Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Some people seem to have a very strange view of what insurance companies do. They point to the problem of people who have a pre-existing condition, trying to sign up for new insurance, only to find the insurance companies won't pay for the the treatment for that pre-existing condition.
Of course they won't. That's not what insurance companies do. Whoever said they did?
Insurance is a gambling game where you bet on what will happen in the future. You "bet" that you will get sick or injured, and the company "bets" that you won't. If you get sick or injured, the company pays you the stipulated amount (paying for a portion of your medical treatment etc.), and if you don't, you pay them (premiums). The purpose is to shield you from the "shock" of suddenly and unexpectedly getting hit with huge medical bills... which is why you agreed to the contract.
A pre-existing condition cannot be insured against. It's like betting on the outcome of a horse race that's already been run - there is no "chance" involved, and no "unexpectedness" to the outcome (any more). Or like trying to get car insurance after wrecking your car.
Insurance companies are in the business of selling security - the assurance that you won't be suddenly bankrupted by huge medical bills, rehab bills etc. in the future. They do it by insuring huge numbers of people and getting them to each pay relatively small amounts (their premiums) each. They and their clients all know that most of them will never incur the huge medical bills they are worried about. But since no one knows which few people WILL incur them, they are all happy to pay the premiums, for the knowledge they won't have to pay the huge amounts if they turn out to be the unlucky ones.
Insurance companies sell safety from FUTURE possible disasters. And that's all they sell. Asking them to cover pre-existing conditions, is like asking a submarine designer to design a supersonic jet - it's got nothing to do with his business or his area of expertise, and he never volunteered to design jets in the first place, for good reason.
If you want to set up some kind of universal pool to pay for pre-existing conditions, fine, go ahead. But why drag insurance companies into it? It's got nothing to do with their areas of expertise, and they never volunteered to do it in the first place - for good reason.
As noted elsewhere on this thread, the health insurance industry had its beginnings in the 1940's. Unless you are in a time warp, I fail to see how this provides "over 200 years" of any kind of experience.If you advocate we in the United States completely abandon the free market model that has worked for over 200 years....
So people who have jobs and some sort of medical condition should not have that condition covered when they find a new job and get insured again? Sounds like a good way to bankrupt people.
So people who have jobs and some sort of medical condition should not have that condition covered when they find a new job and get insured again? Sounds like a good way to bankrupt people.
I'm not sure where you get your information about the history of the health care insurance industry, but you need to look further.Some people seem to have a very strange view of what insurance companies do. They point to the problem of people who have a pre-existing condition, trying to sign up for new insurance, only to find the insurance companies won't pay for the the treatment for that pre-existing condition.
Of course they won't. That's not what insurance companies do. Whoever said they did?
In the beginning, almost all health insurance was open enrollment, everyone was covered regardless of condition. This was the Kaiser model of the 1940's and the Blue Cross model of the 1950's. Most large groups today, covering perhaps 60% of all insured, have a pre-existing condition clause, but it only excludes coverage for a period of 6 months to two years for that condition. This is typically waived if you are switching plans and demonstrate that you have current coverage for the pre-existing condition. Medicare supplement plans can only deny coverage for pre-existing conditions if you have no current coverage when you apply for Medicare and the denial period is only 90 days.
Last time I looked, the profit margins of health insurance companies were pretty good, so it doesn't appear they will be leaving the market anytime soon.
Somehow cons can rationalize paying those salaries, as well as their high premiums, all in the name of free enterprise.You are so full of shit your eyeballs are brown.
No CT Scan is $43. First, it's an incredibly expensive piece of equipment. It's takes a lot of power to operate and a highly trained technician to maintain and in a room where the temperature and humidity are regulated.
If there is a "myth" about health care, it's the health care companies. CEO's making tens of millions for what? And how do they make it? By skimming policies and running death panels. They are "middle men". They are where the cost goes. How many policies need to be skimmed to pay for one CEO salary?
Sick for Profit - Insurance CEOs
Aetna CEO
Ronald A. Williams
2007 Compensation
$23 million
2008 Compensation (Forbes)
$24,300,112
Total Value of Unexercised Options (Forbes)
$194,496,797
Williams is in the top
ten of Forbes'
"$100 Million CEO Club."
