I’d love to have been able to offer insurance to potential employees - since I’d get said insurance as well for my wife and I. But at $4,700 for just the two of us, and another $700 to add a (perfectly healthy, never-been-sick-ever) employee, it just isn’t going to happen.
It was far easier to leave America and hire a foreigner (who gets insurance from his national insurance system), then buy insurance for my wife and I on the private market (which we did - we pay $200/mo - not valid in the USA).
When I can buy full insurance in the USA for what I pay here, I’ll move home.
And here is an article that highlights some of the Rep involvement up until September.
How about we try first those things that won’t add cost and/or dramatically alter the health care system we have? Seriously, why would you not do that first?
If you can show me some numbers, I’d be glad to look at them. I think you might like to read Dr Gawande’s piece, which I clinked to above in the trhead, though. He actually looks at what causes overutilization, instead of just speculating about it. Incidentally, I used to work for an HMO, for almost five years, in Co-Ordination of Benefits and then in Marketing. My experience bears out what he says.
Then, for the last time, providers will be swamped by insurers sending reps out to try to convince them to carry, just like pharmaceutical companies try to get them to prescribe.
You have no way of predicting what sort of medical care you’ll need throughout your contract, though. Do you need a high or low co-pay for prescriptions? Well, high, obviously, until you find that you need some maintenance prescription. Specialist visits? Referral procedures? You can’t say because you have no way of predicting what sort of illness or injury might come your way.
That is incorrect. If you can show us a way to provide health insurance to everyone that does NOT require John to pay Joe’s premiums, either directly or because John is taxed and the money given to Joe, then let’s rock with it.
No - as I stated above, I believe that untying insurance from employers will open up the insurance industry. Make it all up to the individual, and the groups will form themselves.
That’s not what I was saying. I’m saying that instead of thinking of what will benefit ME in the short term (I will have more money to spend), a form of UHC lets us think about what will benefit society AS A WHOLE, and will then benefit me in the long term. I may indeed have to pay (right now) for Joe’s appendectomy, but I will benefit because Joe will have good healthcare, and get back to work soon. I may be paying for Jane’s pre-natal visits, but I will benefit because her child will be healthy, and will not be a drain on the medical system in the long term.
I will benefit down the line because someone will be paying for my healthcare at some point. The insurance risk is spread out over the entire population, and everyone is therefore covered. It’s good for everyone. Our per capita costs are much less than in the US, and the health outcomes are similar, if not better.
Well, I know you’re interested in beating us over the head with this, but it seems like it’s all working out for you, despite your pre-existing condition. You went through the available options, and picked the one that worked best for you.
You’ve stated many times that the current HC system has cost America jobs, but - let’s say this passes tomorrow. Do you understand that, if you move back to the US, your business will be subject to various taxes and regulations, in addition to the chunk it will take out of your paycheck? Is that preferable to you?
Do you think that you shouldn’t have to pay more because of a pre-existing condition? Based on what you’ve said, your case may be a little unique, in that it apparently doesn’t cost anything, but what about a person with diabetes?
It seems logical to me that those with pre-existing conditions should pay more, since they will take out more.
Really, the act was enacted to prevent hospitals from “patient dumping.” Ethical treatment of the sick and infirmed is a far cry from establishing a right to universal health care.
Yes, but the Republicans pretend that Tort Reform and State Lines are the only two things you need to do. Their talking-heads hit those points every time someone asks what the Republican Solution is.
Tort reform isn’t worth the savings (imho) and State Lines would just engender a race to the bottom as states fight each other to have the most lax insurance regulations. The bottom line is the Republican solutions make things worse.
I am not oblivious to the economic issues regarding pre-existing conditions. A lot of the defined conditions are bullshit, and the insurance industry needs to be taken to task. As a fiscal conservative, I have a lot of interest in the government funded catastrophic plans. But let’s not avoid the issue of what an individual’s duty to “the pool” is.
I keep seeing it hammered that everyone has a duty to take care of everyone else - so then, doesn’t a person with a legitimate pre-existing condition owe a little more to that pool?
My business is US based, so it’ll be subject to the same regulations it is now. And since I already pay US taxes, at least then I’d be able to derive some benefit.
I think you meant to say that “politician’s” solutions make things worse.
Wouldn’t insurance companies who dog pile into states with crappy insurance regulations basically be cutting their own throats? If the regulations are shoddy at best that would mean that their product being sold is also shoddy, and so would eventually hurt the companies bottom line. They (the insurance companies) are going to have to have a certain level of quality if they want to be profitable, right?
I left 8 years and re-tried applying last year and was again declined by everyone - they said they could not help me with any policies they offered. Strings that when I applied for my UK-based private insurance and disclosed my condition, nothing was said except “welcome to your new policy”.
A pre-existing condition can be defined as almost anything. Have a wart removed and you have a pre-existing condition. Go for the most minor of operations and it becomes a pre-existing condition and a reason for health insurance companies to deny you access to care that you paid for.
Sigh. This thread is every bit as depressing as I imagined it would be. I hope Obama finally grows some goddamned balls, tells the Republicans to fuck off with their obstructionist nonsense and creates a bill that lets us join the civilized world on this issue.
That isn’t what happened with the Credit Card industry.
Look, if costs are say 20% less (I’m making that number up, I’m not an insurance company) in South Dakota and you are able to sell across state lines what is going to happen? Every company will move there. Why? Because 20% off your operating costs means 20% to your profit margin. Every company that does not move to South Dakota must compete against a company that has lower costs. They will either move or be priced out of existence.
For the consumer, it doesn’t matter, they have to take what they can get. So whatever shitty regulations South Dakota has become the new baseline.
This has happened before, the exact same thing happened to Credit Cards.