3 ms·

> The ban on pre-existing conditions was done either because the drafters of Obamacare have no clue what insurance actually is, or they actually wanted to destr

> The ban on pre-existing conditions was done either because the drafters of Obamacare have no clue what insurance actually is, or they actually wanted to destroy health insurance. No one is going to pay for coverage when healthy if they can sign up when sick. This is what the tax penalty was meant to prevent, correct? I'm curious, what is your solution to insuring people with pre-existing conditions?

burfog 10y ago
If is to be insurance then people with pre-existing conditions should get coverage for everything that isn't related to the condition. Got cancer? Fine, we'll still cover breaking your leg, as long as the break isn't from cancer invading the bone or from cancer drugs weakening your bones. You're on your own for the cancer.
- astrange 10y ago
  You want a useless product that will guarantee your death because it meets the dictionary definition of insurance? This is why the real policy issue is lack of healthcare, not lack of "health insurance", which is a fake benefit invented to maybe get you healthcare.
  - burfog 10y ago
    Real insurance involves a gamble. You pay a small amount to get what is essentially a lottery ticket. You win if disaster happens, giving you money to deal with the disaster. Would you buy a lottery ticket if it was known to be a winner? Sure! Would anybody want to sell it? No! That isn't a viable business model. What you are looking for is more like welfare. You have a problem, there is no gamble, you don't have the money, and you expect "society" to pay. That definitely isn't insurance. Those are the options: insurance, welfare, self-pay Imposing a duty to handle pre-existing conditions on "insurance" companies is forcing a business to provide welfare. Obviously, people will switch from the cheap company (or none) to the high-quality company when they get a problem. The tax on people without "insurance" is intended to discourage this, but it is ineffective because "insurance" costs more and because people will still switch from cheap to fancy. In any case, we've invented some pretty fancy health care. Giving it to everybody would exceed our GDP. This is obviously unworkable. The situation only worsens as we invent more. How do you propose to limit usage, if not by price? Would you just promise everything, but let people die on waiting lists? Would you rate and rank people, perhaps on a point system with extra points for politically-connected people?
    - stinkytaco 10y ago
      Considering the US is one of the only developed countries not to have some sort of socialized health care, I don't believe it's not doable. The US lags behind on critical metrics like life expectancy and infant mortality. Waiting lists are only getting longer with the consolidation of healthcare into large systems. And that consolidation is driven by doctors leaving private practice because the margins are so thin that the business model doesn't work. Healthcare does not work for anyone in the US except maybe pharmaceuticals and equipment manufacturers and it does work elsewhere.
      - burfog 10y ago
        Healthcare isn't really working anywhere in the world. All systems deny healthcare to people who need it; the alternative is not possible for any economy. I think it was just a few months ago that some girl in the UK headed to the USA for surgery, mortgaging a house to get it. The UK had decided that the surgery might not be the cheapest option that would meet a low-end standard of care, so they said no. That was it: leave the country, get an inferior surgery, or be permanently deformed. That is typical. Also typical is "yes, of course, but the waiting list is 2 years". Also typical is "denied for people over age 60". For example, a hospital in the USA gave my 80-year-old grandmother hepatitis. Being the USA, she got a treatment that costs about $100,000. At her age, that would have been denied under the typical government healthcare system. It wouldn't be cost-effective you see, so she would just die. So the fantasy of everybody getting the very best is out. It won't happen. It can't happen. How would you like to deny healthcare to people? In the USA, we are really touchy about having the government say "no". We are also really touchy about paying for other people, especially people who don't seem to contribute much to society. That is just how Americans feel, on average. Life expectancy and infant mortality metrics are just fine in the USA if you ignore the poor, as typical Americans do. When you say that socialized health care helps, and you point to averages, you aren't selling Americans on the idea. The better-off Americans want care that is better and cheaper, not available to more people.

burfog 10y ago

If is to be insurance then people with pre-existing conditions should get coverage for everything that isn't related to the condition. Got cancer? Fine, we'll still cover breaking your leg, as long as the break isn't from cancer invading the bone or from cancer drugs weakening your bones. You're on your own for the cancer.

astrange 10y ago
You want a useless product that will guarantee your death because it meets the dictionary definition of insurance? This is why the real policy issue is lack of healthcare, not lack of "health insurance", which is a fake benefit invented to maybe get you healthcare.
- burfog 10y ago
  Real insurance involves a gamble. You pay a small amount to get what is essentially a lottery ticket. You win if disaster happens, giving you money to deal with the disaster. Would you buy a lottery ticket if it was known to be a winner? Sure! Would anybody want to sell it? No! That isn't a viable business model. What you are looking for is more like welfare. You have a problem, there is no gamble, you don't have the money, and you expect "society" to pay. That definitely isn't insurance. Those are the options: insurance, welfare, self-pay Imposing a duty to handle pre-existing conditions on "insurance" companies is forcing a business to provide welfare. Obviously, people will switch from the cheap company (or none) to the high-quality company when they get a problem. The tax on people without "insurance" is intended to discourage this, but it is ineffective because "insurance" costs more and because people will still switch from cheap to fancy. In any case, we've invented some pretty fancy health care. Giving it to everybody would exceed our GDP. This is obviously unworkable. The situation only worsens as we invent more. How do you propose to limit usage, if not by price? Would you just promise everything, but let people die on waiting lists? Would you rate and rank people, perhaps on a point system with extra points for politically-connected people?
  - stinkytaco 10y ago
    Considering the US is one of the only developed countries not to have some sort of socialized health care, I don't believe it's not doable. The US lags behind on critical metrics like life expectancy and infant mortality. Waiting lists are only getting longer with the consolidation of healthcare into large systems. And that consolidation is driven by doctors leaving private practice because the margins are so thin that the business model doesn't work. Healthcare does not work for anyone in the US except maybe pharmaceuticals and equipment manufacturers and it does work elsewhere.
    - burfog 10y ago
      Healthcare isn't really working anywhere in the world. All systems deny healthcare to people who need it; the alternative is not possible for any economy. I think it was just a few months ago that some girl in the UK headed to the USA for surgery, mortgaging a house to get it. The UK had decided that the surgery might not be the cheapest option that would meet a low-end standard of care, so they said no. That was it: leave the country, get an inferior surgery, or be permanently deformed. That is typical. Also typical is "yes, of course, but the waiting list is 2 years". Also typical is "denied for people over age 60". For example, a hospital in the USA gave my 80-year-old grandmother hepatitis. Being the USA, she got a treatment that costs about $100,000. At her age, that would have been denied under the typical government healthcare system. It wouldn't be cost-effective you see, so she would just die. So the fantasy of everybody getting the very best is out. It won't happen. It can't happen. How would you like to deny healthcare to people? In the USA, we are really touchy about having the government say "no". We are also really touchy about paying for other people, especially people who don't seem to contribute much to society. That is just how Americans feel, on average. Life expectancy and infant mortality metrics are just fine in the USA if you ignore the poor, as typical Americans do. When you say that socialized health care helps, and you point to averages, you aren't selling Americans on the idea. The better-off Americans want care that is better and cheaper, not available to more people.