Re: Phony Controversy
- From: Dene <gdstrue@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 00:01:27 -0700
On Oct 4, 5:06 pm, assimil...@xxxxxxxx wrote:
On 4-Oct-2007, Dene <gdst...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
You nailed it Bill. Let the insurance companies and provider groups
compete. Reduce or eliminate mandates so that people have the option
of buying the specific plans they want. A 55 year old woman doesn't
maternity coverage. Have the government institute uniform
underwriting standards so that one insurance company doesn't inheirit
the poor risks. There's more. Romney's plan is a great beginner.
You're missing the central problem Greg. In today's system the patient is
not the customer, the employer is. Business needs to get out of the role of
healthcare purchaser. Let the tax breaks go to the individuals who purchase
the insurance and let them make the financial decisions. We would soon go
back to purchasing real insurace: something designed to cover catastrophic
loss, not everyday stuff. Also, we could get a real salary, not one that was
reduced by the employer's real cost of providing insurance.
--
bill-o
There are plenty of people and small businesses who buy individual
plans, including businesses who give each employee an allowance to buy
their own. The reasons are as you described above....better bang for
the buck and more choice. However, there are advantages of an
employer system in that (1) it gives the employer golden handcuffs,
i.e. incentive to the employee to stay with the business, and (2) from
an insurance standpoint, it reduces adverse selection. For example,
in a 10 employee business, statistically one or two will have medical
issues. Consequently, the insurance company will be able to make $$
on the other eight. This scenario allows an insurance company to
cover all 10, regardless of pre-existing medical conditions. In fact,
under federal law, all insurance plans must accept employer groups of
two or more without regard or foreknowledge of pre-existing
conditions. (This law has created access but also made premiums
skyrocket).
Applying guarantee health insurance on an individual basis creates a
enviroment for adverse selection. Those who need the coverage will
buy it....those who don't will skirt it until it's needed. Sorta
like buying fire insurance when your house is on fire. To combat
this, companies who offer individual plans are allowed to underwrite,
i.e. screen those with pre-existing conditions. These standards are
tight and often people are declined.
The solution is getting everybody to buy health insurance.....now.
You describe tax incentives and that would help. But....you need
penalties as well, similar to what the medicare Part D program set
up. Guarantee issue and low premiums if you join now (carrot).
Penalties, high premiums, and possible exclusion if you join later
(the stick).
-Greg
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Phony Controversy
- From: assimilate
- Re: Phony Controversy
- References:
- Re: Phony Controversy
- From: Ben.
- Re: Phony Controversy
- From: Dene
- Re: Phony Controversy
- From: assimilate
- Re: Phony Controversy
- Prev by Date: Re: Played a new game on Sunday.......
- Next by Date: Re: Played a new game on Sunday.......
- Previous by thread: Re: Phony Controversy
- Next by thread: Re: Phony Controversy
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading