It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pre-Existing Conditions Provision in House Health Plan Divides GOP

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2017 @ 11:57 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

People of means come to the USA for treatments because the odds of success are better here. On the flip side of the coin, people who live here, eat poorly and get too little exercise. For them, even the best doctors in the world can't combat the self-inflicted scourge. So America has poorer "outcomes" than many other countries.

Like electing Republicans with no balls, we're also to blame for much of our poor health.




posted on May, 2 2017 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

People in the US go OUTSIDE the country for treatment. I's called medical tourism.


Oh and dental tourism.

It is a huge business, and I have no numbers, but I would imagine the people leaving far outnumber the people coming.



posted on May, 2 2017 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Edumakated

Do you have a source to show me how this works?


I'm assuming you are referring to insurance?

Insurance is just a financial product. It isn't that complicated at it's core. Just think about how your car insurance, life insurance, and home owners insurance works. There is no "scam" to insurance as some people like to claim. Fundamentally, the insurance company is betting that you don't need the coverage and you are betting that you do.

When you buy car insurance, you are buying it because you understand that if you are to get into a major wreck, the financial repercussions could be devastating. As such, you carry insurance to protect yourself against the scenario. The insurance company has actuaries looking at the likelihood of you filing a claim. The lower the risk, the lower the premium. They may have say 10,000 people paying premiums but only have 100 who actually file the claim. All those premiums for the 10,000 should more than cover anything they need to payout on the 100. The insurance company takes the premiums and then invests the money so that the principal of those premiums they are collecting gets even larger.

Same goes with life insurance and other forms of insurance.

I have a substantial life insurance policy so that my family is protected in case I have an untimely death. I pay like $2k/yr for $2 million policy on both me and my wife along with disability insurance in case I can't work anymore. It isn't wasted money as I know if I were to lose my wife or she lose me, we'd get enough paid out to more than take care of our family. With life insurance, the earlier you get it in life, the cheaper because the odds of you needing it are lower. No one would provide cheap life insurance on a 80 year old smoker. It is absurd to even think about it, but that is essentially what happens with health insurance often.

Health insurance as a product has been perverted because it is no longer "insurance". It is really more of a health maintenance plan now. Insurance is supposed to be about protecting you from catastrophes, not paying for every little cough and sneeze you get. The problem with health insurance is that the regulations and other government involvement has inflated the costs and of it and the healthcare market in general is not operating under a traditional free market. People don't want to pay for health insurance but then they get sick and all of a sudden they want to buy it. Insurance is not sustainable that way because the actuarial tables won't work.



posted on May, 2 2017 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated




There is no "scam" to insurance as some people like to claim. Fundamentally, the insurance company is betting that you don't need the coverage and you are betting that you do.


The "scam" is that the insurance co. don't pay the claims thru BS technicalities hidden in the policy.

Or they cancel the policy after years and years of paying the premiums.


edit on 2-5-2017 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2017 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated


Many people don't want the type of health "insurance" we have now. They want a GUARANTEE that they will have their illnesses/injuries treated, as needed, no questions asked.

For that, our government is the appropriate provider. Something of this magnitude should be voted on in a special nationwide election. It shouldn't be left to the dysfunctional Congress to decide.

If it passes, those who want to keep private insurance can do so. Everyone else will automatically be covered by Uncle Sam. Taxes will be increased somewhat on everyone, but that would be what Americans voted for.



posted on May, 2 2017 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated


There is no "scam" to insurance as some people like to claim. Fundamentally, the insurance company is betting that you don't need the coverage and you are betting that you do.


Yes, there is. If it weren't a scam, then the health insurance I had at the time my craptastic doctor and/or hospital gave me the MRSA would still be covering the claim... but they don't and won't. Every other insurance policy covers the full cost of the claim till the end. Nor would my missing female body parts (hysterectomy) be considered a "pre-existing condition" for which they can and do charge exponentially more even though I will never ever need any medical care for something I don't have!!!


Insurance is not sustainable that way because the actuarial tables won't work.


Health insurance is not sustainable because insurance is for one-time "what if" situations -- not "when," and not "continuing" situations. Nor can anyone say, "Oh gee, I think I'll just find another way to live so I don't have to buy health insurance" like one can say, "Oh gee, I think I'll find another means for transportation so I don't have to buy car insurance." Nor can they even say, "Okay, I'll just take responsibility for my own care and take care of myself" because the game is rigged.

