Posted on 11/06/2009 7:20:04 AM PST by SeekAndFind
I have have a Canadian friend who keeps telling me that Canada's healthcare system is better because it caters to ANYONE regardless of pre-existing condition.
In other words, the Canadian system has a safety net for people ( who through no fault of their own ) were born unhealthy ( asthma, diabetes, etc. ).
In the USA, people who have these conditions cannot be insured because they are a drain on insurance companies and most of them are not poor enough to qualify for medicaid. The result is it drains the family's budget and makes the middle class actually poorer.
Since people with pre-existing condition are un-insurable, how are they going to cope ?
Let's say you were a conservative politician running for national office and were asked this question about how people with pre-existing conditions can best be helped, how would you respond ?
Since FR is a discussion thread, I'd like to hear your suggestions on how to solve this problem ( SERIOUS ANSWERS ONLY PLEASE, wisecracks and one liners not welcome ).
Thanks all
Yes, it is very important, no doubt about that.
But, I will not support a government health plan.
What’s needed is Health Insurance Reform. Lower costs, and less restrictions. There’s lots of ways the government can regulate costs without controlling the care.
I have Asthma, I’ve never had problems being insured. I’m sure the same is true for people with diabetes.
Second, many people choose of their own free will not to be insured and that is their free choice, choosing rather to pay for services as required. That freedom should not be disallowed and they should not be forced by government to "get in a plan".
Fact is, in life, bad things happen. No government plan, no insurance is going to prevent all of that. What I do not want is goivernment agencies in control of it because that always leads to less efficency, bureaucracy, and more ccorruption.
Out system is not perfect...but it is the system people flock to. We can improve it and I welcome good, free market solutions that help. IMHO, government control of it will not improve it.
“Encouraging lifetime policies would help bring the overall cost down...Your parents buy you a policy at birth that you simply keep as long as premiums are paid. This is one that is owned instead of being a leased one from your employer.”
Sounds like a good idea, but what about indigents who insist on procreating so much?
IMO, they should get Norplanted.
But there are a lot of very low income single parents, and please don’t mistake my mentioning them as advocating on their behalf...but the guilt for this class which drives the silliness currently under consideration has to be addressed (a phrase I absolutely hate) or else we slip back into “for the chillin”.
+1
Legislate that insurance companies must cover people with pre-existing conditions and then stand back as premiums rise drastically to cover the losses.
Simple. Not very popular. But simple.
One option is to allow for a “no coverage” time for insurance on pre existings. After that time it is covered.
This allows the insurance co to collect money.
Also how relavent can a pre existing condition be? For example if you break one leg, does this preclude breaking the other leg? An insurance co would say yes.
This issue is also why insurance companies are heavy investors of our premium payments to not only collect our money but to have it make more money for them. (of course it is their money which we pay in return for service)
Perhaps want needs to happen is a move AWAY from the AMA coding system.
One teak is to make buying insurance non-taxable.
I am curious how much do people expect/want to pay per month for insurance?
$25
$50
$75
$100
$500
Even with all those nifty alphabet plans, a family paying another mortgage level payment for medical care is absurn.
How about coupling insurnce with a medical healthcare savings account? Then we as INDIVIDUAL FAMILIES can invest our money accordingly and allow that to be used for the preexisting first.
Of course they have to FIND OUT about the pre-existing first and for that they need the big brother medical information database.
Thank you! I did not know that.
Here’s a definition of pre-existing conditions from WikiAnswers.
A pre-existing condition is a medical condition that existed before you obtained health insurance. In most cases, there is a 9 month waiting period for pre-existing medical condition coverage. That means that if a company offers you coverage, they may not provide coverage for that specific pre-existing medical condition for 9 - 12 months.
In many cases, if have had coverage in place for at least 18 months with no more than a 63 day gap in coverage, and you are just switching insurance companies, the new company will give you credit for having coverage in place and waive the waiting periods for your conditions. This allows you to switch plans if you need to.
The rationale for these policies is that medical insurance works the same way other insurances do-that medical insurance is to protect yourself in case something bad happens. You need to have coverage in place before something bad happens. An analogy is that just like you can’t buy auto insurance after an accident to cover the cost of the accident, medical insurance only covers issues that arise unexpectedly after coverage has begun.
They realize that attempots by government to do so do not really represent an effort to "help", but much more, and effort to "control".
In addition, pre-existing conditions themselves vary critically in degree, type, and impact. Trying to paint all with one brush is over simplistice and does not allow for the ingenuity of the free market.
Certainly there are pre-existing conditions that can be treated, and done so effectively and efficently and within profit margins when realizing that to allow it to go further will only cost the individual or the insurance company much more. Preople also realize this, and therefore it would be possible to create "plans" depending on the particular situation, where a company could charge for covering treatment in such a way where both can benefit.
All sorts of cancer fall into this category depending on when they are "caught", but which also would qualify as "pre-existing".
As I have stated...the best way, IMHO, is clearly to let the free market address it and keep the government out of it as much as possible.
But now the arguement is getting circular. I have made my points and am content to let others read them and make their own decisions.
Have the (Prior) insurance company help with the coverage since the problem started when they covered them but was not diagnosed till later (or had to wait for some medical/financial reason.)
Sound better.
No it doesn’t as part of COBRA it is the same as what the employer is paying with a 2-3% administrative charge.
bookmark
COBRA is dirt cheap now, I heard!!
Very good answer !! Also remember that insurance is to cover things you aren’t able to pay for upfront.
Where were all these people before they had a “pre-existing” condition. If they were chose not to be insured they gambled and they lost.
I was unemployed & under employed for 18 months back in 1996. I thought enough of my family to at least keep catastrophic insurance on them with a month to month policy.
I am able to get insurance at my company during open enrollment, even though I have ESRD and am in remission from multiple myeloma. Your Canadian friend doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.