The point is that if an insurance company is not allowed to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions, there would be millions of people like Gnu's friend who would opt to not buy it, knowing that if they ever got sick they could opt in at that point. It would make economic sense to play it that way. It would be like allowing people to buy hurricane insurance the day before a hurricane is projected to strike. In either event, you are limiting the pool of people who have the insurance to those who are expected to make a claim. This defeats the purpose of insurance which is to spread the risk evenly across a much broader base - most of whom will never have to make a major claim - hence keeping the cost of insurance low for everyone.

Originally Posted by NJblue

The point is that if an insurance company is not allowed to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions, there would be millions of people like Gnu's friend who would opt to not buy it, knowing that if they ever got sick they could opt in at that point. It would make economic sense to play it that way. It would be like allowing people to buy hurricane insurance the day before a hurricane is projected to strike. In either event, you are limiting the pool of people who have the insurance to those who are expected to make a claim. This defeats the purpose of insurance which is to spread the risk evenly across a much broader base - most of whom will never have to make a major claim - hence keeping the cost of insurance low for everyone.

You pose a good argument, but I believe that what your proposing would not be possible. There would be regulations in place. Do you really think this hasn't been considered??? Also, if you think private insurance is so low, would you like to pay our bill every month... to the tune of $1,700! Please let me know.

Also, why is the USPS, Fed-Ex and UPS a bad example??? It's creative competition! We need more of that in this country. Bring it back!!! It is what made this country great!

A key component of the Republican proposal for health reform is just that - allow for more competition among insurance companies by allowing them to more freely compete across state lines. Alas, the Dems are against this for some reason.

Also, if you think private insurance is so low, would you like to pay our bill every month... to the tune of $1,700! Please let me know.

I don't know the particlars of your insurance plan. However, can you imagine how expensive your insurance would be if a significant number of the healthy people who are paying into it decided that $1,700 per month was too much to pay and decided to opt out and wait for a serious condition like cancer or a heart condition to arise before buying back in?

You pose a good argument, but I believe that what your proposing would not be possible. There would be regulations in place.

Yes, it is possible to get around this by making the purchase of health insurance mandatory for everyone. This is what they did in Mass. However, unless I missed it, I don't recall seeing anything about mandatory coverage in the Dem plans. This just goes to show how things need to slow down a bit and go about health care reform with more thought. Instead, Obama is pushing them to meet unrealistic deadlines and the result will be chaos. Thank goodness for the Blue Dogs who are throwing some impedance into the process. It would also be nice if Pelosi and Reid gave the Republicans a seat at the table to get their input.

Originally Posted by chelsea24

Gnu, I'm sorry, but I do not get the point of this post at all. I'm confused. Your friend could afford private insurance, but gambled on his health, then went broke??? Again, what does this have to do with the millions of people that want health insurance but cannot afford it?

Now he has "scammed" Medicad for an operation for his son?

Wellllllll.... I'd say I'd trust the government more than your friend!!! OK, snide remark... taken back.

Again, my concerns are for the millions of hard working people, or people with pre-existing conditions that legitimately cannot afford or get decent health care. Sorry, but the example you gave here doesn't equate.

Rshoffer, I can't buy the "Medicare Part D Formulary is impossible to figure out" as a viable argument. Maybe some people should quite trying to figure out if Obama was born in American and sit down and figure this out with the same enthusiasm.

Also, why is the USPS, Fed-Ex and UPS a bad example??? It's creative competition! We need more of that in this country. Bring it back!!! It is what made this country great!

When I see a pt in my office who had Medicare Part D, and I ask them which particular plan (there are dozens) they have and what is and isn't covered on their formulary and/or if they have a tiered deductable they usually look at me with a blank stare and have no clue. Then, typically they call back in 24 hrs and say, "My plan doesn't cover Cymbalta...or, that Cymbalta has an 80 dollar co-pay..." Then I ask, well what IS covered ??? and they reply, "I don't know, maybe the pharmacist knows... and round and round we go. So how do docs avoid the merry-go-round? Prescribe generics.... always a low co-pay and almost always covered, regardless of the plan. It's behavior modification at it
's best. Then many say... "but, I can't take generics...' and we're back on the merry-go round again.

the reason the USPS, Fed Ex is a poor comparison is when it comes to health care... The Feds will establish endless rules and guidelines for the pvt industry to follow... it will be like a sporting event where the referee also has a team on the field and is that teams coach.

