Revived GOP health care talks could hurt those with pre-existing conditions

[PapyrusDouay]

I know it seems cruel, but in the business world the one with diabetes is more of an expense so would be asked to pay more. That’s how business works. I know its not fair and cruel, but this is our system, insurance companies have the say as to what they provide and who pays what on a scale

You are correct, but this is what so many feel is wrong with our “system”

 

[Michael68]

You are correct, but this is what so many feel is wrong with our “system”

I do too. I don’t see why we can’t have universal healthcare. I’ve seen the arguments, but arguments don’t help the sick!

 

[PapyrusDouay]

I do too. I don’t see why we can’t have universal healthcare. I’ve seen the arguments, but arguments don’t help the sick!

True. It would be nice if they lead to some good deliberations and progress towards finding a good solution. But so far they just lead to more infighting it seems

 

[Sy_Noe]

Charging more for pre-existing conditions is how insurance works. I don’t hear people clamoring for car insurance that ignores the driver’s history of wrecks or speeding tickets. If what people want is all the healthcare you want paid for by someone else then they don’t want insurance but socialized medicine. Trying to make insurance into socialized medicine isn’t very cost effective. It means we all get less healthcare then we’d otherwise have.

It’s a sad and discouraging day when I see people comparing caring for the sick with cars.

But no it would not mean we all would get less care than we’d otherwise have. There are those today who do not qualify for Medicaid in their states and do not make enough to qualify for a subsidy. And then there are all these people we keep hearing about who have such high deductibles/out of pocket expenses that they don’t go to the dr for that reason.

 

[ProVobis]

Most European countries are not as large and the USA and they have not experienced the quality care that we have here. They have come to accept the care and rationing of that care that would not be well accepted here. They also do not have the population numbers that we have nor the number of illegals that do receive medical care here one way or the other.

The ACA disrupted the entire healthcare delivery system for a very large percentage of citizens in order to provide for those who could not or would not have coverage thru insurance plans provided by employers. They could have planned government healthcare for those people and left the rest of us alone.

Could have but the rising unemployment and the resultant massive loss of medical insurance forced both candidates to push us to insurance reforms in the 2008 campaign. Many people hadn’t realized how costly medical costs actually were. And still are.

 

[ProVobis]

Everybody has something.

Some medications are very inexpensive. A few are very costly.

Sometimes you can get expensive meds for free.

I have to wear eyeglasses. I could pay to get eye surgery. Or I could pay to get new glasses each year. Or I could just put up with cheap eyeglasses and bear up with them. A friend of a friend told me about a place where I could get new glasses for only a couple of dollars … so I checked them out and it was true … they let you keep your old frames. I only paid for the new lenses. You can ask around for a place like that near you. I have moved away, and I am famous for using epoxy for repairing my old frames.

One place … the eyeglass place wanted more than my paycheck … so I whined and a clinic GAVE me new frames. They were plastic and only cost a few pennies.

How many people go bankrupt over a pair of eyeglasses?

 

[Sy_Noe]

We can, but not the way the ACA went about it. I believe in helping those who are truly in need of help and we can do this. But what I was pointing out in my previous post is that we, in this country, have come to expect the very best and often at very high costs. Someone pays for that. And I don’t think we would expect there to be rationing as is true in other countries. As I said before, the ACA went about it all wrong and now we are in a mess that I am not sure can be solved. Many areas of the country have only one provider and Knoxville, TN now has no providers as Humana is pulling out of the ACA.

Sadly, we may yet end up with a single payer plan, which is what the Dems have wanted all along, and speaking as one who experienced a life-threatening illness in a country with single payer, I can tell you it was not the experience I would have had in the States. I darn near died and that would not have happened here.

And someone in the states who still doesn’t have healthcare coverage at all or avoids going to the dr because of out of pocket expenses or avoids paying for costly meds, may unnecessarily die in their sleep from a heart attack or stroke. Republican politicians have never cared about universal health care or a govt plan for those in need. And until those Christians who are more or less single issue voters stop electing them, Republicans may never change.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

I think the philosophy underlying the whole concept is that of envoy and covetousness.

1. We have a group who thinks its ok to unwillingly take some people’s money and pay for the medical expenses of others.
2. There is a group who resents their money being taken and resents the lost opportunity they have to save that money (or use it however they want) to better protect their and their families future.
3. You have a government who is populated by people who are addicted to power and seek every avenue to gain more. This always involves taking money from those who are earning it and distributing it in such a way to ensure they remain in power. By force or threat of force.

As has been seen in the last couple of weeks, the Republicans have no intention of lessening governmental size or power. The Democrats are working to make us Venezuela as fast as possible. The corporate entities who fund campaigns are influencing policy to their benefit. And the average American is being turned against each other fighting to move their deck chair to a better spot for the final show.

So please, understand we are in a conflict from which we cannot remove ourselves, but also that the solution will not be through our politicians. While manifesting as particular issues, we are fighting powers and principalities which can’t be seen. We as Christians understand we live in a broken world hostile to the love of Christ and until we take our last breath, these fights will continue.

