-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Premiums up, profits up, employers paying the tab
- Thread starter PLC1
- Start date
Werbung:
Prices have been rising by double digits since long before anyone even heard of Obama.
Obamacare didn't fix the problem, nor is it the cause of the problem.
The marketplace says you can't make a profit insuring people who have health issues. It's a matter of economics.
Oh, so other regulation is OK, just not insurance regulation.
Your site is about workman's comp, not health insurance.
I've yet to hear of a company simply going under and leaving patients and providers holding the bag. Perhaps I've missed it.
in an unregulated market, that scenario would play out over and over.
It could be, if it is properly done.
Every other nation already... you know what I'm going to say.
and if we had a high deductible, catastrophic care package that covered everyone, we'd have market forces bringing down costs without anyone going bankrupt or having to rely on emergency rooms.
and it would cost far less than we're paying now.
Long term care insurance is quite common. It is also quite different from health insurance. Moreover, the costs of it are not fixed, but increase with the age of the insured.
Long term care refers to insurance against the cost of having to spend your last days in a rest home. There is no such thing as buying health insurance when you're young and keeping it when you get old and/or have health problems.
Well, I thought that was what Dogtowner was arguing, but maybe not. A market with appropriate laws to stop abuse and fraud would be a much better idea, I agree.
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
If you would love to have a judicial system then it is not a totally free market. It would in fact be a regulated market. Some regulation is good but it needs to be appropriate.
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
The rate o the rise has been dropping. The trend was for less and less of an increase. The trend might have even been for decreasing rates. But this year the rate of the rise skyrocketed - due partly to obamacare.
It is estimated that 50% of the increase was due to obamacare (and the most expensive parts of the plan have not kicked in yet)
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
Virtually everybody has some health issues so that statement is false.
Maybe it can be reworded to be true.
Lets try: "The marketplace says you can't make a profit insuring people who have chronic and expensive health issues."
Most of these people are insured today and the insurance industry is making a profit today. So that statement is still false.
Does anyone want to try to make that statement work?
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
My mistake. When I strung those words together I did not mean to talk about insurance for nursing home care. I mean to talk about insurance for people who develop ongoing medical conditions which is what you started with as an example.
So I will start again.
Insurance for people who develop ongoing medical problems is quite common and is in fact a purpose of health insurance.
My daughter developed type 1 diabetes last year for example a the age of 6. Unless there is a cure she will have it the rest of her life. We have had no problem keeping our insurance, they pay for everything except for $3 copays and it is not a pre-existing condition because we were insured before she got it.
When she turns 26 she will not be eligible to be on our policy. At that time she can either work for a large company or be wealthy enough to pay out of pocket. She will probably not be able to buy individual insurance. I completely understand why a company she has never done business with before would not want to insure her for a pre-existing condition.
Should there be a law that an insurance company one already has done business with cannot drop you merely because you developed a chronic illness after paying premiums for years? The reason you paid those premiums is to cover you if you develop an illness you can't pay for. Yes that seems totally logical to wrote such law and so much easier to implement than all the other ideas congress has come up with. Why hasn't that law been written?
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
I am not sure what Dogtowner is arrguing. He says he wants a totally free market but then talked about the benefits of a judicial system.
I think he means a relatively free market.
The judicial system is unrelated to market control.
It is, in part, a means for two parties to settle disagreements and in, in part, to prosecute criminal wrongdoing. Fraud is criminal wrongdoing, the abuse you mention could be either disagreement or criminal wrongdoing.
Did free market controls do anything to stop the mortgage crisis ? Nope, in fact it can be more fairly said to have caused it.
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
A free market is not anarchy... A free market is free of government regulation but it is, nonetheless, constrained by law. Just as you, as an individual, cannot violate the rights of others by your actions, so too a company should be equally "fettered" in a free market. Just as you, as an individual, do not have your entire life regulated by government, so too a company should also be free of such constant government intervention.
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
That is a system I would like.
But it is not consistent with this definition:
free mar·ket
Noun: An economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses.
Though it is consistent with this one:
Free Market - Definition of Free Market on Investopedia - A market economy based on supply and demand with little or no government control
However, Dogtowner said "totally free" which would imply the first definition.
I think the left far too often really thinks that we mean a market with zero government when we say free market and I think that we need to be real clear about what we mean. Can you blame them for opposing a totally free market?
Werbung:
There probably should be such a law. Is there?
Since no one is going to want to insure an individual with diabetes, that person has to be a part of a group. Currently, the way to be a part of a group is to work for an employer who provides group insurance. The downsides to that are, 1. It costs a mint for the employer, which doesn't help the unemployment situation, 2. it discourages people from starting businesses of their own, 3. it means that when people lose their jobs, they also lose their health insurance and 4. it does nothing to control costs.
It seems to me there must be a better way.