Not just in health care. 50 or 60 years ago, a CEO's pay averaged about 30 or 40 times the salary of the average worker. They paid more taxes. More people were employed.
Now they make 300 to 400 times the average worker or more. Republicans think if we can just pay them more and redistribute more wealth to them, they will "create jobs" because they are the "job creators". We just haven't moved quite enough money into their pockets. Oh, but it will happen. Just keep shoveling it their way.
Of why we shouldn't have single payer? Because, the last time I checked, Canada was moving allowing private insurance, not that you are going to let facts influence your delusional thinking.
So people who have jobs and some sort of medical condition should not have that condition covered when they find a new job and get insured again? Sounds like a good way to bankrupt people.
No.
They should simply have to provide proof of being insured prior to buying a new policy.
The pre existing condition clause was actually a product of the greed of the consumer. Many would not buy health insurance unless they found they needed it. Such is why dental has the "6 month" clause...you cant use it for 6 months after you get a policy for emergencies such as root canal. Same as hurricane insurance. It does not go into affect for 30 days.
So it is simple....if you have insurance and want to change to another policy, the pre existing clause does not come into play.
So people who have jobs and some sort of medical condition should not have that condition covered when they find a new job and get insured again? Sounds like a good way to bankrupt people.
No.
They should simply have to provide proof of being insured prior to buying a new policy.
The pre existing condition clause was actually a product of the greed of the consumer. Many would not buy health insurance unless they found they needed it. Such is why dental has the "6 month" clause...you cant use it for 6 months after you get a policy for emergencies such as root canal. Same as hurricane insurance. It does not go into affect for 30 days.
So it is simple....if you have insurance and want to change to another policy, the pre existing clause does not come into play.
So people who have jobs and some sort of medical condition should not have that condition covered when they find a new job and get insured again? Sounds like a good way to bankrupt people.
No.
They should simply have to provide proof of being insured prior to buying a new policy.
The pre existing condition clause was actually a product of the greed of the consumer. Many would not buy health insurance unless they found they needed it. Such is why dental has the "6 month" clause...you cant use it for 6 months after you get a policy for emergencies such as root canal. Same as hurricane insurance. It does not go into affect for 30 days.
So it is simple....if you have insurance and want to change to another policy, the pre existing clause does not come into play.
Surely you don't think facts will get in the way of the lefty loons take on pre-existing conditions do you??
Some people seem to have a very strange view of what insurance companies do. They point to the problem of people who have a pre-existing condition, trying to sign up for new insurance, only to find the insurance companies won't pay for the the treatment for that pre-existing condition.
Of course they won't. That's not what insurance companies do. Whoever said they did?
Insurance is a gambling game where you bet on what will happen in the future. You "bet" that you will get sick or injured, and the company "bets" that you won't. If you get sick or injured, the company pays you the stipulated amount (paying for a portion of your medical treatment etc.), and if you don't, you pay them (premiums). The purpose is to shield you from the "shock" of suddenly and unexpectedly getting hit with huge medical bills... which is why you agreed to the contract.
A pre-existing condition cannot be insured against. It's like betting on the outcome of a horse race that's already been run - there is no "chance" involved, and no "unexpectedness" to the outcome (any more). Or like trying to get car insurance after wrecking your car.
Insurance companies are in the business of selling security - the assurance that you won't be suddenly bankrupted by huge medical bills, rehab bills etc. in the future. They do it by insuring huge numbers of people and getting them to each pay relatively small amounts (their premiums) each. They and their clients all know that most of them will never incur the huge medical bills they are worried about. But since no one knows which few people WILL incur them, they are all happy to pay the premiums, for the knowledge they won't have to pay the huge amounts if they turn out to be the unlucky ones.
Insurance companies sell safety from FUTURE possible disasters. And that's all they sell. Asking them to cover pre-existing conditions, is like asking a submarine designer to design a supersonic jet - it's got nothing to do with his business or his area of expertise, and he never volunteered to design jets in the first place, for good reason.
