Quote:
Originally Posted by Mavdog
actually, this shows the extent to which the system needs reforming.
apparently you agree with me on this need.
|
Well, duh! Have you been listening to anything I've said?
Quote:
a pool of healthy and ill insured allows the combined premiums to cover the costs, that's the fundamental structure of insurance.
it works, has for a long time.
|
The difference is that REAL insurance adjusts for risks. That's why certain high-risk people are excluded.
Repeat after me: buying coverage for something that hasn't happened yet is
insurance. Paying for coverage after the fact as if the event hasn't happened yet and requiring the rest of the people in the pool (or the government) to cover the costs is
welfare.
If we're going to talk about giving coverage to people who already have uninsurable conditions, let's at least call a spade a spade.
Quote:
but the rate of coverage is decreasing, didn't you see that in the articles?
actually it is both cost of coverage and the number providing coverage, as fewer and fewer people are employed by large cos and not provided lifelong job security. people move from job to job as well.
half of all workers are in small businesses, and a majority of workers do not work for large cos. the per cent covered by employer policies is declining, and declining at a greater rate.
that's why the system as it has been established in the past, based on employer provided coverage, must be reformed to adapt to this new environment.
so yes, we do need health care reform.
|
I think we agree on this. Health insurance should not be tied to employment.