Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: A Navy Vet
I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I didn't mean STATE funding for for a high-risk pool. I meant that if insurance companies were allowed to go Interstate, THEY could possibly provide high-risk premiums. Not every medical precondition means long term cancer type care.

Insurance companies strive to keep their risks low in relation to their premiums so why would the insurance companies set up high-risk policies? They will attract customers guaranteed to file claims far in excess of the premiums they would pay. No way they could make money off them, or even come close to breaking even.

Interstate coverage would be a big plus and you would see many health insurance companies grow.

Interstate sales of health care insurance have been colossal failures in the half-dozen or so states where it has been tried and with good reason. Insurance companies control costs by establishing a network of providers and negotiating fixed prices for their services. They have no incentive to sell policies in states where they don't have networks, and no incentive to go to the time and expense of establishing them for a handful of customers.

73 posted on 06/28/2017 9:02:16 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies ]


To: DoodleDawg
"Insurance companies strive to keep their risks low in relation to their premiums so why would the insurance companies set up high-risk policies?

I understand risk vs company viability. I was an insurance agent at one time.

Think, not every precondition is lifetime hospital care until death. Many are treatable with drugs or other procedures. I'm just suggesting if enough insurance companies came together, they could lower costs. Simple supply and demand, not to mention consolidation like mergers that always produce profits.

It would also help if the pharm companies would reduced their drug prices to those in other countries. You can buy the same brand name drug in Canada, Europe, India, Philippines, etc. for less than a quarter in the US. Yes, I understand the pharm companies spend millions on research and development and need to recoup those expenses.

However, since our aging population is in need of more medical services/medications, I have no problem with the individual States having price controls as long as the pharm companies can keep making billions. They don't like a State control, they have the assets to move.

Fedgov control is not the way. Do they ever do anything efficiently or on budget? The RINO's need to just repeal Obamacare and let the free markets adjust to their consumers. It always works.

Don't want to pay the price for a high-tech Lexus, you get a KIA Optima. I know, I have one. It has more goodies than the same basic Lexus and has a high reliable rating. Then there is the incredibly low-priced high-tech electronics. I just purchased a 55" Ultra High-Definition(4K) OLED TV for less than a quarter it would have cost 5 years ago. Again, competition.

American free enterprise with competition/profits as its motivator has been copied time and again all over the world. I could be wrong, but I believe the same would happen with a free Health Insurance system providing DC gets out of the way.

74 posted on 06/28/2017 10:21:45 AM PDT by A Navy Vet (I'm not Islamophobic - I'm Islamonauseous. Plus LGBTQxyz nauseous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson