4 ms·

> As an example, in 2008, a middle aged man could buy such a plan in Arizona for $70/month with a $10K deductible and $2 million lifetime coverage. This include

> As an example, in 2008, a middle aged man could buy such a plan in Arizona for $70/month with a $10K deductible and $2 million lifetime coverage. This included free annual wellness visits, women's wellness checkups, etc. Keep $10K in the bank for emergencies, and you're good to go. 1. Only if you were already in good health and had no pre-existing conditions. Otherwise you would be rejected. 2. $2 million lifetime limit is not great for certain illnesses that can become very expensive to treat (e.g. cancer). 3. The practice of recission meant that you had no idea whether or not that $70/month plan would actually pay out in the event that you needed it. Insurance plans were great for insurance companies pre-ACA, you could reject everyone except those least likely to need health care, and then drop their coverage if it turned out they actually needed it, or if they got too expensive to treat. It was a win-win-win situation for the insurance companies.

blisterpeanuts 10y ago
You're going to the extreme case of catastrophic coverage. For the majority of common conditions such as appendicitis, broken bones, even some types of heart disease, this type of plan worked quite well. It's true that a catastrophic case could blow through the lifetime cap, but then there was something else called catastrophic coverage for not that much more. I chose not to get it, but maybe should have. I suspect it's not so much that the coverage was prohibitive but that people simply didn't, and don't, understand the economics. A lot of people were knowingly going "bare", i.e. foregoing coverage altogether. Even today, people are consciously choosing to pay the personal penalty. Your claim that "you could reject everyone" pre-ACA is completely false. In fact, insurance companies were required to carry a certain percentage of high liability customers. It varied from state to state, though. Finally it's also worth mentioning that even for people with no coverage whatsoever, hospitals were (and are) required to care for them. If you stumble into the ER with any condition, they are required to provide care, or at least transport you quickly to a place that can. The poorest among us will get excellent care albeit they may not have the wherewithal and knowledge to actually go seek out that care. The ACA sought to rationalize this fragmented and confused system and deploy a universal system throughout the country. It will be a subject of debate for decades to come whether this law would have worked.
- nodamage 10y ago
  Of course I'm talking about catastrophic coverage: that's when you need insurance the most! (And the worst possible time for them to say "sorry, you're too expensive to treat, so you're on your own now.") Besides, what good is a plan that will pay $ to treat a broken bone but refuses to pay $$$$$$ to treat leukemia? > Your claim that "you could reject everyone" pre-ACA is completely false. In fact, insurance companies were required to carry a certain percentage of high liability customers. It varied from state to state, though. What? Tell that to the millions of people that couldn't get coverage pre-ACA due to pre-existing conditions. > Finally it's also worth mentioning that even for people with no coverage whatsoever, hospitals were (and are) required to care for them. If you stumble into the ER with any condition, they are required to provide care, or at least transport you quickly to a place that can. Are you suggesting you can go into a emergency room with a non-emergency condition and they're legally obligated to treat you? Can you cite a source for this?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

blisterpeanuts 10y ago

You're going to the extreme case of catastrophic coverage. For the majority of common conditions such as appendicitis, broken bones, even some types of heart disease, this type of plan worked quite well. It's true that a catastrophic case could blow through the lifetime cap, but then there was something else called catastrophic coverage for not that much more. I chose not to get it, but maybe should have. I suspect it's not so much that the coverage was prohibitive but that people simply didn't, and don't, understand the economics. A lot of people were knowingly going "bare", i.e. foregoing coverage altogether. Even today, people are consciously choosing to pay the personal penalty. Your claim that "you could reject everyone" pre-ACA is completely false. In fact, insurance companies were required to carry a certain percentage of high liability customers. It varied from state to state, though. Finally it's also worth mentioning that even for people with no coverage whatsoever, hospitals were (and are) required to care for them. If you stumble into the ER with any condition, they are required to provide care, or at least transport you quickly to a place that can. The poorest among us will get excellent care albeit they may not have the wherewithal and knowledge to actually go seek out that care. The ACA sought to rationalize this fragmented and confused system and deploy a universal system throughout the country. It will be a subject of debate for decades to come whether this law would have worked.

nodamage 10y ago
Of course I'm talking about catastrophic coverage: that's when you need insurance the most! (And the worst possible time for them to say "sorry, you're too expensive to treat, so you're on your own now.") Besides, what good is a plan that will pay $ to treat a broken bone but refuses to pay $$$$$$ to treat leukemia? > Your claim that "you could reject everyone" pre-ACA is completely false. In fact, insurance companies were required to carry a certain percentage of high liability customers. It varied from state to state, though. What? Tell that to the millions of people that couldn't get coverage pre-ACA due to pre-existing conditions. > Finally it's also worth mentioning that even for people with no coverage whatsoever, hospitals were (and are) required to care for them. If you stumble into the ER with any condition, they are required to provide care, or at least transport you quickly to a place that can. Are you suggesting you can go into a emergency room with a non-emergency condition and they're legally obligated to treat you? Can you cite a source for this?

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]