Do people 'deserve' universal health care?

[DuncanONeil]

"This means many individuals lose their insurance if their company downsizes, and then when they try and get new insurance if they have a pre-existing condition they are denied coverage or quoted a massive rate. This is the case even though the condition did not predate their work insurance."
I have heard this stated in numerous venues. But due to a child reaching maximum age and being dropped from parent's insurance we learned that documents can be procured that show the "client" has been insured and that they are not a new risk. True this does not offer a great deal of help if they are without a group. Such will result in a higher rate, but said higher rate is, by objective standards, not totally outrageous. Somebody would be required to pay the portion formerly paid by the employer. Although coverage of an individual can be more tailored to the needs of that individual.

The largest problem I find with the American system is that the insurance is largely done through companies as a work benefit. This means many individuals lose their insurance if their company downsizes, and then when they try and get new insurance if they have a pre-existing condition they are denied coverage or quoted a massive rate. This is the case even though the condition did not predate their work insurance.

Also, while officially employers are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of medical conditions for hiring, people with visible medical conditions are hired at a lower rate than the general population which suggests it is taking place nonetheless. This means someone can be laid off, lose their health insurance as a result driving their costs through the roof, and then not get hired because companies don't want the additional cost of the insurance (although officially its always for a different reason).

[SadisticNature]

"This means many individuals lose their insurance if their company downsizes, and then when they try and get new insurance if they have a pre-existing condition they are denied coverage or quoted a massive rate. This is the case even though the condition did not predate their work insurance."
I have heard this stated in numerous venues. But due to a child reaching maximum age and being dropped from parent's insurance we learned that documents can be procured that show the "client" has been insured and that they are not a new risk. True this does not offer a great deal of help if they are without a group. Such will result in a higher rate, but said higher rate is, by objective standards, not totally outrageous. Somebody would be required to pay the portion formerly paid by the employer. Although coverage of an individual can be more tailored to the needs of that individual.

It is the case that they are not a new risk but that doesn't help if the insurance company can factor the old risk into the cost of the new plan, which is not prevented by law. Also depending on the disease by most standards the higher rate can be outrageous. If the cost of care that the company knows the client will need is $1200/month with the potential to rise, they aren't going to offer a policy that costs less than $2000/month.

And even $1200/month on medical insurance is beyond many's ability to pay. That's basically a choice of paying the rent(or mortgage) or paying for health care for a lot of Americans.

[DuncanONeil]

So as I understand what you said, profit is a bad thing!! Fortune ranks the insurance industry at 47 out of 53 in profits related to revenue (-3% for 2008). Top of that list was Network and Other Communications Equipment at 20.4%. Yahoo finance has accident and health insurance ranked 59th for 2010 with a profit margin of 6.7% about half the return for Railroads.
The numbers say there is not a lot of profit to be had here.

It is the case that they are not a new risk but that doesn't help if the insurance company can factor the old risk into the cost of the new plan, which is not prevented by law. Also depending on the disease by most standards the higher rate can be outrageous. If the cost of care that the company knows the client will need is $1200/month with the potential to rise, they aren't going to offer a policy that costs less than $2000/month.

And even $1200/month on medical insurance is beyond many's ability to pay. That's basically a choice of paying the rent(or mortgage) or paying for health care for a lot of Americans.

[SadisticNature]

So as I understand what you said, profit is a bad thing!! Fortune ranks the insurance industry at 47 out of 53 in profits related to revenue (-3% for 2008). Top of that list was Network and Other Communications Equipment at 20.4%. Yahoo finance has accident and health insurance ranked 59th for 2010 with a profit margin of 6.7% about half the return for Railroads.
The numbers say there is not a lot of profit to be had here.

I'm saying that deciding that medical care that is a matter of life and death should belong in the private for profit industry is what is wrong. Denial of life-saving treatment on the basis of affordability is awkward, and its a symptom of having life-saving medical care being handled by a private insurance industry rather than a government plan.

I think profit is actually a wonderful thing, I've run businesses before and I sold a decent start-up, and every business I got into was profitable. But I would not run a business that profited by denying individuals things I consider basic human rights. I would also like to live in a country where things that were basic human rights were not denied to people.

As for not a lot of profit for the industry, they rank the industry as a sector, which includes all of the various non-profits that attempted to provide services to those who couldn't otherwise get them, and went bankrupt doing so.

Note that you are putting words in my mouth here. The equivalent counterargument would be me claiming you value profit so much you'd sacrifice every moral, belief, relative, ideal and value you have all in the name of the almighty dollar. I don't think that is the case about you, and you shouldn't think the fact that I don't believe in putting profit ahead of human rights means that I think profit is bad.

[DuncanONeil]

Insurers do not decide treatment! The merely agree to pay or not pay. The decision is yours not theirs!

I'm saying that deciding that medical care that is a matter of life and death should belong in the private for profit industry is what is wrong. Denial of life-saving treatment on the basis of affordability is awkward, and its a symptom of having life-saving medical care being handled by a private insurance industry rather than a government plan.

