Who the hell *are* these people?

@Baldimo,

Insurance companies don't have different lists of covered conditions for different people. If something is covered for one person, it's covered for all. And I think it's better that way. I seriously do not want insurance companies deciding which health conditions they do or don't want to cover for each particular person. They are already making medical decisions that are, in many cases, questionable.

1 Reply

@Eva,

So instead I have to continue to pay for a coverage that I will not use, and have no reason to carry? Where does my personal freedom come into play and my choice as a consumer? I shouldn't have to pay for something I don't use. 1 size fits all doesn't work.

2 Replies

@Baldimo,

Drop all your health insurance coverage. That'll show em.

0 Replies

Baldimo, the implications of what you are suggesting go beyond individual desires for coverage and/or lower costs. Let's look at the big picture.

If insurance companies separated policies into "With" and "Without" BC coverage, many people would choose the lower-cost "Without BC" policies. In particular, many younger individuals (who are of child-bearing age) have lower incomes and would naturally choose the lower-cost policies. If their insurance does not cover BC, would they be more or less likely to obtain BC products and services? Less likely, undoubtedly. Is that a good idea? I think not.

2 Replies

@Baldimo,

Your "personal freedom" is whether you wish to buy health insurance or not. However, under Obamacare, those without health insurance will pay a penalty that will increase every year after 2013.

1 Reply

@Eva,

Well Eva, that sounds like a matter of personal responsibility. You want me to pay for their lack of personal responsibility? My costs rise because they are stupid?

The way to solve the problem is to give people more then a few choices in their state. Cross state purchasing would generate more competition. If people need a policy with BC coverage I'm sure they would be able to find a company that has it for a cheaper price. Instead in our current system, we have locked every person in a state to getting insurance from only a few companies. It should really be no different then how car insurance works. I'm not stuck with a limited # of car insurance companies, and a majority of the major car insurance companies are nation wide. Can't say the same for health insurance companies, since they are not all available in the same states.

4 Replies

@Baldimo,

Quote:

My costs rise because they are stupid?

This is a fact of life - everyone's costs rise because of stupid people. It's inescapable.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

That is not personal freedom. That is a forced purchase.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

Well Eva, that sounds like a matter of personal responsibility. You want me to pay for their lack of personal responsibility? My costs rise because they are stupid?...

Yes, it IS a matter of personal responsibility. AND, haven't we learned that we can't count on people to accept personal responsibility? That's exactly what got us into this mess to begin with...medical costs and insurance rates rising through the roof because so many wouldn't buy insurance and counted on others to pay their costs for them. So now the costs and rates are so high that many truly can't afford them! And those of us who do buy insurance are paying for more and more of those who can't every day! It has to stop somewhere. The ACA is just a start.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

I was snipped 7 years ago and she ended up having a total hysterectomy last year, so why do we need to carry BC coverage?

why should other people carry coverage for snipping and hysterectomies?

<shrug>

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

...The way to solve the problem is to give people more then a few choices in their state. Cross state purchasing would generate more competition. If people need a policy with BC coverage I'm sure they would be able to find a company that has it for a cheaper price. Instead in our current system, we have locked every person in a state to getting insurance from only a few companies. It should really be no different then how car insurance works. I'm not stuck with a limited # of car insurance companies, and a majority of the major car insurance companies are nation wide. Can't say the same for health insurance companies, since they are not all available in the same states.

I'm all for choice!

But you're going to have to make the choices simple. (Stupid people, y'know. Wink

)

Come to think of it, I should really be allowed to exclude prostate screenings and prostate cancer from my coverage. And orthodontia (my teeth were corrected years ago when I was a teenager, I don't need that anymore.) And, and....oh, I can think of a bunch of other things, too!

One question. If everyone were allowed to pick and choose their medical coverage, wouldn't this shrink the pool of people paying for each type of service/product and result in higher costs for all of them? (Think carefully. I can almost hear the insurance companies dancing for joy.)

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

You're missing the point; when you needed to use a procedure, you used it while other people also "paid" when they didn't have any need for it.

On the same token, that's what insurance is all about; to spread the cost over a large number to the majority benefits.

Auto insurance works the same way; one has liability insurance that are usually based on what limits one wishes to buy. That's because most people with cars do not have the $25k or $50k to pay out any lawsuits in the event they are involved in an accident.

It makes insurance affordable for most buyers, because the risk is spread over many insurance buyers - based on their own driving records, where they live, and the age of the driver are all factored in.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

And that's Darwinism is it? Sheesh!!

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

Quote:

why should other people carry coverage for snipping and hysterectomies?

That's just an emotive tip of the iceberg Beth.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

This is such bullshit, and a shopworn conservative lie. You can get coverage from any company which meets the requirements of your state's insurance board for operation in your state. This horseshit about a lack of choice in "cross-state purchasing" is just an attempt to do an endrun around state insurance regulations. Once again, you can purchase insurance from any company which complies with the insurance regulations of your state. If the company of your choice is not available in your state, either they didn't meet your state's insurance regulation requirements, or they have no interest in operating in your state.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

How does Obamacare correct this then? It doesn't, it leaves us with the same choices we had before. Obamacare is anti-competition at the core. State run health exchanges which provide us with limited choices, but a Federal mandate to purchase insurance. We are limited in who we can purchase from, but still have to purchase. Nice plan.

2 Replies

@Baldimo,

There is no correction needed, and your argument is a straw man anyway, because i did not allege that the health care plan "corrects" what is not, in fact a problem. Any insurance company can sell their policies in any state. What conservative shills for fly-by-night, would-be insurances swindlers are whining about and trying to get around is the right of each state to regulate insurance sales and policies in their own states. There is nothing to correct.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

How do you figure it's anti-competition? Do you understand anything about ObamaCare? I doubt it. For one thing, ObamaCare requires insurance companies to spend a certain amount of total premiums paid on patient care. If they don't meet this requirement, they will be required to refund any underfunded part of the premium back to the buyers of insurance.

How is that "anti-competition?"

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

That isn't anti-competition, that is an artificial spending limit imposed by govt on a private industry. I'm wondering why I haven't received my check yet?

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

How can you be so stupid? Most developed countries that are considered to be under capitalism provides universal health care.

You can wait for your check - until you keel over.

1 Reply

Who the hell are these people?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know