The Derp
Gold Member
- Apr 12, 2017
- 9,620
- 661
- 205
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #181
It's not supposed to pay for medical treatment for people who decided to get this "insurance" after they've been diagnosed with a serious medical issue.
Exactly. For the same reason you don't buy flood insurance as your house is getting flooded. So what you're doing here is making the case for single payer health care, or at the very least automatic enrollment in a Public Option. Because, as you correctly point out, you don't know what will happen the next second you draw a breath. So in the event that you might get struck down by an expensive disease, or hit by a bus, you have to insure yourself to prevent financial ruin. My point is and always has been that having a private insurer skim as much as 20% off the top for themselves to serve the function of administration is pointless, costly, a waste, and does nothing to improve or enhance your health care. They reimburse after you've already had the treatment. So they're just doing administration. Why does that part of health care have to be privatized and what benefit of having it privatized is there to the patients? None so far as I can see. Medicare serves the exact same function, yet Medicare's budget only allocates about 1% to administration vs. a company like Aetna, that allocates 17%.
So what's the better deal for patients?