life extensive care for all and then a second tier of premium care for those with premium insurance or enough money to pay market price for elective life extending or life enhancing therapies...

 
 
 
MUVA
12.1  MUVA  replied to  JBB @12    3 months ago

I would like to see you explain it in your own words.

 
 
 
JBB
12.1.1  JBB  replied to  MUVA @12.1    3 months ago

I just did...

 
 
 
MUVA
12.1.2  MUVA  replied to  JBB @12.1.1    3 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
JBB
12.1.3  JBB  replied to  MUVA @12.1.2    3 months ago

You are wrong. Find my words elsewhere or, well, eat your own words...

 
 
 
MUVA
12.1.4  MUVA  replied to  JBB @12.1.3    3 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
12.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  MUVA @12.1.4    3 months ago

JBB is very articulate, he could have easily come up with those words.   

 
 
 
MUVA
12.1.6  MUVA  replied to  TᵢG @12.1.5    3 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
lib50
12.1.7  lib50  replied to  MUVA @12.1    3 months ago

YOU need to do your homework because you don't even understand how our systems compares to the world in costs and outcomes.  Its been explained so many times here yet never gets more than a pass.  We all (includes you even if you don't know it) pay more for our system, which literally impacts almost a fifth of our economy.   It requires  a deeper and wider conversation about macro issues, not personal experiences and anecdotes.  I also posted links and my own words in the past and get the same crap.    Homework required.

 
 
 
MUVA
12.1.8  MUVA  replied to  lib50 @12.1.7    3 months ago

I don't care about the rest of the world when it comes to my family's healthcare or what you believe or what a liberal think tank believe (oxymoron) by the way you haven't a clue what I understand take you hubris elsewhere.

 
 
 
JBB
12.1.9  JBB  replied to  MUVA @12.1.8    3 months ago

You still have not even tried to contest the facts as I stated them in my original comment #12 and yet you have insulted me while treated everyone to a veritable meltdown. The fact is that we, The USA, collectively still pay about twice as much per person all things being equal compared with other modern industrialized nations for our healthcare system and yet we get worse results...by far. Too many Americans still go without basic healthcare and that ends up costing everyone even more in the long run. Also, the reason for this is ultimately just greed and avarice and baser resentments. We, The USA, really could do better...

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
12.1.10  Thrawn 31  replied to  MUVA @12.1.8    3 months ago

In other words, you think what you want to think and reality be damned!

 
 
 
MUVA
12.1.11  MUVA  replied to  Thrawn 31 @12.1.10    3 months ago

How's reality yours no thanks my reality is I have healthcare. 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
12.1.12  Freedom Warrior  replied to  JBB @12.1.9    3 months ago

 Why do better when you can just complain about everything and have somebody else pay for it.

 
 
 
lib50
12.2  lib50  replied to  JBB @12    3 months ago

I have tried to have a conversation about this and its impossible when one side doesn't even understand the issue beyond their own world.  No understanding of macro healthcare, no understanding of costs and outcomes.  Not to mention they believe lies every day, why should this be different?

 
 
 
TᵢG
12.2.1  TᵢG  replied to  lib50 @12.2    3 months ago

Thing is, I suspect most do indeed understand the macro issues.   Makes the objection to honest discussion even more curious.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
12.2.2  Freedom Warrior  replied to  lib50 @12.2    3 months ago

 You never demonstrated to anybody I’m familiar with that you have a grasp of any of those elements of the healthcare conundrum. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
13  It Is ME    3 months ago

"should an insurance company have the right to turn you down or charge you more money if you have one?"

Yep !

Insurance companies are a business, that you can contribute to for YOUR future, if YOU CHOOSE !

It's no different than wrecking your car, than trying to get Car insurance after the fact, for cheap !

Any intelligent business person wouldn't even touch it with a 40 ft. pole.

Every intelligent person knows somethings going to happen some day, and the Intelligent person does something to insure that that situation is covered before it happens.

People need to stop this fucked up reasoning that someone owes them when they haven't even contributed to ANYTHING !

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
13.1  Thrawn 31  replied to  It Is ME @13    3 months ago

So then we really should all be paying about $2,000 a month because eventually something will happen. Being alive is a pre-existing condition. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
13.1.1  It Is ME  replied to  Thrawn 31 @13.1    3 months ago
So then we really should all be paying about $2,000 a month because eventually something will happen.

