I'm sorry if this is a boring topic for some who may read this blog, but I feel the need to put this point down on the record. Last fall when President Obama gave his speech to a joint meeting of the Senate and House, I witnessed one of the more disturbing scenes of the current attempts at "reforming" our healthcare system. It was the sights and sounds of politicians applauding the "no health insurance company should be allowed to deny coverage on the basis of preexisting conditions" portion of the President's speech. This moment was particularly disturbing because members from both sides of the political aisle were applauding. Let us consider this statement for a few moments. Just a few, I promise.....:)
Imagine using this logic in regards to any other insurance category such as homeowners or automobile insurance, or my personal favorite is life insurance. Why do health insurance companies reserve the right to deny coverage for preexisting conditions? Isn't it because the concept of insurance is for the insured to pay a small amount in the EVENTUALITY that something big and bad plays out? It is statistically calculated to be worth the risk of the insurance company to pay out in the few cases that the "big bad" happens and accepts the cash of everyone whom it does not happen to as its actual profit. If you force an entire industry to base its business model on the idea that they MUST allow people to be insured regardless of preexisting conditions the auto insurance premiums would go sky high because everyone would supplement the risk of the reckless drivers, homeowners premiums would rocket upwards as we all absorbed the risk of fraud and those who build and/or live in high risk areas, and I suppose we'd all be unable to even get any life insurance because death is the ultimate potential preexisting condition. I know, I know that is silly. However, this is exactly the rationale behind the belief that pushing for a law mandating health insurance for those with preexisting conditions will somehow create a better healthcare system. It will simply either cause existing health insurance companies to raise their premiums to offset the risk that has been forced upon them, or it will simply cause them to go out of this kind of business altogether.
A great example of this is the heavy handed regulations that currently force insurance companies in various states to include specific coverages in ALL of their policies. This was intended to be a consumer protection, but it has actually caused the most basic insurance policies to be more expensive. Guess who gets hurt by this. Yep, the poor downtrodden souls that the governmental do-gooders had supposedly intended to help. They can't afford the new, improved policies at even their most basic rates because they're now too expensive.
The one preexisiting condition noone seems to want to address is the growing involvement of heavy handed regulation in the formation and escalation of our nation's current many faceted economic woes. Did someone say free market?? Look again.
5 comments:
1st......that speech is from a generous heart....will the private company has that kind of heart?
yup....i agree with you.....and who would want to pay, a cancer patient of 3rd degree....with a very low premium..
just imagine.....
and so yeah....just like i experienced.....the program am paying is 350 a month only....and now it isup to 995+ exluded of some services.....and so i cut out some of my insurance because of it......
the only thing i clearly understood is that everyone of us has a fair share of obligation....
and that fulfill it by being an active citizen what ever country you may be......
Amiable post and this mail helped me alot in my college assignement. Gratefulness you seeking your information.
Inay, thank you for commenting on my post. Before I go any further, I want you to know how much I genuinely appreciate you and/or anyone taking the time to read my blog and comment. This is true whether they agree with my post or disagree. Many times I actually get more out of conversations with people who disagree with me than with those who agree because I am forced to think more intensely. So, again, thank you.
I am not sure in some areas whether you were in agreement with me or not, but let me offer just a few thoughts. I think the President's speech was intended to appeal to those with a generous heart, but I am not necessarily convinced that he or Congress are necessarily any more motivated by generosity than someone owning a private company. Bill Gates who has been listed as THE wealthiest man in the world(He owns Microsoft). He and his wife have created the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation that has poured money into third world countries basic health needs. I strongly disagree with many of Mr. Gates political views, but I certainly have more respect for him than politicians because he is speaking with HIS money, and the politicians are speaking with OTHER people's money.
The strength of the economic system in the U.S. has historically been liberty. By this, I mean that we strive give people the freedom to pursue their own self-interests, and by doing this, more OVERALL wealth and well-being is created because self-interest is NOT necessarily selfishness. (remember the Bill Gates example) I acknowledge that there are problems with ours and many healthcare systems around the world, but I contend that the best solutions for these types of problems are in freeing the energy and creativity of the individuals within a country and almost never by the government. Sorry I got so wordy. :)
Sorry for my bad english. Thank you so much for your good post. Your post helped me in my college assignment, If you can provide me more details please email me.
Don't worry about your english. You are doing fine, but I need to know for sure who is asking me to email information. I have at least two possible candidates that I think may be asking, but the request was placed while you were in an anonymous status. Therefore, I do not know who to email. Thanks, Dennis
Post a Comment