OK.
Except that my ideology seems to be winning the issue at the moment. So I’m perfectly happy for you to disregard this based on the fact that it’s my ideology, as long as you don’t actually get to force the rest fo the country to cover your medical needs for you.
So - you’re refusing to answer my simple question? Too tricky for you?
Sure, I understand that a person with a pre-existing condition does cost more to the insurance company. And I can even understand increasing the cost to some extent (perhaps up to twice as much). But now it’s over ten times as expensive. They are simply pricing it out of people’s reach so those with pre-existing conditions just can’t get it.
In effect, you are rejecting the concept of insurance, which spreads risk around a larger population base.
I contend that it is quite possible for me to be responsible for my own health (eat well, exercise, get good preventative care), AND at the same time, share the cost of necessary medical services though a country-wide insurance plan.
The fact that in doing so, the per-capita costs of health are lower than yours, while the health outcomes are the same or better is a bonus.
ETA: Think of it this way. In Canada, we decided some time ago that healthcare was important enough that EVERYONE should be insured. Instead of forcing everyone to buy insurance from many private competing companies, we decided that it would be more efficient to essentially act as our own insurance company. (large organizations do this all the time; the won’t buy insurance for collision on fleet cars for example - why pay money to an insurance company when you can effectively self-insure) As our own insurance company, we can have more control over who is covered (everyone) and what is covered (decided by medical associations and doctors hired by health ministries)
Not to speak for Bricker, but the difference that you seem to be missing is the *voluntary *part. Right now, you could buy your own insurance, get it through an employer, not have insurance, move to UAE, whatever…
Insurance is a voluntary system, although the current system is crooked and broken. UHC is an involuntary system, which chokes the free market and forces citizens to act in a way that may be ethically, logically or economically stupid to them.
That, to me , is a huge difference…
So, can we agree that while pre-exisiting conditions should be obligated to pay more, the insurance companies need to be regulated to the extent that the premiums are no more than twice the amount? Or something else short of UHC?
Is car insurance completely voluntary where you are? Can you drive around legally with no insurance whatsoever?
This encapsulates a difference in the culture and ethos of our two countries. I understand that a large number of Americans are VERY opposed to being “told what to do” by the government. They want to do it their own way, even if this is detrimental to themselves and others. It’s a cultural, “individual before society” thing. It’s a “you can’t make me, I’ll do it the way I want to” thing.
This is one of the many reasons why I don’t think you’ll ever solve this problem, and why you’ll continue to hemorrhage money into a medical system that does not work very efficiently.
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) provides that a plan can look back only 6 months for a condition that was present before the start of coverage in a group health plan. So a preexisting condition exclusion can exist only if medical advice, diagnosis, care, or treatment was recommended or received during the 6 months prior to enrollment in the plan.
Now, you said:
If she were to get a job with a company that offered her insurance, the HIPPA provision I mention above would insulate her from denial based on her preexisting condition.
So that’s what I think she should do.
Have a wart removed and it’s a preexisting condition for six months, maximum.
Is that what you meant to say?
Or did you sort of shade it a little, to make it sound worse than it really is?
Not at all. I’m rejecting being forced into a particular set of insurance choices. I have no problem with voluntarily choosing to share the risk with a group of similarly situated individuals.
Credit cards are a…little different aren’t they? Those companies make money hand over fist…right? The profit margin for health insurance companies is something like 3%. I dont see how you can compare the two…
Which means that you could win your case, if you spent about as much on a lawyer as you would have on your care. Assuming, of course, that you haven’t signed away your right to a lawyer when you signed your policy.
Lotta cold hearted right wingers, IMO.
The whole “FU, I’ve got mine” thing is despicable.
After reading this thread THAT"S what you come away with? Amazing.
Explain to me how this isn’t true for some people in this thread?
People are absolutely unwilling to accept anything that might be for the greater good if they don’t do it themselves. Perhaps if people would stop thinking about themselves and their ideologies, we could make some meaningful progress.
:smack: What was I thinking?
But as I alluded to earlier, what if someone believes that the greater good is better served by not overhauling our healthcare system so much? What if someone believes that it makes for a better society if people are expected to take care of themselves and their loved ones. Can you even entertain, or fathom, an alternate point of view here? I intend no snark here, seriously, but can you even contemplate why I, Bricker, and other’s might feel that might make for a better society, even though it is anathema to your way of thinking?
I can argue your side of the fence. Can you do the same? It’s a serious, non-rhetorical question. Can you?
Someone can certainly believe that all that they want. Objective evidence, however, shows that you currently pay WAY too much as a % of GDP for healthcare that does not cover a large number of people. Your health outcomes do not reflect this greater amount of spending. These are facts.
Your current situation does not seem to be “better society” where people take care of themselves. I’ve heard from people who would LIKE TO take care of themselves and get reasonably priced medical insurance, but are unable to do so. I’ve heard from people who THOUGHT they had looked after themselves and loved ones, only to be told their health insurance was cancelled.
IT IS NOT WORKING. People are unable to take care of themselves and their loved ones under the current system.
ETA the point of the thread as I remember is to look for ways that Republicans have suggested fixing the system. Some posters have provided some ideas. Others though have just said “people should look after themselves and their loved ones” as though people are not ALREADY TRYING TO DO THAT in the current system.
It smacks of “let them eat cake”
That depends on how you define ‘winning the issue’. Your ideology results in the mess your country finds itself in right now, whereas mine does not. But you didn’t answer my question. Why should others act in your interest? At all? You expect to benefit from the shared services you and your neighbours have paid for, I’m sure; why?
Oh, I have no doubt you think that. But it has been my experience that precious few people who oppose UHC or a national health system oppose it on an ideological basis, not on a greater good basis. And that ideology often comes down to “I don’t want to spend my money helping” whatever.
Less than that actually. Your healthcare is your business, not the government’s. The government should have nothing to do with it beyond a regulatory capacity.