I have no objection to a six-month waiting period for treatment of pre-existing conditions. Perhaps insurance companies would view it as protection against customers who sign up only to receive treatment, then cancel as soon as possible.
Would you support extending the HIPPA provision to all policies so that insurers can’t refuse to cover or cancel coverage for individual policy holders by claiming there was a pre-existing condition? And what is a fair approach for both insurers and individuals for chronic conditions (for example, heart disease or diabetes) who are willing or able to defer coverage for six months with the expectation that they’ll be covered for life after that.
Fellow Dopers, join Bricker and me as we set aside the rhetoric and try to hammer out areas we can agree on that can lead to genuine reform!
“The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has long advocated health care for all. In their pastoral letter, Health and Health Care, the bishops called for a “comprehensive health care system that will ensure a basic level of health care for all Americans.” Pope John XXIII, in his encyclical Peace on Earth , listed health care among those basic rights which flow from the sanctity and dignity of human life. In the same tradition, Pope John Paul II addressed the need for health care in On Human Work, where he focused on the availability and affordability of health care for workers.”
"In the debate over health care insurance, the bishops will continue to use as their guide the “criteria for reform” from their Framework for Comprehensive Health Care Reform. Among the criteria for health care reform they will apply to policy proposals are:
· Respect for Life — Whether it preserves and enhances human life from conception to natural death.
· Priority Concern for the Poor – Whether it gives special priority to health care needs of the poor, ensuring that their health care is quality health care.
·** Universal Access to Comprehensive Benefits** — Whether it provides universal access to comprehensive benefits sufficient to maintain and promote good health.
· Pursuing the Common Good and Preserving Pluralism — Whether it allows and encourages the involvement of all sectors, including the religious and voluntary sectors, in all aspects of health care, ensuring respect for the ethical and religious values of consumers and providers."
But if that law gets changed, insurance companies have threatened to just leave the state. Nevada has a small population so has no power to do anything about it.
So we are stuck with an employer-only system, whereas if we had the ability to get a group together… anything from “Plumbers of Nevada” to “the Friday Book Club”, insurance would be a lot easier.
Doesn’t a group of 300 million mean that there will be only one insurance company servicing everyone? This is a monopoly in the private sector and the company can charge whatever they like. In the public sector it’s called single payer and the government can charge whatever they like. I assume they will try to keep the cost low by reducing reimbursements. This is the equivalent of squeezing a baloon at one end. You cannot artificially set an upper limit to costs without having some effect. Hell, this is part of the reason we currently have employer based health insurance to start with.
There are a ton of differet cards and different plans for those that want them. For example, you can pay a higher interest rate to get specific awards. Alternatively, you can pay off your balance each month and pay no interest but still get rewards. You can get cards from every major department store and gas station if that’s your thing. There is actually quite a bit of difference between different types of cards.
It seems to me that every little thing like this that we do inserts more risk into the insurance company equation and will result in increased prices. How much I have no idea but I wonder if, by doing things that allow some to enter the market, we don’t price others out of the market. All of those ideas sound great but do we really have a handle on what the outcome will be?
As an aside, there are always people who will try to game the system by jumping into a policy when needed and jumping out when not needed. It seems these people do nothing but take from the system. There should be some way that insurance companies could blackball them and automatically charge them the highest allowable rate to get back in. Of course, I’m sure some people who are not trying to game the system will suffer as a result of this as well. There are never any easy answers.
You’re right in that I don’t know how much my ideas would cost to implement, and how much of that cost would wind up being passed on to people who already have insurance. But with the cost of healthcare in the U.S. already the highest in the industrial world, it’s worth doing some serious numbers-crunching to find out.
And I think it’s a far better topic to discuss than whether one side is trying to socialize us while the other side wants all poor people to die.
I wholeheartedly agree with you. I’d love to see some numbers on these ideas. The beauty of the US system is that different states do things differently and we can glean some information from what they have tried. For instance, MA has a state plan that is very similar to the proposed health care legislation. Prices have increased anywhere from 20-50% faster than other areas and wait times have increased. Also, there are people in hiding from the state insurance mandate.
By the way, Kunilou, you didn’t answer my question about the high-risk insurance offered by states. Have you checked into this or checked with an insurance company to see if your family can create a pool that would allow your daughter to be insured?
Wait times are up because more people are getting treated now. What a surprise, huh? More than half of the formerly uninsured are now covered. Which was kinda the point.
It must really pique you, then, to realize that this petulant child dominates medical research, has the most far-reaching and advanced military, and is in general such a wealthy nation. All this generated from people that act stubbornly in their own self-interest!
In fact, the reason the United States generates the wealth and innovation it does it precisely because we act so often in our own individual self-interest. I wish America retains this spirit as long as possible.
What’s your point? I am pointing out some of the shortcomings that should be considered. Combine this with an overall shortage of primary care physicians and wait times will continue to grow. You can have all the coverage in the world but it doesn’t mean shit if you don’t have access to health care. Someone will always lose no matter WHAT we do and that is the point that the left just cannot comprehend.
I am certainly pleased to hear that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is an appropriate guide to setting secular policy now! That’s wonderful news.
So, just as a sign of good faith and all, perhaps we could take care of outlawing abortion first, since that’s also a policy of the UCCB? I promise I’d support UHC in return for that concession.
Or did you just want to follow the USCCB’s suggestions you like?
Nobody ever said there aren’t any. A lot of people, including me, are saying that they’re not an excuse for implementing the positives. Unfortunately, a lot of people, including you, are suggesting that only a perfect system should be considered.
What is not being “comprehended”, and by whom, about more people getting care in MA than before? :rolleyes:
Nope, that’s not what I’m suggesting. What makes one system better than another in your eyes? Getting more people insured may increase wait times for those that need care the most. Now we have a new cohort of sufferers. Is that okay with you? There are always trade-offs. You just seem hellbent on making sure we have an egalitarian system, as opposed to a financial one, to determine who suffers.
Are you familiar with the law of unintended consequences?