I think profit is actually a wonderful thing, I've run businesses before and I sold a decent start-up, and every business I got into was profitable. But I would not run a business that profited by denying individuals things I consider basic human rights. I would also like to live in a country where things that were basic human rights were not denied to people.

As for not a lot of profit for the industry, they rank the industry as a sector, which includes all of the various non-profits that attempted to provide services to those who couldn't otherwise get them, and went bankrupt doing so.

Note that you are putting words in my mouth here. The equivalent counterargument would be me claiming you value profit so much you'd sacrifice every moral, belief, relative, ideal and value you have all in the name of the almighty dollar. I don't think that is the case about you, and you shouldn't think the fact that I don't believe in putting profit ahead of human rights means that I think profit is bad.

[SadisticNature]

Except that if you buy insurance in advance to protect against things you know you won't be able to pay and then they refuse payment on that treatment they are actually refusing you treatment. You made the decision to have these procedures available to you if you needed them even though you couldn't afford the actual procedure, and then had that taken away by a refusal to pay.

Insurers do not decide treatment! The merely agree to pay or not pay. The decision is yours not theirs!

[steelish]

And even $1200/month on medical insurance is beyond many's ability to pay. That's basically a choice of paying the rent(or mortgage) or paying for health care for a lot of Americans.

$1200/month????

Whomever is paying that amount is a terrible shopper. As I've stated before, I pay barely over $300/month for myself, my husband and my son. That breaks down to a mere $100/month apiece.

[DuncanONeil]

The $1200/month was a surmised payment after losing employer funded insurance!

$1200/month????

Whomever is paying that amount is a terrible shopper. As I've stated before, I pay barely over $300/month for myself, my husband and my son. That breaks down to a mere $100/month apiece.

[Lion]

$1200/month????

Whomever is paying that amount is a terrible shopper. As I've stated before, I pay barely over $300/month for myself, my husband and my son. That breaks down to a mere $100/month apiece.

I always get different answers when I ask how much people are paying for health insurance. Can you tell me what type of coverage it has? (100% paid, deductable, limit, etc). Are you buying through some work health insurance program?

Curious to find out how much everyone else is paying.

[SadisticNature]

$1200/month????

Whomever is paying that amount is a terrible shopper. As I've stated before, I pay barely over $300/month for myself, my husband and my son. That breaks down to a mere $100/month apiece.

I'm saying someone has a condition that costs $1200/month to treat loses their job and their employer covered insurance. Because this condition is considered preexisting to their new insurance it is factored into costs and they can reject coverage or demand a rate based on this information. So while you, your husband and son might get a much better rate, this has little to do with your shopping skills, it has to do with the fact that insurance is an individualized product that factors preexisting conditions.

It must be nice to live in a world where in situations like this you blame the victim. You're basically saying they should be able to find someone to pay $1200/month in care for just $100/month if they just tried hard enough.

[steelish]

I'm saying someone has a condition that costs $1200/month to treat loses their job and their employer covered insurance. Because this condition is considered preexisting to their new insurance it is factored into costs and they can reject coverage or demand a rate based on this information. So while you, your husband and son might get a much better rate, this has little to do with your shopping skills, it has to do with the fact that insurance is an individualized product that factors preexisting conditions.

It must be nice to live in a world where in situations like this you blame the victim. You're basically saying they should be able to find someone to pay $1200/month in care for just $100/month if they just tried hard enough.

You never mentioned a "pre-existing condition"

Oh, and in America, by law, it is illegal to deny health care to uninsured people.

[SadisticNature]

You never mentioned a "pre-existing condition"

Oh, and in America, by law, it is illegal to deny health care to uninsured people.

Actually I did. The exact quote was:

This means many individuals lose their insurance if their company downsizes, and then when they try and get new insurance if they have a pre-existing condition they are denied coverage or quoted a massive rate. This is the case even though the condition did not predate their work insurance.

I've bolded the part where I said pre-existing condition in the original post, although it was not bold initially.

Also you might want to be precise on what the statement "deny health care" means. It is quite legal in America to let someone die of a terminal illness that would otherwise be treatable. What isn't legal is for a hospital to have a heart attack patient show up at their doorstep and refuse to treat them because of financial issues. You also can't have severed limbs reattached without first providing insurance information that checks out.

So I certainly disagree that in America it is illegal to refuse health care. A hospital can turn away someone with a severed limb as long as there is no concern about them bleeding to death. If there is they can treat the bleeding in the cheapest way possible even if it were to prevent reattachment of the limb and send them on their way.

That doesn't meet most people's definition of health care. And if it meets yours we probably need to have a discussion on what health care actually is.

[steelish]

It is the case that they are not a new risk but that doesn't help if the insurance company can factor the old risk into the cost of the new plan, which is not prevented by law. Also depending on the disease by most standards the higher rate can be outrageous. If the cost of care that the company knows the client will need is $1200/month with the potential to rise, they aren't going to offer a policy that costs less than $2000/month.

And even $1200/month on medical insurance is beyond many's ability to pay. That's basically a choice of paying the rent(or mortgage) or paying for health care for a lot of Americans.

THIS is the quote I responded to with my insurance costs. DuncanONeill is the one who mentioned a pre-existing condition and I did not see his post when I responded to yours.