What will happen if health care is repealed?

[Cyber Disciple]

Republican politicians said that the solution to the health care debacle is, to enact smaller bills that target certain problems. Such as writing a bill saying it's illegal to deny health care do to pre-existing condition's. Rather than adopt the whole health care bill that the president wanted to pass at that time.Their thoughts were to just change some problems rather than change the whole system.

If the Republicans are successful in repealing the health care reform passed by congress, will the Republicans keep their promise to write a bill prohibiting health care being denied to patients due to preexisting conditions or not?

what are your thoughts on this subject?

[wonbyone]

Republican politicians said that the solution to the health care debacle is, to enact smaller bills that target certain problems. Such as writing a bill saying it's illegal to deny health care do to pre-existing condition's. Rather than adopt the whole health care bill that the president wanted to pass at that time.Their thoughts were to just change some problems rather than change the whole system.

If the Republicans are successful in repealing the health care reform passed by congress, will the Republicans keep their promise to write a bill prohibiting health care being denied to patients due to preexisting conditions or not?

what are your thoughts on this subject?

My thoughts are that prohibiting preexisting conditions are going to sky rocket our premiums. It's the only way insurers are going to be able to stay in business. One thing that would help would be competition by letting insurers cross state lines.

[Darth Executor]

It's not insurers that need to be able to cross state lines (they already have), it's insurance plans.

[wonbyone]

It's not insurers that need to be able to cross state lines (they already have), it's insurance plans.
Thanks. that's what I meant to say.

[wonbyone]

It's not insurers that need to be able to cross state lines (they already have), it's insurance plans.
Thanks. that's what I meant to say.

[TimZim]

My thoughts are that prohibiting preexisting conditions are going to sky rocket our premiums. It's the only way insurers are going to be able to stay in business. One thing that would help would be competition by letting insurers cross state lines.

I know a little about the medical field, and it is a mess. But let's not lose sight of basics.

The amount of money spent on healthcare, whether out of pocket, through insurance, or through the government is insanely high. But it will be insanely high, regardless of how insurers deal with things like preexisting conditions.

If access, resource costs, or prices don't decreased; if efficiency doesn't improve; if ancillary costs don't drop, then who cares who is paying? The mess is the same.

So any supposed solutions that don't directly deal with problems inherent in the system are a waste of time. Selling insurance across state lines, for example, won't address any inherent problems directly, and therefore probably won't help at all.

[Catholicity]

well...I do actually take issue with the insane premiums and the "pre-existing condition" rules. And this is why. I'm epileptic. Once my insurance goes private, I will have to pay out of pocket for my neurology medication for one year, and the script is 71.66 per month. However for an underinsured or uninsured person with more health problems than I the premiums and medications are ridiculous. Granted there exists right now access to charitable help, but it only pays a certain percentage of the cost, unless a person is lucky enough to have a teaching hospital nearby and be poor enough.

I do believe that insurance companies at the very top are corrupt, and I do believe that there does need to be some over haul of the current system, and I think that laws in place such as making outrageous premiums or pre-existing conditions might be fruitful. HOWEVER....This ought not be a national law. Each state or county should be the one deciding these laws.

[TimZim]

I do believe that insurance companies at the very top are corrupt, and I do believe that there does need to be some over haul of the current system.Here is a novel word for it. Let's call it, "theft," which is what it is. Simply put, the average person with an average bank account, doesn't think for a moment that the law protects him or her. If we did, then we'd just call the sheriff and have the CEO's of many (all) of these health insurance companies thrown in jail. But Republicans seem pleased as punch that corporations, inexplicably, get to be "people" when contributing to Republicans, but not people when it's time to lock them up for crimes. It is bizarre.

[Catholicity]

Here is a novel word for it. Let's call it, "theft," which is what it is

ok that I concede..but it ain't just republicans. ITS EVERYONE

[djdavo]

Short answer? The government screws up everything. Let the (regulated) free market decide... give us 'shopping options' for health care, and it'll solve our problems...

