It's November 30th - Healthcare.gov still broken
- Thread starter gwb-trading
- Start date
My questions are pointless or absurd? LOL
Simple GENERIC question ... why is Odumbocare so radically different than other forms of insurance?
Auto .. I can choose what coverage I want. I am not FORCED to buy a one size fits all policy. Same with Homeowners insurance.
For as long as I am aware of people could CHOOSE the coverages that wanted and needed as far as health insurance goes. I typically drop collision and comprehensive coverage on my car after 2 years or so. Why? I don't want to waste the extra $$ and I'm willing to take the risk. I did the same with health insurance .. high deductible policy as I am healthy and was willing to take the risk with a $10K deductible for my wife and I. I should be able to continue to buy a product that fits my needs.
All I was asking is why we have no choices with Odumbocare other than what level of premium we pay. I shouldn't be paying for maternity coverage just as a young person shouldn't be paying to cover a prostate exam for me.
I mean it is totally crazy! It's like the government chose the same coat in four different colors, and told everybody they need to buy one, but they can go into the "market place" and decide who they want to purchase from.
So now, Macy's, Target, and Walmart all have the same mandated coat to sell in four different colors. Is that competition? Or just a legalized cartel?
well, that's not exactly true. When you buy a house, you don't get to "choose" your insurance. It is mandated by the bank that holds your mortgage.
With homeowners you can choose deductibles, which is a part of the risk equation. Similarly in health insurance we could choose whatever deductible we wanted.
With our homeowners insurance we recently switched carriers and we had many choices as far as addendum's and so on. My earlier point was/is that any insurance I've ever had allowed me to choose from a variety of coverages, whether it be auto, homeowners or health.
This is your tax money hard at work in Connecticut. Remember, all of the state exchanges are subsidized by Federal tax dollars, so congrats America, you just paid for $75,000 for 3 paintings. The above photo is one of the murals, and if the other two are just as bad, Connecticut didnât get very much bang for their buck.
http://poorrichardsnews.com/post/70347121433/connecticut-obamacare-exchange-spends-75-000-on
you sure about that? When you first buy a house, you have zero equity other than the down. The bank is not going to let you "choose" a deductible that puts them at more risk than they already have by loaning you the money.
and that's the thing
that's why you have to wear seatbelts
your life is now mortgaged to the government
Are you getting deductible and the amount of coverage on a house mixed up?
Let's say you have a house worth $500K. You'd likely insure it for that amount. But ... your deductible could be $1000, $5000 or whatever .... that's just the amount you pay before the coverage of the policy kicks in. Say you have a $40K fire with $5K deductible. You pay $5K and insurance would cover the remaining $35K.
well, why not "choose" a $500k deductible? See how the bank goes for that
your deductible and the banks deductible are one and the same
if you can't cover the loss before the deductible is hit, that is the banks risk
if you have equity, no problem, they don't really care what happens to you and your equity
they require "mandate" you have coverage to protect their interest
Now you've got it! All universal access plans are predicated on risk sharing within large pools of participants in widely varying states of health within age brackets. These plans can not afford to let people gamble that they won't have a serious health issue when they are young by selecting a high deductible, limited coverage plan and then waiting until they are old to buy into a low deductible comprehensive plan. The idea is to achieve cost averaging of a sort. Some of the successful national plans in other countries place participants in age brackets and do vary the premium by bracket. But the assumption underlying the plans is defeated by people being allowed to gamble by choosing to accept more risk.
The I-want -more-risk-and-lower-premium group is disgruntled with Obamney care. In broad, shared risk pools, on the other hand, the lucky end up subsidizing the unlucky. The Lucky pay a somewhat higher premium than they would had they gambled and gotten away with it. The unlucky pay a significantly lower premium then they would had they chosen not to gamble but had no healthy participants to back them up. The net result is that some pay a little more and some quite a bit less (assuming the pools are properly designed) and the risk of medical bankruptcy is eliminated for all and all get comprehensive coverage. Some think the trade off is good, others want the freedom to gamble on their unknown health future, but once the die is cast in statutory law, the gamblers choice is no longer available as an option.
There are some however who, from their remarks, I can tell haven't a clue what the real tradeoffs are and why they can no longer be allowed to gamble under Obamney care.
Now, of course, we are in the early stages of Obamney care, the insurance exchanges are a helter skelter mix, a total mess occasioned by the McCarran Ferguson Act. Because Medical insurance is not regulated by the Dept of Commerce, there is no guarantee that premiums will make sense in every State. Some States have been willing to cooperate and relinquish sovereignty over medical insurance to the federal government, whereas other States have not. In my own State there was a fight for control between the Attorney General and the Insurance Commissioner. It is a god awful mess. Unless, and until, we get rid of McCarran Ferguson, it will remain a mess.
Ultimately for national health care to work efficiently you must have uniformity among the States and single payer, so that you form very large risk pools. We are doomed as long as we're attempting to make the ACA work piecemeal. It may function after a fashion, but it won't be anywhere near as efficient as it could be.
We should have gone to a single payer, 80/20, medicare-like plan for most plus expanded medicaid for the indigent in all States, accompanied by formation of large, national, risk pools. And then, after ditching McCarran Ferguson, invite the insurance companies to sell supplemental policies to cover the 20% co-pay in national competition with each other. Oh Well.