I have never read the new law just passed so forgive me if I am saying it wrong. Yesterday I was talking to a friend and he said with this new law 1) No pre existing condition can be an issue anymore 2) Every health insurance company has to spend 85% of their revenue for claims 3) Every company with over 50 people has to provide health insurance Are these true? If they are, this is wonderful. Why is everyone in this board bashing about this new law then? I understand poor people's insurance will be provided by the government. Is this what all the complaining about?
Hello????? Pre-existing conditions can be hereditary (and for those I have compassion and understanding) or they can be self induced. Example - the latter can be someone who CHOOSES to do drugs, smoke, abuse alcohol, eat poorly, not exercise. Someone who endangers their life by poor choices. Why on earth should they (1) be covered by health insurance and (2) why would we not have a lifetime cap on such people? Why should people who smoke and get lung cancer for example, be allowed to drain an insurance company with years and years of expenses. If you're a poor driver they have a choice to not insure you. Same should exist with health insurance. Next, Medicaid, an ineffective system that is full of fraud will be significantly expanding. Why would we expand a program like that? It's NOT reform. Florida had over $3.2 BILLION last year in Medicaid fraud. It will now get even larger with more people on Medicaid. So we have the wonderful programs the government runs - Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security - all of them insolvent - and we're going to expand further into the financial abyss. In the end someone pays.
So how do you differentiate those who inherited a genetic condition such as asthma or MS and those who choose to live poorly and thereby become a drain on the system? Does everyone who gets lung cancer get kicked to the curb when you can get lung cancer even if you have never smoked in your life? I agree on your other points about Medicare, Medicaid and SS.
not that I am supporting Obama, hell no But why should anyone not insured because they have bad genes? This is stupid as hell Second howcome nobody mentioned profit restriction on health insurance companies?
The exact same reason bad drivers are not insured. Or even 12 year olds are not offered auto insurance. Because it would be dumb as all get out to insure a 12 year old driver. It would be dumb as all get out to offer health insurance that covers MS to a person who has a long family history of MS. The point that you were trying to make and did a poor job of is, why should someone with bad genes be denied HEALTHCARE. And you are correct they should not. No one with half a heart would deny healthcare to those who need it. No one with half a brain would suggest insurance policies are even in the top ten best ways to provide healthcare. It is almost unbelievable that so many people cannot distinguish between HEALTHCARE and health INSURANCE. Even under a completely government controlled and funded nationwide all inclusive healthcare plan there would still be a market for health insurance, and it would still be stupid to offer it to high risk people. The healthcare issue above all others proves we are a nation content with ignorance.
I understand the distinction between bad genes and people with bad habits I wonder if there is any country in the world that addressed this issue but I doubt it. You guys sounds as if USA is the only country that is wrong doing in this issue. Secondly, howcome nobody comments on the health insurance companies' profits being limited to %15. Now that is a big accomplishment if you ask me.
what is that an accomplishment, the free market is being distorted, and you WILL PAY, in one way or another for this distortion
Clearly this guy doesn't understand how government intervention into the free market works, nor how price controls work. Profitability is a good thing, as it will help contain costs as companies fight over marketshare. We pay a lot for insurance, not because the companies are rolling in money, but because we demand the best health care, and health care is expensive.
I'm aware some get lung cancer from second hand smoke. A patients records (from the past) would likely have a big impact on whether they brought the poor health on themselves or not. It wouldn't be perfect but I think there need to be consequences for poor choices.
You apparently didn't read my post correctly. I CLEARLY stated that those who bring poor health on themself from bad choices (drugs, alcohol, smoking, diet, etc.) shouldn't have an uncapped lifetime maximum. I assume you understand how a business works, as far as P&L. If you have patients who may need tens of millions of dollars of care -- due to unhealthy lifestyle choices - then I sure as heck sympathize with insurers in such choices. Conversely, those who exhibit good choices (exercise, good diet, no health issues) are merely funding the lazy people who take no responsibility for their choices.