It's easy but ignorant to blame our fellow Americans for not playing the game, but it's not their fault. They didn't break it and they can't fix it.



posted on May, 2 2017 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: FissionSurplus

And then you have people like an old friend of my husband's who felt like they were young and healthy and saw no reason to pay an insurance premium every month as a result even though they could well afford it. Then they have a sudden health issue and get all outraged over the bills without insurance and the fact that health insurance is so outrageously expensive after they are diagnosed with a health condition that then becomes pre-existing.



posted on May, 2 2017 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Edumakated


Many people don't want the type of health "insurance" we have now. They want a GUARANTEE that they will have their illnesses/injuries treated, as needed, no questions asked.

For that, our government is the appropriate provider. Something of this magnitude should be voted on in a special nationwide election. It shouldn't be left to the dysfunctional Congress to decide.

If it passes, those who want to keep private insurance can do so. Everyone else will automatically be covered by Uncle Sam. Taxes will be increased somewhat on everyone, but that would be what Americans voted for.


The problem with that is that the government is not an appropriate provider. Ask the VA. Ask someone who is dealing with the public school system in many districts.



posted on May, 2 2017 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

How could you have a single claim that was covered on one day and not covered on the next? Something is missing in your story.



posted on May, 2 2017 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Edumakated


Many people don't want the type of health "insurance" we have now. They want a GUARANTEE that they will have their illnesses/injuries treated, as needed, no questions asked.

For that, our government is the appropriate provider. Something of this magnitude should be voted on in a special nationwide election. It shouldn't be left to the dysfunctional Congress to decide.

If it passes, those who want to keep private insurance can do so. Everyone else will automatically be covered by Uncle Sam. Taxes will be increased somewhat on everyone, but that would be what Americans voted for.


The problem with that is that the government is not an appropriate provider. Ask the VA. Ask someone who is dealing with the public school system in many districts.



People covered by government programs are for the most part very satisfied. Ask any Medicare recipient. Personally, I go to the VA Medical Center in Chicago twice a year. The vast majority of veterans appeared to be satisfied as well.



posted on May, 2 2017 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

And the ones who aren't died waiting for treatment. Funny how that works.



posted on May, 2 2017 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: burdman30ott6

That is not the only solution.

Let's look at other countries and see how they handle this seemly insurmountable problem.


How many of those countries have 320 million residents? How many of those countries aren't opening their borders in a desperate attempt to get an influx of younger, healthy workers to avoid their socialized healthcare systemic collapse? How many of those countries have income tax rates that don't end up taking at least 40% of earnings?

The largest country with socialized healthcare is Japan, at 130 million people +/-. and Japan is the 3rd least ethnic and culturally diverse country on the WHO diversity list, trailing only North and South Korea. THAT'S IMPORTANT. If the US installed socialized healthcare, we would become by far the most culturally diverse nation to have it in place, meaning not everybody id on the same page and priorities are all over the place.

It won't work in this country and there is NO pragmatic reason to piss away further money to try and make it work when we all know it will be a miserable failure.



posted on May, 2 2017 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
The problem with pre-existing conditions is that it isn't strictly for pre-existing conditions as most people think of them.

The way it was written, it covered people who wanted to not bother paying for any insurance ... until they went to the doctor and he told them they had cancer. At that point, they wanted to get insurance to pay for the bills. The concept of insurance only works out if you pay in for a long time before you get sick, meaning you buy in when you are healthy.

Allowing such people to suddenly buy in under pre-existing rules made sure they could sucker the system and that drove premiums way up because those who tried to be responsible wound up paying not just for themselves but against the risk of suddenly having to pick up catastrophically ill people who would suddenly jump into the pool without having contributed prior.

I am guessing that what most people think of are the ones who have chronic illnesses or who were responsible and lost coverage midway through a cancer battle or shortly after.

This highlights the flaws in the insurance system. Not so much humans' wellness patterns though. The problem is healthcare costs. If we could make them manageable than health insurance would go the way of the dinosaurs.
edit on 2-5-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2017 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

All government programs have a waiting list. That's part of the price you pay for free health care. That is why I say this country should have a two-tiered system... government and private.



posted on May, 2 2017 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

That is the part of all this crap about the health care reform fixing that I can not digest, the fact that insurance are still running the show and nobody in congress dare to fight them back and take away their power

Why is that? because the health care industry fills the pockets of the corruption in Washington that we know as our elected officials.

