drunk drivers chose to drive drunk. people with cancer usually dont have a say. although i understand the basic principles of underwriting that dictate premiums must be outrageous in those instances. i dunno, maybe one company could add 5% predetermined cancer patients, the other could go 5% heart disease. either way, they might want to find a way before the govt cripples them completely.
Well, the President claims that this is one area he's going to correct. The only way to do that is to either have the Government insure them or subsizize the premium. Certainly insurance companies can not cancel insureds who contract a catastrophic illness so why would someone with cancer put themselves in a position where they have to get a new provider? Anyway, that's just one small part of a plan that I'd like to see some specifics on. And don't tell me to read the bill. There isn't one.
really? its done all the time. it makes complete sense. many choose to refuse procedures because theyd rather have a less horrific last few days. i still think rationing is the way to go. the US says "we have X dollars. we can do this many procedures on any citizen". if you want expensive or risky procedures pay for them out of pocket or buy supplemental insurance. we are paying for procedures with little real value on very old/very sick people and not paying for prenatal care or vaccinations.
you're principles and basic understandings are misguided on so many things its often hard to comprehend.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Medical Bills And Bankruptcy Again, I have never said we don't need reform. But we don't need reform with political groups protecting their interests at the expense of the healthcare system to be jammed down our throats.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that both things you say are true: 1. The status quo is unacceptable. 2. Obama's plan is not utopian. So, what is an acceptable compromise that will work better than both? What parts are workable in Obama's plan and what parts are not. What is the alternate plan? No plan is set in stone and any plan will have to be flexible enough to be modified as we go in the face of changing realities. But any plan is better than no plan and no clue at all. So . . . what foolishness do we need to remove from the unsustainable system we have right now? And what clever ideas do we need to add from newer plans to find the right balance between cost and effectiveness that we are all looking for? It's easy to say some plan is wrong. I'm looking for someone to tell me what plan is better?
I quit reading after the earth talk started and just started skimming...much like the congress memebers are skimming through this 1000 page bill. There needs to be something done about the healthcare in the country, we are like in the middle of the pack when it comes to other nations in the world. HOWEVER this is not the answer. Personally I think what needs to happen is more competion among the insurance companies we need a "SafeAuto" of the medical world. We already have Government run Healthcare ITS CALLED THE VA and it SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! When you have to be a physic and foretell that there will be something wrong 2 months from now so you can call in today and make that appointment something is wrong!!! Dont believe me ask a veteran!!! This year back in Januray I was having this sharp numbing pain in my ankle. Called to make the appointment...first available was March 3. Go see the doctor he sends me for Xrays in Baton Rouge and an MRI in New Orleans. Xrays took 2 weeks for the order to be process. MRI wasnt able to get that secuduled until MAY!!!!! 2 weeks after I get the MRI I get a letter from the VA saying my doctor was changing and I didnt get the results for the MRI until THIS MONTH!!!!!!!!! This is government run health care take a good look cause if this passes in a few years they will run the rest of the insurance companies out of buisness and this is ALL THAT WILL BE LEFT!!!!!!!!
It depends. If it turns out to be a reasonable amount when spread out over so many insured people, then why not do it and keep us all from worrying about losing coverage. If it turns out to be shockingly expensive, then other avenues must be sought and the insurance industry loses a lot of business. They can cut people now because those people are lost from the system. If a government backed alternative is out there, then that's just insurance business lost to the competition and insurance companies will find a way not to lose business. Perhaps people with pre-existing conditions could pay higher co-pays and premiums to prevent it from impacting overall rates. It just comes down to exactly how much it would take to cover everybody with health care instead of covering only the healthy. You know more about fundamental underwriting principles than I do, and I'll bet you a case of beer that some one has worked out these costs actuarially already. So what are the numbers? Is it a mountain or a mole hill?
