The "WAr On Women??"

[leo9]

The premiums people pay are a statistical probability of how much overage they want and the odds of them incurring medical costs. With women wanting birth control, it's a guarantee that every woman will be able to get it,so either the insurance premiums for women must increase by the exact cost of buying it themselves, or it gets passed onto me

Just one of the insane consequences of treating healthcare as an insurance issue, rather than a public health issue. The health issues which people need most protection against are the ones that are certain to occur. So the interests of insurers are the exact opposite of healthcare needs.

There was a time when fire brigades were paid for by the insurance companies, so if you had a fire and didn't have a sign on your house showing it had coverage, the firefighters wouldn't help. (I'm not making this up, you can see the signs in museums.) Draw your own parallel.

[Punish_her]

Just one of the insane consequences of treating healthcare as an insurance issue, rather than a public health issue. The health issues which people need most protection against are the ones that are certain to occur. So the interests of insurers are the exact opposite of healthcare needs.

not at all the case, not everyone gets cancer, not everyone has a stroke, not everyone has a stroke. it's the same logic behind insurance companies not accepting people, or charging vastly higher premiums, with pre-existing conditions. it's not the way insurance is supposed to work. you don't total your car, then call an insurance company to get a quote, sign up, and then mention your car was smashed. the system works with people paying into it who are young, paying their whole lives, so that when they are elderly and do need treatment (or in the cases of catastrophic events) they are covered. it is completely unfair for people who are already sick to expect coverage from those who are playing by the rules.

There was a time when fire brigades were paid for by the insurance companies, so if you had a fire and didn't have a sign on your house showing it had coverage, the firefighters wouldn't help. (I'm not making this up, you can see the signs in museums.) Draw your own parallel.

this also is not unreasonable. the fire department has to be paid by someone, either you can buy fire insurance or you can have higher taxes on a state or city run department

[leo9]

not at all the case, not everyone gets cancer, not everyone has a stroke, not everyone has a stroke. it's the same logic behind insurance companies not accepting people, or charging vastly higher premiums, with pre-existing conditions. it's not the way insurance is supposed to work. you don't total your car, then call an insurance company to get a quote, sign up, and then mention your car was smashed. the system works with people paying into it who are young, paying their whole lives, so that when they are elderly and do need treatment (or in the cases of catastrophic events) they are covered. it is completely unfair for people who are already sick to expect coverage from those who are playing by the rules.

My point exactly: the insurance business model does not work for healthcare. It only works for cars because maintenance and breakdown repairs are done on a different system, and people aren't cars.

It works moderately well in this country because the National Health Service picks up all the conditions that don't fall within the insurance-based systems, as well as supporting those who can't afford or don't want the extra coverage. I don't have to imagine what it must be like without that backup, I read enough American novels to know.

this also is not unreasonable. the fire department has to be paid by someone, either you can buy fire insurance or you can have higher taxes on a state or city run department

I thought the point was too obvous to need explaining. If your neighbour doesn't have fire insurance, are you going to be happy that the fire brigade leaves his house to burn? And set the whole block afire? Firefighting is a communal interest. So is healthcare.

[Punish_her]

My point exactly: the insurance business model does not work for healthcare. It only works for cars because maintenance and breakdown repairs are done on a different system, and people aren't cars.

It works moderately well in this country because the National Health Service picks up all the conditions that don't fall within the insurance-based systems, as well as supporting those who can't afford or don't want the extra coverage. I don't have to imagine what it must be like without that backup, I read enough American novels to know.I thought the point was too obvous to need explaining. If your neighbour doesn't have fire insurance, are you going to be happy that the fire brigade leaves his house to burn? And set the whole block afire? Firefighting is a communal interest. So is healthcare.

the insurance business model works just fine for healthcare if people play by the rules, but they don't want to

I thought the point was too obvous to need explaining. If your neighbour doesn't have fire insurance, are you going to be happy that the fire brigade leaves his house to burn? And set the whole block afire? Firefighting is a communal interest. So is healthcare.

as long as the rest of the block has the insurance, it's not their problem, as firefighters would be obligated to keep the fire away from those who did pay

[leo9]

the insurance business model works just fine for healthcare if people play by the rules, but they don't want to

That's because health and disease don't work according to commercial rules. To take a current hot issue: as researchers discover genetic predispositions to disease, insurance companies want to screen for them and charge higher premiums. From a business point of view, this is only common sense. From a human point of view, it's cruel discrimination against the sick.

as long as the rest of the block has the insurance, it's not their problem, as firefighters would be obligated to keep the fire away from those who did pay

A lovely example of the consequences of clinging to an ideology in defiance of reality. I can just imagine a firefighter's response if you told him to leave a house burning in the middle of a block for commercial reasons. Leaving aside the very poor chance of containing a fire by such roundabout means, if yours were the next house, the inevitable consequence would be that instead of a brief alarm while your neighbour's fire was put out, your house would be saturated with water as well as (at the very least) suffering major structural damage to adjoining walls. In fact, if the whole block apart from the one house was insured, the logical commercial decision would be to dynamite your house to create a firebreak; your house would be ruined anyhow, so best to get rid of it to save the rest.

In fact, it doesn't even make sense commercially: by leaving the uninsured house to burn, the insurers get at the very least the cost of two insured houses wrecked, plus just as much firefighting costs as if they'd tackled the original blaze. (Maybe more, the firefighters would be working for many hours to contain the fire that they might have put out much faster at source.) See what happens when you follow a theory ad absurdum?

[Punish_her]

That's because health and disease don't work according to commercial rules. To take a current hot issue: as researchers discover genetic predispositions to disease, insurance companies want to screen for them and charge higher premiums. From a business point of view, this is only common sense. From a human point of view, it's cruel discrimination against the sick.

and if they can't charge higher premiums for the sick, they must charge higher premiums for all, which means me, which means they're discriminating against the healthy because i almost never use medical services

[leo9]

and if they can't charge higher premiums for the sick, they must charge higher premiums for all, which means me, which means they're discriminating against the healthy because i almost never use medical services

And I'd guess you rarely need to call the police, so why should you have to pay taxes to support the police force? And you haven't had a house fire, so you shouldn't be expected to contribute to the fire brigade either. And foreign enemies haven't recently threatened you personally, so what are the government doing expecting you to contribute to the defence budget...?