PAX

 

[Thorolfr]

How many people go bankrupt over a pair of eyeglasses?

His argument would be more convincing if he’d said that he found a doctor who had offered to do heart surgery for a hundred dollars after he whined a little.

 

[Sy_Noe]

His argument would be more convincing if he’d said that he found a doctor who had offered to do heart surgery for a hundred dollars after he whined a little.

Isn’t that the truth.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Unfortunately that’s how it is Sy. The insurance companies only care about making money. I don’t really see how we can force them to lose money. This is a complex issue. I’m not saying I agree with the insurance companies . I have discussed this with people, a very small number, and I get the feeling people don’t want to pay for what they consider unnecessary to their, and their famly’s personal healthcare.

As far as pre-existing conditions, I agree with you!!!
Having said that, I understand why the business philosophy would not allow for such an expense.

What can we do brother?

Michael, my brother and friend, I think what we can do, you answered here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14576372&postcount=22

But the fact that you, so devoted your Catholic faith as well as being a staunch Trumpie and we can agree about preexisting conditions and you don’t see why we can’t have universal healthcare and you see where the arguments against it don’t help the sick, at least brightened my spirits a bit. Have a blessed day, Michael. And try to stay calm and chilled a bit today.

 

[Michael68]

Michael, my brother and friend, I think what we can do, you answered here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14576372&postcount=22

But the fact that you, so devoted your Catholic faith as well as being a staunch Trumpie and we can agree about preexisting conditions and you don’t see why we can’t have universal healthcare and you see where the arguments against it don’t help the sick, at least brightened my spirits a bit. Have a blessed day, Michael. And try to stay calm and chilled a bit today.

Thanx brother!!! When I pray the Rosary at lunch, I will dedicate a decade to patience and a decade for you, my friend!

 

[Ridgerunner]

One of Obamacare’s many problems was that it created a high loss “pool” on the exchanges, composed of those who were unable to obtain insurance due to health problems, those for whom subsidized insurance was less expensive than purchasing insurance and those would had no employment alternative available to them. Possibly that was realized at the beginning, perhaps not. It assumed that those with preexisting conditions (some catastrophic) would be ‘balanced out" by young, healthy people. That “balancing” did not happen because so many young people either a) are employed and have employer coverage, or b) remain on their parents’ plans longer, or c) don’t get insurance at all.

In addition, the insurers appeared unable to properly underwrite the risks in such a pool, unduly concentrating as it did those who have health problems in a seemingly unpredictable manner, and began withdrawing from the exchanges altogether.

And so, the government is faced with two choices (at least that I can see). One, which some say was the Democrat plan from the start, is to force the entire nation into one pool through “single payer” government control of medicine, and the second is to allow a free market but provide additional support to those who are otherwise uninsurable.

The first does not fix once central problem with Obamacare in that it forces one segment of the public to pay the entire cost of another segment as well as its own. The second might have problems of its own, but it seems so far unexplored.

Medicaid, as we know, is available only to those (other than those pushed into it by Obamacare) who have virtually no assets other than fairly low level equity in a home and a vehicle. It is, therefore, “means tested”. With “single payer” there would be no “means testing”, meaning that persons with substantial assets and income could still have healthcare provided largely by other payers.

Some societies find that acceptable. Others provide a sort of “safety valve” by allowing both public and private sectors. Even those systems provide a “welfare” kind of system for some without any “means testing”. It is just part of the concept that the whole of society owes medical care to everyone without regard to whether any of the members can afford to pay for their own care, either privately or by insurance. Indeed, that’s what Medicaid does, but to a more limited extent. It is a benefit provided by all, to a few who cannot otherwise afford it. A big question, then, is whether all should provide the benefit to the few, some of whom cannot afford it, as well as some who can.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Thanx brother!!! When I pray the Rosary at lunch, I will dedicate a decade to patience and a decade for you, my friend!

Much appreciated.

 

[exnihilo]

The difference is car insurance affects those wrecks which in which the individual is at fault, and of course the driver is at fault for speeding tickets. Health problems don’t always work that way. Most cancers, asthma, some diabetes, allergic reactions, are not always preventable. The person afflicted is not always “at fault”. It’s much easier to accept responsibility and pay the cost when you have control over how fast you’re driving. It’s a consequence of actions. The same cannot be said type 1 diabetes and so many other pre-existing conditions.

I don’t know, nor do doctors, what percentage of any disease is caused by a man’s choices. But doctors are all the time telling us things we chose to do can harm our health. So it absolutely is true that we are at least at times at fault for our bad health. That being so I don’t see how you can have a fair system that determines for you when your healthcare should be covered. Either you have the government or insurance corporations determine fault (and deny coverage or care for those determined to have caused their illness) or you give everyone all the healthcare they want. Neither is a good idea.

So those who are born with diabetes or other diseases deserve to pay more than those who have been blessed with good health?

Absolutely. That is life. It’s just like smart or athletically gifted people deserve to make more money. This is also why you have charity to help those who can’t afford treatments.