If you want to set up some kind of universal pool to pay for pre-existing conditions, fine, go ahead. But why drag insurance companies into it? It's got nothing to do with their areas of expertise, and they never volunteered to do it in the first place - for good reason.
When Obama first mentioned his plan to mandate insurance companies cover pre-existing conditions I said to my wife " that is theft. It's impossible."
Of why we shouldn't have single payer? Because, the last time I checked, Canada was moving allowing private insurance, not that you are going to let facts influence your delusional thinking.
Um, no Canada is NOT moving toward the clusterfuck that is our health care system. My Canadian friends are HORRIFIED at our system. BTW, you can buy private insurance in England as well as France and the Scandinavian countries. In fact, I believe you can buy it in any country. But we know you think only the wealthy should be able to afford to go to the doctor.
But if Canadians are looking to the United States for the care they need, Americans, ironically, are increasingly looking north for a viable health-care model. Theres no question that American health care, a mixture of private insurance and public programs, is a mess.
.....
Thus, Paul Krugman in the New York Times: Does this mean that the American way is wrong, and that we should switch to a Canadian-style single-payer system? Well, yes. Politicians like Hillary Clinton are on board; Michael Moores new documentary Sicko celebrates the virtues of Canadas socialized health care; the National Coalition on Health Care, which includes big businesses like AT&T, recently endorsed a scheme to centralize major health decisions to a government committee; and big unions are questioning the tenets of employer-sponsored health insurance. Some are tempted. Not me.
I was once a believer in socialized medicine. I dont want to overstate my case: growing up in Canada, I didnt spend much time contemplating the nuances of health economics. I wanted to get into medical schoolmy mind brimmed with statistics on MCAT scores and admissions rates, not health spending. But as a Canadian, I had soaked up three things from my environment: a love of ice hockey; an ability to convert Celsius into Fahrenheit in my head; and the belief that government-run health care was truly compassionate. What I knew about American health care was unappealing: high expenses and lots of uninsured people. When HillaryCare shook Washington, I remember thinking that the Clintonistas were right.
My health-care prejudices crumbled not in the classroom but on the way to one. On a subzero Winnipeg morning in 1997, I cut across the hospital emergency room to shave a few minutes off my frigid commute. Swinging open the door, I stepped into a nightmare: the ER overflowed with elderly people on stretchers, waiting for admission. Some, it turned out, had waited five days. The air stank with sweat and urine. Right then, I began to reconsider everything that I thought I knew about Canadian health care. I soon discovered that the problems went well beyond overcrowded ERs. Patients had to wait for practically any diagnostic test or procedure, such as the man with persistent pain from a hernia operation whom we referred to a pain clinicwith a three-year wait list; or the woman needing a sleep study to diagnose what seemed like sleep apnea, who faced a two-year delay; or the woman with breast cancer who needed to wait four months for radiation therapy, when the standard of care was four weeks.
The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care by David Gratzer, City Journal Summer 2007
When Obama first mentioned his plan to mandate insurance companies cover pre-existing conditions I said to my wife " that is theft. It's impossible."
But it also creates a situation that makes talk of governmental "death panels" nothing more than a cruel joke. If the insurance companies can't handle it, then the only solution is single-payer.
Of why we shouldn't have single payer? Because, the last time I checked, Canada was moving allowing private insurance, not that you are going to let facts influence your delusional thinking.
Um, no Canada is NOT moving toward the clusterfuck that is our health care system. My Canadian friends are HORRIFIED at our system. BTW, you can buy private insurance in England as well as France and the Scandinavian countries. In fact, I believe you can buy it in any country. But we know you think only the wealthy should be able to afford to go to the doctor.
Canadians are moving away from socialized medicine and toward private insurance because of the clusterfuck failure of their socialized medicine.....while our idiot Dimwits here in the US are moving us TOWARD that already-proven Canadian (&British) clusterfuck failure of socialized medicine.
Canadians are NOT moving away from their system. I read your little opinion blog to my friend in Toronto. She is still laughing at you.
So all of you are comfortable turning over your healthcare to the same people that manage the post office and the IRS?
Why do you think that Canadians come south to Mayo or Cleveland Clinic or MD Anderson when they have some serious illness?
