Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood
if you prorate health insurance so that the healthiest pay the least and the unhealthiest the most, then the second someone gets, say, cancer, their rates shoot up and they're in the poor house. How is that a good system?
|
The system of insurance addresses that issue through pooling risks. If every person was insured from birth with a policy that was not cancelable with premiums based on all the people born in the same year, the premiums for that group would be relatively low for each member in the group but cover the few that have major illnesses each year. The premiums collected in the early years would be excess, to cover the increased costs in the later years.
A single payer plan could work, the only problem is - choice. If at some point I want a better plan than you do, should I have the right to make a sacrifice and pay for it? I say, yes. I also, think that every person should be guaranteed insurable with no pre-existing conditions as long as they participate in the system from birth. People that are hard to place could be randomly assigned to insurance companies based on market share, so the each company gets a fair share of hard to insure risks. In my opinion no child in this country should be without health insurance and when the child becomes an adult they should be required to have some type of minimal coverage that they pay for, unless they are disabled and unable to work. Or, we could have disability waivers of premium, so that those who become disabled and can not work have their premiums waived without the policy being canceled.
---------- Post added at 09:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:06 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by flstf
We are 50th, If we keep improving we may catch up to Canada (8th) and France (9th) in 50 or 60 years. Of course maybe their universal heathcare systems in comparison to ours will cause them to gain or loose ground faster.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2102rank.html |
I think the differences have more to do with lifestyles than health care.
---------- Post added at 09:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:08 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cimarron29414
It isn't a matter of "healthiest". It is a matter of lifestyle. If an otherwise perfectly healthy person gets cancer, rates stay the same. If a 2 pack a day person gets cancer, no shit! This is the same as car insurance: if a good driver gets rear-ended (no fault of theirs) their rates don't go up because they didn't engage in risky behavior. Does that better explain?
70% of all medical bills in America are associated with heart disease, cancer, and obesity related issues (joints, diabetes, circulation, etc.) Heart disease and cancer are in the 70-th percental for preventable and nearly all heart/cancer/obesity illnesses are preventable and can be dramatically reduced through the behavior of the individual. The point is that we should manage costs by making risky choices expensive - just like when you drive recklessly.
|
I agree. Also included in our "health care" costs are things like cosmetic surgery, people taking depression drugs, ADD/ADHD, etc. Some Americans clearly overspend on some things people in other countries would find laughable.