 

[exnihilo]

It’s a sad and discouraging day when I see people comparing caring for the sick with cars.

But no it would not mean we all would get less care than we’d otherwise have. There are those today who do not qualify for Medicaid in their states and do not make enough to qualify for a subsidy. And then there are all these people we keep hearing about who have such high deductibles/out of pocket expenses that they don’t go to the dr for that reason.

I compared insurance not sick people and cars.

Yes it does mean we get less healthcare. It is highly inefficient to turn health insurance into a mechanism to provide socialized medicine. The insurance, government and hospital bureaucracies waste huge amounts of money trying to make the insurance system do something it was never intended to. If you don’t know how much medical resources are spent in dealing with this you should inform yourself. This wasted money could be spent on useful things including more healthcare.

 

[Ridgerunner]

One might add this.

In addition to other problems in creating a “pool” representative of all people, one would have to either abolish employer-provided insurance entirely or somehow require all insurers to include employed people in the same “pool” as all others.

The reason is the 'well worker effect". People who are able to work are, not surprisingly, less likely to utilize healthcare than those who are not. They’re healthier or they would not be working at all. So they’re a relatively “low risk pool” all their own, particularly industrial workers upon whom physical demands are greater than on white collar workers. That’s why premiums are lower, generally, for group plans for blue collar workers than for white collar workers.

Now, ERISA qualified employer plans MUST accept preexisting conditions after 60 days of employment, so that does pull some of the less insurable into the “pool”. But even so, meeting the physical and stress demands of the workplace eliminates a significant number of those from the pool.

But “inequity” will be in any plan, in one way or another, and that’s true even if the government pays for all healthcare and the insured pays for none. It’s just another way of shifting costs. It will shift the costs from non-taxpayers (around 50% of the population) to taxpayers (the other 50%).

“Free” care tends to result in overutilization. So in any kind of “single payer” system or “X subsidizes Y” system, overutilization either needs to be accepted or it needs to be curbed in some manner. In some societies (possibly Canada and Britain are examples) it’s “cubed” by slow provision of care, and rationing.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I compared insurance not sick people and cars.

Yes it does mean we get less healthcare. It is highly inefficient to turn health insurance into a mechanism to provide socialized medicine. The insurance, government and hospital bureaucracies waste huge amounts of money trying to make the insurance system do something it was never intended to. If you don’t know how much medical resources are spent in dealing with this you should inform yourself. This wasted money could be spent on useful things including more healthcare.

The fact that the government does not actually administer any healthcare system other than VA might be instructive. For Medicare and Medicaid, the government hires private insurers to administer. There is no particular reason to think the government itself would be more efficient, and VA might be illustrative of that.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Charging more for pre-existing conditions is how insurance works. I don’t hear people clamoring for car insurance that ignores the driver’s history of wrecks or speeding tickets. If what people want is all the healthcare you want paid for by someone else then they don’t want insurance but socialized medicine.

Having other people pay for your health care is how health insurance works. The premiums paid by people who are healthy and do not need care pay for those who do. In fact that’s how all insurance works. People whose house does not burn down pay for the one that does burn down.

Now we do punish people for being careless drivers by raising their rates. But that is because we see it as a moral failing and do not want to reward the bad behavior. But there are medical preexisting conditions that arise randomly and could hit anyone regardless of their moral character. If people want to feel secure knowing they will have health care when they need it, they will have to decide** as a community** to support each other in that need. It is unreasonable for every person to have to amass the wealth necessary to deal with a lifelong condition on their own. That is why we need universal single-payer health insurance.

 

[exnihilo]

Having other people pay for your health care is how health insurance works. The premiums paid by people who are healthy and do not need care pay for those who do. In fact that’s how all insurance works. People whose house does not burn down pay for the one that does burn down.

Now we do punish people for being careless drivers by raising their rates. But that is because we see it as a moral failing and do not want to reward the bad behavior. But there are medical preexisting conditions that arise randomly and could hit anyone regardless of their moral character. If people want to feel secure knowing they will have health care when they need it, they will have to decide** as a community** to support each other in that need. It is unreasonable for every person to have to amass the wealth necessary to deal with a lifelong condition on their own. That is why we need universal single-payer health insurance.

I agree insurance is, or should be, risk pooling. But the government has turned health insurance partially into a healthcare finance system. Car insurance doesn’t pay for routine service. Homeowners insurance doesn’t pay for chimney cleaning.

Single payer health insurance doesn’t change the fact that people will still be denied healthcare. It just takes away individual choice and changes who makes that decision into a government bureaucrat. If government run insurance is so great why don’t we eliminate all private insurance and just have the government run it. They could provide auto and home insurance too.

The idea that as a society we aren’t wanting to make moral judgements about sickness runs into a wall when the issue is smoking. There are all sorts of mechanisms in place to punish smokers including higher insurance premiums. But you can’t charge a higher premium to gay men, even thought their lifestyle has high medical costs. I see plenty of moral judgments being made in terms of healthcare.