[nonothing]

Let the (regulated) free market decide...
Here here djdavo. Over time, health care has been more and more regulated, and the average cost has gone up and up. So the obvious solution is... more regulation. Right? The problem is not that the regulators do not have good intentions. The problem is not that insurance companies want to generate as much wealth as possible (this is true of every individual as well as corporation). The problem is also not that the regulations have plausible sounding intended effects.
The main problem is that regulators are systemically incapable (being non-omniscient) of calculating the ultimate effects of their regulations. Secondarily, every piece of regulation nullifies, to a greater or lesser extent, a self-correcting mechanism already present in the voluntary market.

give us 'shopping options' for health care, and it'll solve our problems...
This is over simplifying. Returning to a more voluntary market from a coercive market will not solve our problems. It will tend to reduce them over time vis-a-vis a centrally planned/managed/regulated market. Voluntary markets aren't perfect, just more efficient and less arbitrary.

[themuzicman]

Republican politicians said that the solution to the health care debacle is, to enact smaller bills that target certain problems. Such as writing a bill saying it's illegal to deny health care do to pre-existing condition's. Rather than adopt the whole health care bill that the president wanted to pass at that time.Their thoughts were to just change some problems rather than change the whole system.

If the Republicans are successful in repealing the health care reform passed by congress, will the Republicans keep their promise to write a bill prohibiting health care being denied to patients due to preexisting conditions or not?

what are your thoughts on this subject?

Health care is never denied because of preexisting conditions. Never has been.

Health insurance was denied, but that just makes sense. Insurance companies are supposed to be about managing future risk. If you have a condition, they have to account for the entire cost of that condition PLUS thier costs and profits in setting the price.

[joel]

Health care is never denied because of preexisting conditions. Never has been.

Health insurance was denied, but that just makes sense. Insurance companies are supposed to be about managing future risk. If you have a condition, they have to account for the entire cost of that condition PLUS thier costs and profits in setting the price.
Exactly. If you go to a home insurance firm after your house has burned down, they will laugh you out of the room, or perhaps have you arrested for attempting to commit insurance fraud. Or maybe you could find someone willing to sell you the insurance, but they would certainly charge you more than the cost of a new home. With the 'pre-existing condition' it is cheaper to pay out-of-pocket.

The 'pre-existing condition' part of Obamacare is one of the worst things about it. To outlaw pricing based on risk is to outlaw insurance. You logically cannot insure yourself against the event of X happening if it has already happened or is guaranteed to happen.

[moreta]

well...I do actually take issue with the insane premiums and the "pre-existing condition" rules. And this is why. I'm epileptic. Once my insurance goes private, I will have to pay out of pocket for my neurology medication for one year, and the script is 71.66 per month. However for an underinsured or uninsured person with more health problems than I the premiums and medications are ridiculous. Granted there exists right now access to charitable help, but it only pays a certain percentage of the cost, unless a person is lucky enough to have a teaching hospital nearby and be poor enough.

I do believe that insurance companies at the very top are corrupt, and I do believe that there does need to be some over haul of the current system, and I think that laws in place such as making outrageous premiums or pre-existing conditions might be fruitful. HOWEVER....This ought not be a national law. Each state or county should be the one deciding these laws.


I have to agree with you on the preexisting conditions. My son was diagnosed with MS last year. He was a full time student at the time, and was not working. If he gets a job, which is by no means certain, with most insurance plans he will have to wait a year before he can get coverage. During that year, he will have to do without his medication which runs upwards of $30,000 a year without insurance. He is better off not working and staying on Medicaid. While I can appreciate why there is an issue with pre-existing conditions, by not covering the person for a period of time, it creates the likelihood that those with chronic conditions will only get worse, thus requiring more costly health care than would be needed if they were covered from the get go.

