What good is it to tell insurance companies they can’t exclude people with preexisting conditions?
The insurance companies can then just charge as much as they want to people that have expensive preexisting medical conditions. For example you have diabetes, you go to get insurance, the company says sure we would love to insure you for 1000/month. Who can afford that? The government would have to also tell the insurance companies how much they are allowed to charge for it to help any.
It’s that much without diabetes. With diabetes the number will be astranomical.
It may actually be better to get a low wage paying job and make the government provide assistance, than to work a skilled job and have it taken away.
January 15th, 2010 at 9:54 pm
The healthcare bill in its current form is muddled political posturing.
It will help no one.
References :
January 15th, 2010 at 10:35 pm
It’s that much without diabetes. With diabetes the number will be astranomical.
It may actually be better to get a low wage paying job and make the government provide assistance, than to work a skilled job and have it taken away.
References :
January 15th, 2010 at 11:25 pm
There is no good. This bill is written by insurance prostitutes.
The only health reform worth doing is Medicare For All. Anything involving the private sector will be inefficient and too costly.
References :
January 15th, 2010 at 11:42 pm
I think the idea is that if competition for insurance plans are opened up across state lines, there will be more competition and that will keep the rates low. I also think that there will be a greater variety of plans created to lower costs for people with preexisting conditions so you might see a plan that will cover many things those people need for their condition, but no coverage for, say, mental health, maternity, etc. There may be more of an a-la-carte selection with some companies.
References :
January 16th, 2010 at 12:16 am
You are correct. Without meaningful cost controls the health insurance reform is ineffective. That is why it is essential to have cost controls and the public option, which would serve as competition and a measure against which to evaluate costs.
People with pre-existing conditions are expensive to cover, as are of course the elderly who are currently covered by Medicare. The insurance companies aren’t going to erase their profits just to cover people with pre-existing conditions. The off-setting benefit to the insurance companies under the proposed legislation is mandatory coverage for everyone. Cost controls can help keep the premiums in line, as well as the alternative of the public option.
References :
January 16th, 2010 at 1:02 am
I pay well over $1000. per month for my insurance. I have been diabetic for more than 30 years. I have also had breast cancer and just had a kidney transplant a few weeks ago. (My rejection medication, which I will be on for the rest of my life, is over $3000. per month) If I had paid out of pocket, or if the insurance company were allowed to cap payments for certain diseases, (as Democrats want to allow), I would have been dead years ago.
Our health insurance is our largest personal expense and thank God we can afford it. I never thought I would say this, but I am beginning to warm up to the public option just because of my health problems. I am sure there are many people out there who have had the same conditions as I have, but they can not afford insurance premiums as high as I pay. That’s a problem. I guess it took my own mortality to see the other side of the coin. NO one should be denied the right to live.
References :