4 ms·

First, nobody is paying tens of thousands of dollars to a doctor, because there's an out-of-pocket maximum cap. If they have insurance. Without guaranteed issu

by redler 10y ago

First, nobody is paying tens of thousands of dollars to a doctor, because there's an out-of-pocket maximum cap. If they have insurance. Without guaranteed issue they may not. With guaranteed issue they may have "access" to insurance but can't afford it, or the insurance they can afford may exclude the procedure they need. Retroactively. And even with insurance they may pay 25K a year in premiums plus that 10K max. Then 28K and 15K the next year... It's a system designed for optimal profit, not efficient (or moral) distribution of resources that every person will require. Debating whether it's insurance or insurance-like, or how the underwriting works, begs the question. Insurance companies should not be involved.

chimeracoder 10y ago
> If they have insurance. Without guaranteed issue they may not. It sounds like you are trying to respond to a different sort of discussion altogether. This whole subthread is in reference to the (implied) statement "requiring insurers to cover pre-existing conditions requires a mandate [and it will necessarily increase premiums to the extent that we have seen]" Your responses is tangential to that, addressing either (a) what would happen if we didn't require insurers to cover pre-existing conditions, or (b) other potential failure modes which could potentially occur, and which already occur under the ACA.