Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
ace...the average cost of prenatal care and delivery in the US is nearly $8,000.
Is that affordable and accessible if you are a working family making $30-50K and have no insurance?
|
There is a difference between the average cost and what a low income woman would pay, if anything. There are many reasons why prenatal care is at unacceptable levels in this country for some women but to suggest the issue is one of availability is untrue. That is my only comment on this issue at this time.
---------- Post added at 09:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:45 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by rahl
The vast majority of people with insurance have it through their employer. Beginning immediatly all children under 19 can not be excluded. Beginning in 2014 no one can be excluded. Your scenario could hypothetically happen to people buying individual policies, but it won't affect employer sponsored plans, which is what most americans have.
|
We already have business owners who have gone on record saying that if they pay a penalty for not offering coverage their costs would be lower. At some point some of those people may very well drop the benefit to their employees. This is important - the costs of those plans will go up because of the preexisting conditions issue, not go down, increasing the probability the benefit will be dropped by some employers. Those employees will most likely go into the exchanges. As the cycle continues, employers who want to maintain the benefit may find themselves at a competitive disadvantage and either face declining market share, profitability, or going out of business. they may be forced into dropping the benefit, putting more in the exchanges. And, even if insurance companies simply take new insured's with preexisting conditions, costs will go up and passed on to all insured's. Insurance companies have a mandated medical pay-out ratio, but on the other-hand this is a guaranteed profit margin once the get a handle on their non-medical costs.
This is not going to hurt insurance companies or business owners, ultimately these cost will be incurred by the American public one way or the other.
My preference with children is to have a system where we simply cover the medical costs for all children in this country period, no questions asked. If a child is being treated for a condition upon obtaining the age of majority, we should continue that treatment for the remainder of their lives, otherwise they buy a policy on their own. That and a free market approach for adults, up to qualifying for Medicare is what I would do - short of a true single payer system with individuals having the option of buying supplemental coverages.
Quote:
|
I don't doubt that insurance companies will follow only the letter of the law and no more. They will in all likelyhood try to exploit any and all loopholes, but the language is very specific in terms of group health insurance.
|
But, that is the point. Perhaps, the stop offering group coverage and focus on individual policies. Or perhaps they do the opposite. Perhaps, the write coverage in Arizona but not Michigan, etc, etc, etc., They are not going to go out of business over preexisting conditions - they will make a profit or not participate. the legislation does not have simple little loop-holes, it has major problems that contradict the broad promises made.
---------- Post added at 09:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:04 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
do you think mongan provides a useful orientation for thinking about the process that's underway with this legislation?
|
It is a convoluted way to get to single payer. If government thinks it can control real costs and control market behaviors including delivery systems, it has to control the system from A to Z. I think there are simpler more efficient ways to incrementally get to full single payer system, including what I stated above, taking the next step with children.