[Removed]

 
 
 
MUVA
13.1.2  MUVA  replied to  It Is ME @13.1.1    3 months ago

Unfortunately I pay more but I have a son that is handicapped we are right at 2,200 a month  since I'm self employed I buy from a broker.

 
 
 
It Is ME
13.1.3  It Is ME  replied to  MUVA @13.1.2    3 months ago

We're at $ 664.00 a month for three. My $ 80,000 hospital visit a few years ago, cost us $ 2,500.00 out of pocket.

Of course, I've paid for "Insurance" for quite sometime now. A few hundred bucks a month is well worth it. Imagine having to shell out 80 Grand in one fell swoop cause I didn't have insurance, and then bitching at insurance companies for not covering me AFTER THE FACT. Personally, folks should feel like "FOOLS" for even attempting to bitch at a COMPANY for not funding them, when they didn't contribute in the first place.

 
 
 
MUVA
13.1.4  MUVA  replied to  It Is ME @13.1.3    3 months ago

I agree it is silly eat like a pig get diabetes or smoke and get lung cancer then demand healthcare. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
13.1.5  It Is ME  replied to  It Is ME @13.1.1    3 months ago

Truth is Truth !

A "Blog" doesn't make truth false !

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
14  Freedom Warrior    3 months ago

There are many ways to improve the health care system and how the cost should be distributed.  VIrtually none of them are being discussed here.

Single payer?  That's a complete fucking loser.

Pre-Existing conditions - That requires a long term outlook and planning to go with.

Basic Care - Could be done far more cost efficiently if it were'nt for d-bag attorneys, pandering legislators and government in general.

God forbid someone should mention personal responsibility  in this equation.

Meanwhile, you have left wing fukwads figuring someone else should pay for their care.  Can't you hear them right now, Wah, Wah Wah!  Oh and don't forget to let the rest of the world know they can come here and receive free treatment.

 
 
 
MUVA
14.1  MUVA  replied to  Freedom Warrior @14    3 months ago

You can't have personal responsibility when everything is Trump's fault. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
14.2  TᵢG  replied to  Freedom Warrior @14    3 months ago
There are many ways to improve the health care system and how the cost should be distributed.  VIrtually none of them are being discussed here.

What do you propose?   

 
 
 
Nerm_L
15  Nerm_L    3 months ago

People who consume more, pay more.  That's the way it works for any type of consumption.  So, what's the argument?

 
 
 
lib50
15.1  lib50  replied to  Nerm_L @15    3 months ago

So if they can't pay, they die. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
15.1.1  Nerm_L  replied to  lib50 @15.1    3 months ago
So if they can't pay, they die. 

If someone cannot pay, they cannot consume.  That is an unremarkable observation.

The pertinent question is whether or not medical care should be delivered in the consumer marketplace?

It's a fundamental question of rights.  Opportunity to consume is always limited by ability to pay.  Is access to fundamental rights simply a matter of consumption?

 
 
 
TᵢG
15.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @15.1.1    3 months ago
Is access to fundamental rights simply a matter of consumption?

Your opening comment @15 presented this issue as a simple matter of choice in what to consume.    Lib50 is now focusing your attention on the problem inherent in such a simplistic view when it comes to healthcare.

She is clearly asking you if it is desirable for people who cannot afford to pay for their (as an example) expensive cancer treatments (and this is an easily achieved state even with insurance) to just die.   She is asking if this is what you propose for civil society.

 
 
 
It Is ME
15.1.3  It Is ME  replied to  TᵢG @15.1.2    3 months ago
Lib50 is now focusing your attention on the problem inherent in such a simplistic view when it comes to healthcare.

But YOU loath simplistic !

What changed ?

 
 
 
TᵢG
15.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  It Is ME @15.1.3    3 months ago

Read what I wrote.  You are clearly confused.  Worse, you even quoted the operative part.

 
 
 
It Is ME
15.1.5  It Is ME  replied to  TᵢG @15.1.4    3 months ago
Read what I wrote.  You are clearly confused. 

I did, along with all your other comments throughout my time here !

But one is AOK when being "Simplistic", if it fits your narrative !

