Maybe I phrased my question incorrectly. After the two years of taxpayers paying for the pr- existing condition exactly what happens and if what happens is the insurance companies take on the risk why would they not just raise the premiums or drop the person from the insurance plan. Guess I am having a problem understanding just what the two years accomplishes. And in the pre Obamacare years I can testify that at least for my condition no insurance company would cover any part of the condition no matter how long I had insurance with them.
No it won't unless the insurance company charges way more than they would charge for someone without the pre-existing condition. Take my case. My treatment had I had it done in the United States would have cost upward of 250 thousand dollars. If you can amortise that in two years or even ten let me know the math. And a lot of pre- existing conditions are much more expensive than mine was. The only way to handle pre- existing conditions through insurance is to spread the risk or cost across all the insured and that means insurance costs go up as Obamacare has adequalty demonstrated,
I think I can see why Obamacare was bungled so badly. It's solution for pre-existing conditions was simply an insurance mandate; That was their plan to "spread the risk or cost across all the insured." Clearly that failed, so we've tried your idea and it didn't work. I'm suggesting something in theory you government uber alles types should love; a government "public option" for a secondary payer specifically to deal with the most expensive diagnosis's and treatments.
Well I think you proposed it for just two years. Are you changing that to lifetime solution and how are you proposing to pay for it. I say that because you appear not to be debating my points about amortizing cost or the fact that insurance companies will either raise the insurance costs or drop the insured after two years.
I'm not debating your personal anecdote because it's dumb and doesn't have anything to do with this issue. Amortizing the cost isn't for a single individual person, it's for all the plans in the group. It's like you have a plan, and within the first year you get type 2 diabetes. That is a condition that will be a lifetime one that will have a lot of extra expenses but your still covered because it occurred within the lifetime of the plan and is made up by all the other people in that group. That's how insurance works. The two year coverage is because when individual private insurance used to take people with pre-existing conditions, their accountants figured if they could avoid paying on the first 18 months to two years (depending on the conditions) they could break even on preexisting conditions. I'm not sure I really understand what you're missing on this. For some reason you think a mandate for an individual to purchase insurance and paying for pre-existing conditions from day one is more financially sound than a mandate on the insurance companies to pay for pre-existing conditions after two years. I think we've had enough history to see your idea didn't work.
Oh so the cost is being amortized by charging the rest of the people buying insurance, that was not specified in your original posting. That is what Obamacare does. Why you think the two years makes any significant difference still eludes me. If you think that will make a significant difference long term to insurance costs please post the numbers. Since your plan is to have the government pay the extra cost for two years wouldn't it be simpler to just have the insurance companies cover the conditions from the beginning and then just have the government reimburse the insurance companies which is what Obamacare does now although it is not limited to two years. And yes I did agree that Obamacare is not the right solution to the American healthcare crisis, but I also don't see where your plan is significantly different enough to make any real difference. As far as I can tell the only thing you do differently is to have the taxpayers fund two years of pre-existing insurance coverage for those individuals with pre-existing conditions while you charge everyone else who is insured more to increase the profits of the insurance companies for those two years. And by the way pre Obama care people with pre-ezisting conditions were denied coverage they weren't denied coverage for those conditions for just two years. Sorry you don't like my personal example but it happens to be true unlike your assumption that pre-existing conditions were just denied for the first two years.
Making the insurance companies cover the conditions is the situation we have now, and it's falling apart. We already know your way doesn't work. That was a point I tried to explain to you earlier in this thread. I guess I failed. OK.
No matter how you look at it, it's charity not insurance that you're promoting. The only problem with that is it allows government to become the source from which many voters see their needs/wants most easily being fulfilled. I often wonder how JFK, "ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country", would view our country today.
He would be horrified by someone like Trump who only care about himself and his money. The exact antithesis of Kennedy.
Well yeah, it is charity. But I'm trying to save the insurance system. You seem to want to drive it right into the wall.
Except of course you can't defend it. You can't actually explain it and you certainly have no cost figures to demonstrate that it will work. Other than that you have a better idea. But just for yucks answer one question. Are you or are you not after two years requiring the insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions at the same price as other policy holders. A simple yes or no will suffice.
Not at all, saving the insurance system only requires allowing it to operate within the means it can produce. Government has the ability to make people feel it is a 'solution' to all problems as each $1 it spends appears to only cost a few cents, while people ignore the fact that the few cents is a perpetual cost assuring inflation which costs ALL, including government.
As far as cost comparisons, no I don't have the numbers. I'm going by it actually being used and working by health insurance companies, so it's already a proven concept. But the insurance companies just didn't reimburse for that two year period, so if you had their insurance and a pre-existing condition, you were SOL. I'm adding a way to be covered for that period. As to your yucks question, yes. That's the entire point.
Feel free to post the evidence that a two year hiatus from pre existing coverage followed by full insurance coverage has ever been tried. Like I said I had a pre- existing condition prior to the ACA and no insurance company would cover the problem under any condition. So post your evidence demonstrating that pre-existing conditions have ever been covered by insurance companies for individual policies.
I'm not sure why I would bother. I remember it, but what's the point? I've long since learned that no liberal's mind has ever been changed by evidence, and your's wouldn't since you dislike the concept to begin with. In any case, we are stuck with Obamacare, so since you liked your Obamacare, you get to keep it.
So you are just making it up. Why are we not surprised, that does seem to be the Conservative standard of evidence when challenged to actually produce proof of idiotic statements.
Let us know when you sucessfully conduct a bidding war for a healthcare Proceedure. Till then it is all just hokum.