Giving the insurance business the right to rule on what kind of insurance they can offer and for how much is not going to lower the prices of insurance in any way or form, giving vouchers to people at the expenses of the rest of the tax payer is not going to fix the problem either.

The government needs to understand that is the insurance companies monopoly the ones running the show



posted on May, 2 2017 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: ketsuko
The problem with pre-existing conditions is that it isn't strictly for pre-existing conditions as most people think of them.

The way it was written, it covered people who wanted to not bother paying for any insurance ... until they went to the doctor and he told them they had cancer. At that point, they wanted to get insurance to pay for the bills. The concept of insurance only works out if you pay in for a long time before you get sick, meaning you buy in when you are healthy.

Allowing such people to suddenly buy in under pre-existing rules made sure they could sucker the system and that drove premiums way up because those who tried to be responsible wound up paying not just for themselves but against the risk of suddenly having to pick up catastrophically ill people who would suddenly jump into the pool without having contributed prior.

I am guessing that what most people think of are the ones who have chronic illnesses or who were responsible and lost coverage midway through a cancer battle or shortly after.

This highlights the flaws in the insurance system. Not so much humans' wellness patterns though. The problem is healthcare costs. If we could make them manageable than health insurance would go the way of the dinosaurs.


The only way to reduce costs in the system is rationing or refusing care. The costs don't magically go down. What is happening now is that those who have insurance are paying for those who don't.

For example, here in Chicago we have this violence problem. Our ERs get filled up every weekend with gun shot victims. The vast majority of them have little to no insurance. Who is paying for their care? Those of us who aren't out shooting up each other.

One study is claiming hoodrats shooting each other cost the city of Chicago $2.5 billion/yr. Average trauma bill is $52,000 which of course could be higher depending on the victim. Roughly $2500 per household in the city.

Part of me is starting to see the benefit of just opening Medicare for all, but I also want a private system. The other thing is as a country we have to decide what is more important. Something else has to give. We can't be playing police all over the world, wasting money on the Dept of Ed, EPA, and all these other extraneous expenses. We can't have open borders serving illegal immigrants.

We could probably afford healthcare as a national priority, but we also need to make some hard choices in our budgets to do so.



posted on May, 2 2017 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

A little over eight billion dollars a year is seized in drug raids. Where does that money go? That would help with the cost of health care for Americans.

Withholding the billions of dollars we send to ungrateful Nations each year would assist in that effort as well.



posted on May, 2 2017 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

Part of what I'm talking about is trying to decouple the necessity of health insurance. We operate like health insurance is a necessary cost of health care. It isn't. Insurance companies have gotten away with YEARS of jacking up health care and medicinal prices while hospitals have been allowing it with the intention of negotiating the cost down with the insurance company.

We need to get rid of that entire mess above.



posted on May, 2 2017 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Edumakated

Part of what I'm talking about is trying to decouple the necessity of health insurance. We operate like health insurance is a necessary cost of health care. It isn't. Insurance companies have gotten away with YEARS of jacking up health care and medicinal prices while hospitals have been allowing it with the intention of negotiating the cost down with the insurance company.

We need to get rid of that entire mess above.


Why would an insurance company jack up the cost of healthcare? If anything, insurance wants to mitigate the costs. This is why they sometimes prefer generics over name brand drugs. You aren't making any sense.

Hospitals are the ones that jack up prices to cover for losses on those who are not covered. This is why your aspirin cost $1.00 a pill because the guy down the hall isn't paying for anything. The hospital says the cost if $20k trying to recoup what they lost down the hall on the guy who can't pay, the insurance company says BS and they wind up at $10k.

Healthcare costs go down when insurance isn't involved simply because the provider is forced to be more cost efficient by the consumer as the consumer actually cares what it costs since it is their money. This is why elective surgeries are vastly cheaper - lasik, butt implants, boob jobs, etc. There is no interference between consumer and provider whether it is government or insurance.



posted on May, 2 2017 @ 06:55 PM
link   
Why is Jimmy Kimmel getting so much press today, related to the impending Healthcare vote?

He said that his young child received life-saving surgery. I'm thankful for that, but Jimmy Kimmel is not on "ObamaCare". Like Rush Limbaugh, Kimmel probably doesn't have any health insurance. Doesn't need it.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join