Your "Interpretation" of what I just wrote, isn't my problem.

Simplistically speaking that is !

Maybe you should really review your own "Overall" narratives from time to time ?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
15.1.6  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @15.1.2    3 months ago
Your opening comment @15 presented this issue as a simple matter of choice in what to consume.    Lib50 is now focusing your attention on the problem inherent in such a simplistic view when it comes to healthcare.

Arguing over mechanisms to pay for medical delivery means that delivery will continue to be governed by the principles of the marketplace.  Therein lies the central problem.

She is clearly asking you if it is desirable for people who cannot afford to pay for their (as an example) expensive cancer treatments (and this is an easily achieved state even with insurance) to just die.   She is asking if this is what you propose for civil society.

But that question is based upon the idea that medical care is a consumer product.  Why should I pay for your pumpkin spice latte?

Is education a consumer product?  Are the courts a consumer product?  Is infrastructure a consumer product?  Why don't we utilize insurance to pay for education, legal needs, and infrastructure?

The argument over insurance is idiocy.  The insurance industry has transformed a fundamental right into a consumer product.  See the problem?

 
 
 
TᵢG
15.1.7  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @15.1.6    3 months ago

You are dodging the question.   

 
 
 
Nerm_L
15.1.8  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @15.1.7    3 months ago
You are dodging the question.   

Okay, small words.  No money, no house.  No money, no food.  No money, no clothes.  No money, no phone.  No money, no car.  No money, no medical care. 

No money, people die because they can't consume.  That's the way the consumer marketplace works.

Now, answer the question that should be asked:  should medical care be delivered in the consumer marketplace?  Should a hospital function like Walmart?  Or should a hospital function like a public courthouse?

 
 
 
TᵢG
15.1.9  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @15.1.8    3 months ago
No money, people die because they can't consume. 

Is that how you think it should be?   (Per lib50's inquiry.)

Now, answer the question that should be asked

Put forth your proposal.

 
 
 
lib50
15.1.10  lib50  replied to  TᵢG @15.1.9    3 months ago

Seems obvious their proposal is 'tough shit, die'.  And you can't have a rational debate about healthcare when viewed from that prism. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
15.1.11  TᵢG  replied to  lib50 @15.1.10    3 months ago
Seems obvious their proposal is 'tough shit, die'. 

It would seem so.   Maybe a non-vague proposal will be offered.

 
 
 
MUVA
15.1.12  MUVA  replied to  lib50 @15.1.10    3 months ago

My proposal is all you wildly successful liberal democrat progressive should just get together and start your own system.Why do you need all the dumb ass mouth breathing broke right wingers?You people on the left are so much more educated and wealthy then the rest of why do you even need to have a conversation you already  have all the fucking answers.   

 
 
 
MUVA
15.1.13  MUVA  replied to  TᵢG @15.1.11    3 months ago

I just want the government out of my health and life I make enough money I would rather just be left alone.

 
 
 
TᵢG
15.1.14  TᵢG  replied to  MUVA @15.1.12    3 months ago
My proposal is all you wildly successful liberal democrat progressive should just get together and start your own system.

Logically everyone would need to be involved and everyone would benefit from the system.   A system that lacks those basic features will be systemically flawed IMO.

There are quite a few systems that could be devised.   I generally favor those with government administration of standards and regulations with execution taking place in the competitive marketplace (private sector).

 
 
 
MUVA
15.1.15  MUVA  replied to  TᵢG @15.1.14    3 months ago

I would agree with a private sector administration. What I don't want to see is a sliding scale for the funding with some paying more while some pay nothing by gaming the system like with the ACA where people under reported income.I don't have a problem helping the handicapped and indigent it is the cheats some that drive a brand new car asking for a subsidy. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
15.1.16  TᵢG  replied to  MUVA @15.1.13    3 months ago
I just want the government out of my health and life I make enough money I would rather just be left alone.

I understand that.   Government should not be involved in personal healthcare choices.    However, we are all part of a civil society and that means we are all interconnected.   Our ability to make money is a function of our society;  we are not living in isolation.   In result, we have to reserve some part of our time and resources to maintaining our society.

