And, what happens when that option is corrected and she gets to choose whatever insurance she wants (not going to happen, I've a friend in academia that's been fighting the issue for years), then that insurance company decides not to cover this or something else that needs to be covered? Insurance companies are very good at not paying for something. and we don't have a choice. The ability to pay one's medical bills out of pocket has been stripped from us by insurance companies and now they only cover certain things. The government either needs to provide (or allow) a non-profit insurance that covers everything, or it needs to spell out, in detail, that for profit insurance companies need to cover every aspect of an insured's medical necessities.
Last count I saw Rush had lost 41 advertisers. And there was actually dead air in a commercial slot for 1:17 the other day.
I don't know of any inherent "right" to have a product on the market simply because you want it. If enough people want it and are willing to pay for it, it will be there, because insurance companies are greedy and want to make money. So they'll sell what people are willing to pay for. But if not enough people want it to make it a viable option on a free market, that's just the way economics works. Being caught between two different cultures, there are lots of things I know from Europe that I would like to see available in the States, and lots of things I know from the States that I would like to see available in Europe, that aren't. That's just part of life. I thoroughly disagree with both of those options, the second one even more than the first. Should the government also do the same thing for car insurance? Should there be a law specifying that all automobile insurance must cover all risks, including oil changes and new tires? Would you want to pay what that kind of insurance would cost?
Insurance companies have so insinuated themselves into our society that not having insurance is not a feasible option. It just isn't. And, if they caved by what people are willing to pay for and what they aren't, no one would be kicked off insurance for going over their limit and everything would be covered. Since that isn't the case, I think it's safe to conclude that insurance companies don't give a damn what the masses want and will cover what and how much they want.
^ From an economic point of view, that is all so nonsensical it doesn't even deserve to be refuted. So I'll just let you go on thinking it, while choosing to disagree with you.
The fact that you think it's so ridiculous as to be beyond believable makes it pointless for me to attempt to enlighten you. So, continue in your ignorance.
Asyn, many states have very little to no competition in the health insurance market. It's not surprising those insurance companies aren't very responsive to consumer needs when they face little to no market competition. The situation is better in large populous states but even there competition might not be great especially in smaller towns.
The problem is, as presented, your model sounds like that magic formula the Righties use for taxes. You know, the one that goes "If people weren't being raped by the Gubmint, they'd donate more to charity." Yeah, right. Maybe if you showed us how your health insurance model would work, it might be helpful.
I don't have a health insurance model since the very idea of health insurance is ... pretty much an abomination to me. Companies are basically gambling on you dying before collecting anything that you've paid in. But, if I did, it would be very simple - I pay you money on a regular basis and you use that money to cover all my medical expenses.
I realize this, and it's one aspect of the health-care situation in the States that is disastrous. Health insurance needs to be totally separated from employment, and there needs to be the possibility to buy any health insurance that happens to suit you. About 25 years ago, I was in a situation where I was not covered by the French social security system (which involves health care for just about everyone, not just for old people) due to a particularity in my employment status. I had the choice of buying into it on my own, or buying insurance from somewhere else. I found health-care insurance through a company in Germany that was much better than the public system, at half the price. Guess what I went with? When the USA has that kind of free market in health care insurance, you will begin to see some progress in curbing the outrageous costs of health care in the States. Not before.
Okay, that sounds like a health savings plan, and those are becoming an increasingly viable option for people who are essentially healthy. But a year's worth of chemo can cost upwards of 100K.
You did not say the same thing. You said the exact opposite: You want the government to require that all health care plans cover all medical expenses, or else to run health care themselves and cover all health care expenses. Both of those positions are anti free-market. There is no possible way that that is "the same thing" as a plea for allowing much more freedom of choice in health-care insurance.
Bullshit. That was a second paragraph in a previous post that I didn't even comment on in the post you said wasn't worth your response. The post you on which you made that comment was that insurance companies have no need to alter their current course because consumers have no choice.
I'm afraid you have it backwards. People don't need health insurance because there are health insurance companies. Health insurance companies exist because people need health insurance. The whole purpose of insurance is to avoid a person incurring an unforseeable catastrophic cost by spreading the risk of that cost among many people. If each one of us had to have on hand enough to pay for long-term hospitalization, expensive drugs, doctors' bills, etc., most of us couldn't do it. It's too expensive for most individuals. But most of us don't need those services (or need them very often). We just need to be covered in case we need those services. So we pool our money together (for most of us, with our co-workers in a group plan) and each contribute. That way, when one of us needs a lot of money for care, the insurance can be there to provide it. All insurance plans have limits to their liability. Even the socialized systems in Europe will have to ration care at some point. Medical resources aren't unlimited, after all. And a big problem in insurance now is that the state often requires health insurance plans to cover things, even if the individual customers would choose not to pay for them. My plan, for instance, covers homeopathy and chiropractry, two services I will *never* use, but nonetheless have to pay for. Those are just two (among probably hundreds) of requirements the state imposes that makes health insurance here in California cost TWICE what it does in neighboring Nevada. Well, peoples' wants are endless and medical resources aren't. In a more competitive market, insurance companies could offer lots of options so people could pick and choose what they wanted to cover. But, in many states, they're required to offer only a few state-approved plans. And, as I said above, a lot of what health insurance companies cover--and to what extent they must cover them--are imposed by the state.
Health insurance companies pay out tremendous amounts. If they didn't, every person you've ever known who's been in a hospital would be bankrupt. If you mean just you, that's a savings account. And it will be merely a drop in the bucket when you need to be hospitalized for two weeks to undergo a major surgery. Unless you have a huge income, you cannot save enough money to finance that. If you mean you and others collectively, that's, uh, health insurance.
Yup. Health saving plans are a nice idea, but ultimately worthless. If you're healthy, you'll never use most of the money, and if you're really sick, you'll burn through all of it very, very quickly.
Medical practices that folks paying for health care via insurance for granted these days, and it's a pain in the ass to even get shit paid for in cash. I shouldn't have to have the right insurance to just be looked at by a doc and get medication. I'd much prefer having the option to be able and pay my doctor 50 bucks or so instead of going though co-pay and seeing someone I don't care for.
There is a bit of the snowball-rolling-downhill effect. Once insurance plans started covering office visits, doctors started jacking their rates up because they knew they could get more money.
