The HMO act of 1973 was the first effort to for force procedure by group at the same cost. You can keep trying to ignore it, but Nixon very deliberately wanted to switch the footing from individual policies to managed care by group to try to slow the inflation of costs from the new tech coming to market.
Quote:
|
nope, almost 1/3 of those insured are thru individual policies
|
.
Then we have no worries from people losing coverage when they lose their jobs.
Quote:
|
odd, but none of that litany of complaints doesn't explain the issues mentioned, that women pay vastly more than men, and that many necessary procedures for women aren't even covered. care to try again?
|
Probably because it's an entirely different subject. We don't have true competition on an open market basis. The ability to chose another insurer because it offers more benefit isn't happening. You can't blame a problem on a market when their isn't one.
Quote:
|
yet all thos existing plans remain available to the people to purchase. your point isn't relative.
|
See Below.
Your continual claiming that insurance companies won't stop offering coverage if it's no longer profitable is wrong. They stopped offering homeowners insurance here in Florida and the State fund of last resort swelled to huge proportions. They aren't going to offer a product that loses them money.
The State had to change the underwriting laws to split wind/hurricane damage from the rest of the coverage and allow them to triple the deductible. Their business is making money. Until the environment was altered so they could make money again they stopped.
It's a fairytale belief that they'll forget they are a business and won't stop operating as one by offering coverage that is a loser. None of them only offers medical coverage, they have other lines. What's ridiculous is thinking they'll continue to market a product that loses them money. They don't get to print money or run at trillion dollar deficits.
Quote:
|
the insurers are guilty to using the concept of pre existing conditions as a rationale to either charge exorbinant premiums or to deny benefits when a claim is made. asthma, arthritis, migraines, acne, toe nail fungus, attention deficit disorder, even the fact that an individual has sought therapy...these are not valid reasons for higher premiums or denial of benefits yet they have been used to deny benefits and impose higher costs. clearly this abuse can only be stopped by legislation.
|
No one is saying you don't need regulation.
You can't make a case that the current model of health care insurance is anywhere close to a free market. Until it's like Gieco or State Farm where I can carry my coverage from state to state it won't be. Your charge the companies have evolved to the current state in a free market so we have to have government competition is flawed.
The futility of handing out coverage versus lowering costs makes more sense if you look at the profit margins.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124947013703607453.html