[SarahB]

The US healthcare system (it's not a system, really) and its ancillaries are designed to suck every possible cent from the middle class. DONE!

Healthcare for profit is immoral and on the brink of extinction. The best alternative is Everybody In, Nobody Out.

http://www.pnhp.org/

[Darth Executor]

Healthcare for profit is immoral and on the brink of extinction.

You're not very bright, are you? Becoming a doctor is hard. It's a difficult (probably the most difficult "mainstream job" out there) path most people are not capable of following, and if people don't get paid a lot for going through all that trouble, they'll stop becoming doctors, at which point you will get no health care, for profit or otherwise.

[Challenger Grim]

You're not very bright, are you? Becoming a doctor is hard. It's a difficult (probably the most difficult "mainstream job" out there) path most people are not capable of following, and if people don't get paid a lot for going through all that trouble, they'll stop becoming doctors, at which point you will get no health care, for profit or otherwise.
A dozen amens to this.

And while I have all sympathy to those with preexisting conditions well... see it's part of why health care is such a thorny debate - it's impossible to not take personally because we all know someone within our "monkeysphere" who it would apply to and nobody wants to drag "the other" into their monkeysphere. So they shove everything that's the problem into their mental category of "the system" and then proceed to blame it for all ills. Remember: even insurance companies are filled with people trying to make a living and provide for themselves and family. Remember that insurance is like a bet/wager. You bet the insurance company that you'll get sick, the insurance company bets that you won't. If you "win", they pay you, if they "win" you pay. Showing up with a preexisting condition is rigging the bet - you cannot lose.

Remember that the money and resources for health care have to come from somewhere. And when we discuss resource division... well we have to avoid letting emotion into it and look at things logically and rationally.

The free market is (currently) our best system for allocating resources with the most freedom to each individual. Consider carefully the implication of allowing someone else to start deciding what resources you get.

[Epoetker]

DrRich had the right of it: (http://covertrationingblog.com/economics-and-that/the-four-ways-to-reduce-healthcare-spending)



Method One: Make all healthcare spending the responsibility of the individual.

Method Two: Make all healthcare spending the responsibility of a Central Authority.

Method Three: Provide strictly limited public support for basic healthcare services, with individuals responsible for the remainder.

What about Method Four?

There is little reason to spend much time discussing the fourth and final method for controlling healthcare expenditures. Nobody is a proponent of this method, so nobody discusses it. However, Method Four, at this moment, seems to be the most likely outcome. Indeed, at this moment it is our default method of choice.

Method Four is formulated as follows: Our skyrocketing healthcare expenditures are the chief driver of our national debt. Our national debt burden, unless we get control of it by controlling healthcare expenditures, will inevitably destroy our civil society. At the same time, our modern, sophisticated and very expensive healthcare system utterly requires a complex, modern, organized, high-tech society in which to function.

Therefore, our skyrocketing healthcare expenditures ultimately provides its own cure. Once society collapses, “healthcare services” will revert back to the roots-and-poultices methodologies that served mankind so well for millions of years. And healthcare, as well as other modern geegaws like cable TV and the Internet, will no longer be a fundamental human right, but will become a mere afterthought (if a thought at all) in a more primitive kind of society where life is nasty, brutish and short.

So, not to worry.


Simple, forthright, and easy to remember. And if you haven't added The Covert Rationing Blog to your favorites yet, why are you still not favoriting?

[Soyeong]

Healthcare for profit is immoral and on the brink of extinction. The best alternative is Everybody In, Nobody Out.
I think what's immoral is demanding that other people pay for your health care. When everybody is in, whether they want to be or not, everybody loses.

[SarahB]

You're not very bright, are you? Becoming a doctor is hard. It's a difficult (probably the most difficult "mainstream job" out there) path most people are not capable of following, and if people don't get paid a lot for going through all that trouble, they'll stop becoming doctors, at which point you will get no health care, for profit or otherwise.I stopped reading after the bold sentence. There really does seem to be an entrenched insult culture in this place. Not terribly inspiring.

