- If you get a high deductible and use it for catastrophic care you’ll save a lot.
- If their income is that low or non existent they can get Medicaid. But many people live beyond their means if not right at the limit.
- Shop around. More freedom in the marketplace will lower costs. Reducing the size and scope of government will help where it can be done. More government isn’t working out too well here or elsewhere.
Most people with low/nonexistent income are not eligible for Medicaid (they may well be under the health care act in a couple years, but not if it’s overturned by the Supreme Court). Only those under 18 or pregnant are currently eligible for Medicaid in many states.
I have a friend who’s uninsured, has diabetes and asthma. The cheapest insurance she could get five years ago when she lost her fulltime job was $800/month and they recissioned her six months later for something she didn’t know she had to report (that she’d been misdiagnosed with lupus years earlier, which she never actually had). Now the cheapest she can get is $2500/month which, making less than $1000/month net, she can’t afford. Sure, she buys about $300/year in video games and new clothes she doesn’t strictly need, but that wouldn’t even buy her a week of health insurance. So it’s unlikely at the best to say she prefers to spend her money on something else instead. Even if she prioritized health insurance over food and rent, she couldn’t afford more than 4 months of health insurance out of each year. And what use would it be if she had no food anyway?
If you have a severe pre-existing condition $5,000 won’t get you health insurance. Pretty much no amount of money will.
Assuming your model is that you have almost no medical expenses except catastrophic ones. If you have high but not catastrophic expenses then traditional plans are better. Especially if paying up to the catastrophic point is going to be a hardship.
Doesn’t work very well if you have a pre-existing condition. I basically cannot retire until I qualify for Medicare because no insurance company would touch me now. If ACA kicks in, however, I’d be able to. And of course saying that more government in healthcare is not working out in Europe or Canada is total garbage. The free market in health care is the thing that is not working out for us.
I agree.
Please quantify for me (even within +/- 200%) how many people in the United States have severe, pre-existing conditions that are not of their own volition.
Then I would be delighted to throw some numbers around, with regards to the cost of their care.
This combined with two other things:
a. Tort reform. Switch to “loser pays costs” and limit the maximum damages.
b. Extend the term of patent protection. New drugs cost an arm and a leg because the FDA approval process is so slow that the drug companies only have a couple of years to recover R&D costs on a drug and make a reasonable profit before the patent runs out and generics show up. It is hideously expensive to develop new meds, and even adding 5 years more will lower the cost drastically.
This article suggests one in seven applicants were unable to get insurance at any price. You may view it as a liberal source and of dubious quality but the true number is probably in that vicinity.
You can start with my daughter, who had health problems when she was 12 and still can not find a single health insurance provider (in Missouri) who will even bother to quote her a price.
You can also add my friend Betsy, a (Type I) diabetic, who was interviewed on TV about her inability to find insurance. After the interview, numerous insurance agents claimed to be able to find coverage. She talked to them all, none of them could.
These are not instances where we can argue over what might be an “affordable” level of coverage. Not one single insurance company operating in the state would even offer a quote.
The beauty of capitalism is that a company is free to turn down business if it fears the customer might be unprofitable. Unfortunately, it sucks when the business is healthcare.
Please explain the bolded part. Are you saying that there are some folks out there who choose to be sick? Or, perhaps they require healthcare because they got drunk and drove their car into a tree. I guess that in that case, the rescuers are supposed to show up, decide that the driver is drunk, and then leave him to rescue his own damn self since his wreck was his “own volition”. Is that what you’re saying?
No, that’s OK. We can start there.
I’ll round it up to 1 in 10, if you don’t mind, because the math is easier and because there is a large mismatch in supply/demand for policies right now because of regulation.
Excellent. So let’s say 1 in 10.
Now, how many of them do you think deserve government support? For example, does a business executive making over $200,000 per year with a pre-existing nerve condition in his back (someone who I know personally) deserve government support?
I would say no, but I’m curious to hear what you say.
If eat Ho-Hos all day in front of Oprah, weigh 400 pounds and have Type II diabetes, high-blood pressure and bad joints as a result, are you obligated to pay for my care?
Your health insurance should be required to cover that.
Well it could, or it couldn’t, I suppose. It would be up to me in a deregulated market place to pick an insurance policy that best suits my needs.
I might pick one that only covers catastrophic events like malignant cancerous tumours discovered 5 years from this date, for example, in exchange for a very small premium. The Ho-Ho induced conditions may or may not be part of a policy that I choose.
Which, of course, takes us back to the OP’s question.
If you choose coverage that is insufficient and then arrive in the hospital with a massive coronary, what should happen? Should you be treated? Who should pay for said treatment?
Whereas, under Obamacare, consumers don’t have to make bets with their health care. All health care is paid for by private health insurance companies who are required to take all patients regardless of pre-existing conditions. Insurance companies are eager to do so, to gain access under the mandate to the young, healthy consumers who previously freeloaded when their health care bets turned out badly, and caused costs and premiums to rise for the rest of us.
So you have to anticipate any and all catastrophic health events, and decide if you want to buy coverage for each? What if you get a rare auto-immune disease you never heard of? Does your insurance company say, “Sorry, but you didn’t get the coverage for diffuse systemic scleroderma, so go home and die.”
I do not wish to live in a country with that much “freedom”.
It’s different here in WA but they can’t leave you on the curb suffering from an illness. A buddy had a motorcycle accident and the state picked up the tab. True they wanted their money later but he had no assets so he never paid.
I agree it need reforming, I think everyone does, especially doctors. I just don’t think the government is the answer. I grew up a military dependent, served four years and another three and a half in civil service. So I’ve seen plenty of government care.
I got lost. She lost her insurance then found out she had to report something to be covered? Whatever, has she tried Medicare/Medicaid?
Yes, if you have constant needs then you need a plan that helps cover the expenses. But those plans should have a deductible range, many people buy the least one but pay much higher monthly rates.
We don’t have a free market in health care, that’s the point. And I prefer not having a European tax structure or waiting list. Canada is more streamlined than us even with their public system. For example, a doctor told my nurse friend that his Canadian friends have a nurse and bookkeeper in their office while an American doctor would likely have a nurse and five bookkeepers.
So, fat Oprah fans should just die? I don’t get your point here. When does an unfortunate lifestyle choice transition into “too bad, not my problem”? You got that way of your “own volition.” Most of the bad things that happen to us are the result of some choice we have made. When does the choice become your “own volition”? Who makes that decision?
The lady that got T-boned in an intersection CHOSE to pull out in front of an oncoming car. Not covered. The guy who smoked two packs a day since high school CHOOSE to get cancer. Not covered. The guy with renal carcinoma CHOSE to live in a county with a depleted uranium mine. Not covered. The lady with pre-eclampsia CHOSE to get pregnant. Not covered. The teenager with the broken neck CHOSE to be on the school football team. Not covered. The parents of the toddler who fell down the stairs CHOSE to live in a two-story house. Not covered.
Where does it end? What aspects of your health cannot be traced to some choice you made?
Medicaid does not work that way. You cannot qualify for it based on means alone. (You will be able to starting in 2014, but only if the Affordable Care Act doesn’t go away.)
This last statement gives me the chance to ask questions I am always eager to ask conservatives (so much so that I’ve made threads on it in the past, but I’m always interested in hearing other individual viewpoints):
Do you believe that health outcomes in the U.S., as proportioned to their cost, are better than those in single-payer countries? If not, what about those systems make them, in your mind, not worth implementing here?