Originally Posted by chelsea24

Gnu, I'm sorry, but I do not get the point of this post at all. I'm confused. Your friend could afford private insurance, but gambled on his health, then went broke??? Again, what does this have to do with the millions of people that want health insurance but cannot afford it?

Now he has "scammed" Medicad for an operation for his son?

Wellllllll.... I'd say I'd trust the government more than your friend!!! OK, snide remark... taken back.

Again, my concerns are for the millions of hard working people, or people with pre-existing conditions that legitimately cannot afford or get decent health care. Sorry, but the example you gave here doesn't equate.

Rshoffer, I can't buy the "Medicare Part D Formulary is impossible to figure out" as a viable argument. Maybe some people should quite trying to figure out if Obama was born in American and sit down and figure this out with the same enthusiasm.

Also, why is the USPS, Fed-Ex and UPS a bad example??? It's creative competition! We need more of that in this country. Bring it back!!! It is what made this country great!

It has everything to do with the millions that don't have health insurance because they won't spend their own money on it. The point is directed at the fact that all to many people would not buy health insurance until after they were diagnosed with an illness. For insurance, whether government or private, to accept pre existing conditions is not just foolish but stupid.

Yes he did go broke, spending all the money he accumulated in his life of not buying health insurance, tens of thousands of dollars. It was said in this thread that people wouldn't buy insurance until AFTER they came down with an illness and the case I point out shows an example of someone that did it. He didn't agree to meaningful medical care until the government (you and I) was paying for it.

We CAN"T trust the government to have a clue as to how their (our) money is being spent. My friends example showed how easy it is for the Government Medicare program to be ripped off. I did trust my friend with thousands of my dollars in unsecured loans and he paid me back every dime. What he and all to many people think, is that ripping off the government (taking from the big pot you and I provide) is OK. It's not personal to them. In their mind government SHOULD provide them with their needs and they shouldn't have to spend their dollars on something they don't want to spend it on.

I hope this answer's you questions on relevancy and shows that many people that say they can't afford insurance really mean they don't want to spend THEIR money on anything they feel the government should do for them. There are resources available to everyone that needs health care, if truly in need.

This from INVESTORS BUSINESS DAILY.....

In discussing this very thing (individual mandate to purchase insurance), and I am pretty sure that mandate is in the proposed bill....
__________________

"The individual mandate is essential to the Democrats' health care vision because it's closely linked to provisions to prevent insurers from cherry-picking healthy customers or charging untenable rates to those with pre-existing conditions.

Passing insurance reforms without a mandate would encourage people to wait until they are sick to get coverage and could destroy the economics of the industry. But requiring the young and healthy to sign up would give insurers an influx of profitable customers to offset the risk of covering more people in relatively poorer health."
______________

And of course...this mandate was criticized during the campaign by our President.

Bottom line...
________________________________________
"But the government mandate to buy insurance that is central to the Democratic plans means that a slimmer-looking health bill might be largely an illusion; more of the overhaul's burden would shift to the middle class, which could be required to pay a whole lot more to buy less in the way of coverage."

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...aspx?id=504193

On this same subject, the Washington Post this weekend had an article questioning whether it is constitutional for the federal government to mandate that we buy insurance.....
______________

"President Obama has called for a serious and reasoned debate about his plans to overhaul the health-care system. Any such debate must include the question of whether it is constitutional for the federal government to adopt and implement the president's proposals. Consider one element known as the "individual mandate," which would require every American to have health insurance, if not through an employer then by individual purchase. This requirement would particularly affect young adults, who often choose to save the expense and go without coverage. Without the young to subsidize the old, a comprehensive national health system will not work. But can Congress require every American to buy health insurance? "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=opinionsbox1