[SarahB]

I think what's immoral is demanding that other people pay for your health care. When everybody is in, whether they want to be or not, everybody loses.Healthcare isn't a luxury; it's a necessity. Spreading the risk over the entire population over the entire lifetime reduces costs for everyone; it allows availability to everyone. With not-for-profit Everybody In, Nobody Out, the level of care improves across the board---you can be assured those with power will see to it.

If you haven't taken the time, here again is the link to Physicians for a National Health Plan. http://www.pnhp.org/
-

[seanD]

Healthcare isn't a luxury; it's a necessity. Spreading the risk over the entire population over the entire lifetime reduces costs for everyone; it allows availability to everyone. With not-for-profit Everybody In, Nobody Out, the level of care improves across the board---you can be assured those with power will see to it.

If you haven't taken the time, here again is the link to Physicians for a National Health Plan. http://www.pnhp.org/
-

Only the risk doesn't seem to be consistently "spread over the entire population." Apparently if you're a corporation that what's to opt out, it just takes a generous bribe thrown towards Obama's compaign...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/08/big-companies-unions-win-health-care-waivers/

[joel]

Healthcare isn't a luxury; it's a necessity.

So is food, water, shelter, clothing, transportation, communication, etc. I don't want their production socialized either.

But even still there is degree. Some things are elective. Some things are being over-cautious, there are tradeoffs, etc. Not all of it is a "necessity."
And think about any given advance in modern health care. What happened to mankind before that advance was made? They all died out?

And one does not have or have a rightful claim to something merely by needing it.



Spreading the risk over the entire population over the entire lifetime reduces costs for everyone;
No. In fact, the separation between the payer and consumer is one of the things that has been driving costs up in general by increasing demand.
Costs are further increased due to the overhead that doesn't exist with simple direct payment. For things that have a probability of 100%, insurance (or something like it) will necessarily cost more than direct payment.
Also forcing low-risk people to pay for high-risk people necessarily increases the cost for the low-risk. It cannot reduce costs for everyone, because it entails systematic wealth redistribution.

Also when risks are thought to be covered (i.e., by someone else) then that tends to increase risky behavior, so risk (and cost) likely increases. People with the risk won't see the true cost of the risk. The benefit of a market for risk is to make it easier to factor risk rationally into decision-making. Forced universal coverage prevents that, tending to result in everyone not rationally factoring risk into decision-making.



With not-for-profit Everybody In, Nobody Out, the level of care improves across the board
That seems really unlikely. The profit motive is incentive to please the consumer. Without it, providers will instead be motivated by seeking for tax money from bureaucrats/politicians. It will be the political interests, instead of the patients' interests, that will guide things.



you can be assured those with power will see to it.
This is really naive, and counter to human nature.

Have you read 1984? :-)

[Contreras]

Well, seeing the highly-socialistic healthcare plan that was passed under the Obama administration (The fact that he got this plan passed is pretty surprising, often, when a president tries passing a healthcare plan, he will be willing to offer a fair amount of partisan compromise. Obama didn't, he went straight through with his socialized healthcare plan.) a major reduction would be quite nice, but I personally don't know if I'd advocate complete abolition of government-mandated healthcare. While totally repealing healthcare might sound a bit worrying at first, you should take in mind that it's elimination would have some positive impacts as well. With the current Obamacare system, everyone is essentially forced into buying an expansive healthcare package that provides coverage in many areas which are just unnecessary. This results on excessive taxation being infringed on the vast majority of people, who don't need a substantial amount of the coverage in the plan. In the complete absence of healthcare, the citizens would re-gain a great amount of choice in their healthcare decision and have the option of only purchasing what insurance they need. With the government interference out of the picture, the healthcare system would have the ability to be more competitive with it's pricing. A more free-market style pricing system would prove to be very beneficial to people of many different income levels.