Night Strike wrote:Frigidus wrote:Yeah, the only reason that insurance companies mug you is because the government is in the way. Remove all regulations and things will resolve themselves through the magic of free market capitalism.
Snorri1234 wrote:Oh yes i am sure that insurance company would totally want to insure that baby if it wasn't for that pesky government!
Did you even read the article? They don't cover him because covering infants above the 95 percentile is not profitable. Advocating insurance companies be given even more freedom to deny coverage is quite frankly absurd.
The only thing magic here is the belief that the government can help your lives better than you can help your own lives. The free market is simple: remove some onerous regulations and companies can start to explore new markets. If you aren't getting the service you desire, you have the ability to find a service that will cover you, which is why these state-line restrictions are driving UP the price of insurance. If you can't get standard health insurance, then there needs to be options for catastrophic health insurance (which is an option you have for vehicles). I don't need health insurance right now, but catastrophic coverage would be beneficial just in case something happens. If you don't want the insurance industry to be profitable, stop paying for it and pay for your own health care; you can always return to the ways of the traveling doctors in the 19th century.
Night strike, the markets won't work because we DON'T HAVE a free market insurance system. This has nothing to do with the government, this is because employers are the ones providing most insurance, but are not the ones using it. In fact, they have a vested interest in seeing that people who need large amounts of insurance DON'T WORK FOR THEM .. either because they are laid off (for "completely unrelated reasons ... topic covered extensively elsewhere, won't reiterate here) OR simply because they refuse to hire them. Employers don't offer insurance because it really makes sense, is a good thing. They do so because during WWII, wages could not be increased and offering benefits like health care was a way to recruit employees. Since health care is not taxable, many, many people quickly bought into this system. They get to provide people with what is effectively a higher wage and get a tax bonus too boot!
As for your "no need for insurace".. you are dreaming and depending upon our emergency care system and other tax payers to pick up YOUR tab. The reality is that right now, you are lucky -- lucky you have not gotten in an accident or contracted a dastardly disease. It has nothing to do with intelligence or even your lifestyle. (some lifestyle issues definitely contribute to health, but the overriding issue here is pure, plain luck). You are plain and simply gambling with MY kids tax dollars that you will have a better job, better insurance before you get sick enough to really and truly need extensive health care. Oh, and that "catastrophic policy" you crow about... the reality is you won't even know if that policy really does cover you until you actually need it. I would strongly urge you to read the small print very, very carefully AND to think about the many people who only find out they don't have enough insurance when they contract cancer or get into a serious accident.
As for your overall "the free market will fix it".... even beyond the above issues, the free market will NEVER truly and wholly work in health care for one simple reason -- it simply does not follow normal "supply and demand" principals. I will "shop around" for a dishwasher, my vegetables, etc. But healthcare? Our community has exactly 1 physician taking new patients. The wait to see specialists like gynecologists (for me) and hearing specialists (for my kids) is a minimum of a year. Note that my son has had speech issues, so hearing is pretty critical. Still -- there is a wait.
A second reason is education. I don't know much about cars, but I can drive one, can do a relatively small amount of research into things like gas mileage, reliability, etc and make a decent decision. When it comes to medical care... I am more knowledgeable than most people, but with 2 years of research I am still just beginning to understand my son's issues. I have no choice BUT to rely upon my doctor. My doctor has no choice but to rely upon the rules the insurance company sets forth.
NONE of that has much to do with what is really best for my son in the long run.
I absolutely understand that cuts have to be made, that some things plain and simply must be limited in health care. However, I would be far, far more comfortable if those limits were based upon EVIDENCE, based on effectiveness studies completed by scientists and doctors, not insurance companies who won't even share such information as "proprietary".
There are absolutely times when the government needs to step back. However, in this case is is not a Lack of regulation that we need, it is effective legislation in the correct areas. When a corporation has a vested interest in seeing that people DON'T actually use the health care for which they pay, then is it any surprise that the result is travesty? The only entity that can force them to make other decisions, place the burdens of proof where they belong (on evidence along with cost, but by people with no vested interest in particular medications or devices), is the government.
Right now, our system is being driven by insurance companies and employers who, even if they wish it were otherwise, really need to ensure that many people pay, but few people use health care. The costs are largely being driven by techinical companies who see no limit to the money people can put out and therefore htey can earn from fancier and fancier devices. Even the local family practitioner is right now driven to see more patients quickly, to push out those difficult cases that require extra time in favor of seeing more patients with minor issues. (this push is directed both by administrators or plain accountants who , if they don't have to turn a profit, at least need to ensure they cut costs).
Look at that and see if you can find where the patient and patient needs are in that whole mess. The answer is NO WHERE.
The fixes you present won't even begin to solve those issues. Letting insurance companies market policies anywhere? Unless you work for a union plant, or have an occupation that is in high demand, where heavy benefits are the norm (fewer and fewer positions), you have almost certainly seen your health care benefits slide. Now those companies won't even have to follow the state limits. (Medicaid, though will still be run by states). Right now, in my town, roughly half of the people who ought to be able to qualify for Medicaid, based upon income, are forbidden from receiving it because their employer offers minimal insurance. Note that under medicaid, EVERYTHING --dental, eye, etc are covered. Under the low tiered Blue Cross policy most plants offer now, you have, first of all $25-75 "co-pays" -- co-payments that don't even count toward the deductables. The deductibles wind up being over $1000 per person and $2000 per family. Once that limit is reached, then you still have to pay a percentage. In our case, taking our son to see 2 specialists, along with a 4 day hospital stay in isolation (not intensive care, just isolation, with me because I was nursing) wound up costing us close to $3000 out-of-pocket. (the deductable was doubled because the insurance changed Dec 1). Worse, we had less than 30 days notice of this change. We still faced harassment, overcharges, etc, etc.'
Even if there were better national mandates (yep, that word you decry), then there is the whole problem of who will regulate. Credit card companies have already all migrated to the 1-2 states with few regulations. That's why most people are now paying upwards of 30% or more (NOT even penalty rates, just the increases they added across the board). Why would the insurance companies be any different.
Beyond that, Night Strike, even some of the original proponents of the "let the markets rule", "Chicago" economic thinking now admit it just does not work in all cases, in fact it ONLY works in a few limited cases .. situations that existed for a short while in our history, (and did exist for generations prior), but which no longer exist.