I fully agree with you that the status quo is not acceptable. I proposed a simple two-part solution to the problem last month.

https://www.talkofthevillages.com/fo...ad.php?t=24528

(1) Extend existing Federal Employees health care programs to all Americans.
(2) Instituting real medical malpractice reform with a strong loser pays that applies both to the plaintiff and the law firm bringing the complaint.
These two steps achieve universal coverage availability, prevention of exclusion of pre-existing conditions, lifetime cap limits, and dropping already insured people and provide competition.

What’s wrong with this process?
A. It could take effect immediately, rather than waiting until 2013 as Obamacare requires before the first person can be added to those covered (no need to construct an entirely new government bureaucracy before anything can be done).
B. It eliminates entirely the need for a government option – which Barney Frank has correctly said is a Trojan horse for a single-payer system.
C. It hits back at the Democrats sacred cow, the trial lawyers.
D. It requires no new taxes, even those on ‘Cadillac’ health plans.
E. It eliminates the illegal alien problem. If they pay, they play.
In short, it largely solves the problems without further government intrusion into American lives. This is not acceptable to those who seek continually expansion of government and its accompanying control over our lives. It frustrates those who wish to have a ‘nanny’ state that outlaws trans fat and foie gras and taxes such things as soft drinks and juices.

There are at least protections under the new programs
 

There are too many cases of "Private" insurance plans doing those two things already, so to lay it on any "vast government conspiracy" is false, if not disingenuous.

1.) Anyone requiring a bone marrow transplant probably has a "pre-existing condition." Certainly, as a self-employed individual, my insurance would not cover such a procedure,since I would be dropped from coverage like a hot potato. As exposed last Spring, Assurant health issues only 1 year policies, therefore any condition occuring in the previous year, even if you had their policy the previous year is considered a "pre-existing" condition. Clever, huh!

2.) Insurance policies have bean-counters who can just as easily deny any surgery, as any Federal program would. But look at Medicare-have you heard of many denials? And there is no pre-existing clause. The appeal process is long and tedious, and set-up to work against the patient. How much energy can a person facing bone-marrow transplants really exert in challengin a multi-billion corporation? Beyond that, how long would a lawsuit against a denial take? The patient would be dead by the time the decsion came down. This has happened MANY times for many illnesses.

What's your point? Do you suggest these horrible things will not occur under a public, government option? Or perhaps, under a government option, with cold, calculating efficiency tempered with the politics in the equation, it will somehow be the better of two evils?

When you say that insurance companies should not have a have a policy of denying pre-existing conditions, you are either uninformed or disingenuous and just trying to justify Socialized Medicine.

The purpose of health insurance is to share the risk. If you had your way, there would be a kiosk in front of every hospital so that you could buy insurance just before you were admitted. Wouldn't that be nice? The problem would be that there would be no insurance companies or the premium would be the cost of the operation plus a little profit. Nobody in their right mind would carry insurance if they could pick it up at the door.
If one maintains a continuity of insurance, pre-existing conditions are rarely a problem. I agree that the system needs some work but don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

Yoda

But if the insurance companies only insure the "healthy" and can cancel a policy when someone gets sick with a major illness then there is NO or little risk sharing.

Is there a compromise?
 

All things being equal, taking on any risk at any time, without precondition limitations exposes insurance companies to high expenses from an insured who has never paid a premium. (Yoda's kiosk). On the other hand, we want insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions. Why not a short, eg 60 day, waiting period?

I could agree on several of your points....tort reform should be a requirement especially at the state level. Most, if not all, malpractice suits are filed at the state level.

Lifetime caps are also a big problem which needs to be addressed

As for illegal aliens my plan would be, if they show up in an ER treat them, check for a green card and call ICE if needed.

Reasonable waiting period is fine with me.

Right now the system is rigged not by health of the individual, or even the class of individual, but rather totally by the economy of scale that insurance companies use for corporate, union and government policies. As a self-employed individual, I have no chance to even ENTER those economies of scale.

Should I pay less for electricity because I live in The "Huge" Villages v. the smaller Water Oak? Should I be charged less for fire, police or other services supplied, incidentally, by our socialist government structures because I live in a larger development?

Why should I be charged more, if I am exactly as healthy as you, but you pay much less through your union plan or medicare plan? This is not a healthcare system, this is a profit system. It's time to make health care about health care- not about profit margins that are identical to profit margins for making widgets.

Providing for the common good is for the common good of the American people.

I love the brainiacs at ********* parties who say "Keep the Government out of my Medicare and Social Security" Duh!

That is a rare thing but should be looked into within the system. Believe me they don't just insure healthy people. If I were to break continuity of coverage, I bet they'd love to dump me. I know the rules and play by them. I don't whine and try to beat them. I support trying to change the rules.

Millions of people are helped by insurance. Relatively few get screwed.

Yoda

Yoda....you and me both. I had better keep my job cause there is no way an insurance company would extend me insurance. The scary part for me is last week 280 people were laid off by my company....this week 29 more...for the year we have to be up to 500. This after the plan explained to us was we don't get a raise this year which will save jobs.

I play by the rules and try to keep my head down.

It is not quite as bad as all that. COBRA requires that your ex-employer or insurance company allow you to purchase, at group rates, the policy under which you had been covered. This goes for a period of 18-39 months depending upon the situation. After that you can apply for individual coverage w/o any preexisting condition disqualifications. The individual plans used to be quite bad, but BC/BS has stepped up with some highly competitive plans as more people are self-employed.

I hear the health bill just grew by almost 1000 pages behind locked doors. Anyone care to guess whats in it before they vote this week? I bet they don't even know.

If it was hard to read the 1200 page version, the 1,990 page version (according to a page count I've read in a couple of places on the net) means some 60% more legalese to wade through.

What fun!

NOT!

Cologal, Sure is nice to see that we do NOT disagree on everything. I like some of your thinking.:coolsmiley::coolsmiley:

I have to admit I'm a little creeped out by the thought of a triage nurse saying "Your papers, please" - but, in principle, I believ ethat *if* we are going to have public health care it should be a *privilege* of being an American Citizen or *legal* taxpaying resident.