Having people grow sick due to improper preventative care and then dealing with chronic conditions using expensive emergency facilities is net dumb.   It is bad for all of us.   Makes far more sense to devise a system where people get basic healthcare in a cost effective manner that allows those with additional money avenues to get higher levels of healthcare as they see fit by tapping a competitive healthcare delivery market that is regulated to be safe and can tap economies of scales through federated standardization.

 
 
 
TᵢG
15.1.17  TᵢG  replied to  MUVA @15.1.15    3 months ago
I would agree with a private sector administration.

The key is coming up with a means of ensuring proper quality of care.   Typically that falls upon government rather than for-profit agencies.   Also, I am a big fan of standardization as a strategy for cost effective operations.   That could be private sector but government is better suited (given its scope) for that task too.

What I don't want to see is a sliding scale for the funding with some paying more while some pay nothing by gaming the system like with the ACA where people under reported income

I hear you.   Government is not without substantial corruption (which leads into loopholes) and is often incompetent (enabling gaming).   Something that has pissed me off for decades (and seems to be getting worse).

 
 
 
Nerm_L
15.1.18  Nerm_L  replied to  lib50 @15.1.10    3 months ago
Seems obvious their proposal is 'tough shit, die'.  And you can't have a rational debate about healthcare when viewed from that prism. 

IMO the deterioration of our national infrastructure can be attributed to increased reliance on private contractors for upkeep and delivery.

Once upon a time government operated and maintained hospitals.  IMO it isn't a coincidence that our health care system has deteriorated in the same way as our infrastructure for the same reasons.

The military operates its own medical care system as logistical infrastructure necessary to accomplish the mission of the military.  The military trains and maintains its own medical staff and deploys medical staff and facilities as logistical support for military operations.  Medical care is embedded in military planning.  And medical care is not treated as a consumer product; medical care is delivered as needed as part of the military mission.  We already have an alternative model for delivery of medical care that does not utilize the consumer marketplace.

IMO the government should become more involved in direct delivery of medical care by establishing a health care infrastructure.  The government needs to do much more than simply throwing more money at the consumer marketplace; the government needs to remove delivery of medical care from the consumer marketplace.

 
 
 
MUVA
15.1.19  MUVA  replied to  TᵢG @15.1.17    3 months ago

I would be willing to pay to opt out even a monthly payment as long it isn't ridiculous like the Cadillac proposed in the ACA.We are interconnected society but we are also free as of now.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
15.1.20  TᵢG  replied to  MUVA @15.1.19    3 months ago

Stepping back, here is my view.

Our healthcare costs are out of control.   We can seriously change that for the positive through good old fashioned management.   In particular, tapping into standardization and economies of scale.    

The USA should be leading the world in basic healthcare for all.   We should have a cost-effective, good quality basic infrastructure wherein anyone can get affordable health care.   The higher quality (choice of doctors, better doctors, better equipment, advanced methods, less waiting time, etc.) services would be available to those who wish to pay more to get them.   I see this as a system that involves federated administration from the government (standardization and safety regulation) with private sector providers in a competitive marketplace (remember the regulated part).

Medical decisions should be between doctor and patient - no administrators denying professional treatment.   I do see the need for a system of professional reviewers (all medical professionals) who will authorize special treatments.   But for the most part, standard care is rather well known and should be available for authorization by the doctor with the approval of the patient.

It is far better to have proactive measures to keep people healthy rather than react to (avoidable) illness.   That is, in the big picture not taking action to organize our disparate systems into an effective healthcare infrastructure is one of the least cost-effective routes we can pursue.

 
 
 
MUVA
15.1.21  MUVA  replied to  TᵢG @15.1.20    3 months ago

I understand what you are saying and if the power that be believe what you are saying I could maybe come aboard.I see the democratic leadership though wanting to control the system as another mechanism to buy votes.The democrats like Bernie and some of the others want control of the money's as a way to punish people that earn more he has actually said so. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
15.1.22  TᵢG  replied to  MUVA @15.1.21    3 months ago

I agree.   Our current crop of politicians (regardless of party) would literally shock me if they did something that was not predominantly in their own local interests.   That is one of the reasons the USA has been falling behind other nations in spite of our science/engineering and economic prowess.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online







Tessylo
Transyferous Rex
Dismayed Patriot
igknorantzrulz
Save Me Jebus
JBB
Trout Giggles
Freedom Warrior


33 visitors