I don't think that there should be a coverage limit for life threatening illnesses.

How will an insurance company survive without some form of coverage limit?

How will an insurance company survive without some form of coverage limit?

 

It's easy, they won't....

It's easy, they won't....

 

 

Really? What about all the people who pay into insurance who never even come close to using current limits?

How will an insurance company survive without some form of coverage limit?

 

Other countries have similar regulation of insurance companies and still have insurance companies.

Really? What about all the people who pay into insurance who never even come close to using current limits?

 

So why should those people get screwed?

So why should those people get screwed?

 

 

How are they screwed?

Other countries have similar regulation of insurance companies and still have insurance companies.

 

That is interesting. Do you happen to have a link to this, or a good place for me to look for this information?

 

Thanks,

How are they screwed?

 

Because they're paying into the system, and it's being used on other people who are not....

Because they're paying into the system, and it's being used on other people who are not....

 

 

I thought we were talking, in this situation, about a person who HAS BEEN, and IS PREPARED TO, keep paying into the system. The scenario that TB&G presented is a woman who has had health insurance, and they dropped her. She didn't choose to not have health insurance, she still wants it.

I thought we were talking, in this situation, about a person who HAS BEEN, and IS PREPARED TO, keep paying into the system. The scenario that TB&G presented is a woman who has had health insurance, and they dropped her. She didn't choose to not have health insurance, she still wants it.

 

But if there are no limits, then insurance companies have no incentive to insure anyone at all who is more than a very minimal risk health-wise.

 

An insurance company is a business. They aren't going to make decisions that are going to hurt their bottomline, and they shouldn't be expected to.

That is interesting. Do you happen to have a link to this, or a good place for me to look for this information?

 

Thanks,

 

From the top of my head Germany, Switzerland, and France all have both public and private options that are required to have minimum standards of coverage (allow pre-existing conditions, no dropping coverage, etc.).

But if there are no limits, then insurance companies have no incentive to insure anyone at all who is more than a very minimal risk health-wise.

 

An insurance company is a business. They aren't going to make decisions that are going to hurt their bottomline, and they shouldn't be expected to.

 

Please! Insurance can already deny people coverage in the case of many pre-existing conditions, or raise the premiums on certain coverages to levels where many can't afford anything more than the bare minimum coverage, with no ability to afford catestrophic coverage. They already penalize well people for the cost of covering ill people by increased premiums as well on all within a group, not just the ill ones. They will still make their money. The trend is to deny more claims and coverage and only insure those who are not ill, or pay claims at their discretion.

But if there are no limits, then insurance companies have no incentive to insure anyone at all who is more than a very minimal risk health-wise.

 

An insurance company is a business. They aren't going to make decisions that are going to hurt their bottomline, and they shouldn't be expected to.

 

There has to be some defined limit. Otherwise, its called 'unlimited liability' and that is a not acceptable to any business or well run plan. Any general plan must have a defined limit. You have to be able to define and limit your possible payouts for the accounting to work.

 

However, this is where a government program may be useful as an automatic catastrophic insurer - possibly in the mode of something similar to Federal flood insurance. That feature probably could be funded through a payroll tax instead having the Feds run the general plan.

 

BTW, if this goes through there will only be the singler payer plan over time. Companies will drop insurance coverage as fast as possible if that is an option.

From the top of my head Germany, Switzerland, and France all have both public and private options that are required to have minimum standards of coverage (allow pre-existing conditions, no dropping coverage, etc.).

 

Thanks. :thumb: I will do some digging/reading on these tonight.

There has to be some defined limit. Otherwise, its called 'unlimited liability' and that is a not acceptable to any business or well run plan. Any general plan must have a defined limit. You have to be able to define and limit your possible payouts for the accounting to work.

 

However, this is where a government program may be useful as an automatic catastrophic insurer - possibly in the mode of something similar to Federal flood insurance. That feature probably could be funded through a payroll tax instead having the Feds run the general plan.

 

BTW, if this goes through there will only be the singler payer plan over time. Companies will drop insurance coverage as fast as possible if that is an option.

 

 

I heard something the other day on local talk radio. Someone stated that the practice of Companies supplying insurance as part of a package came from a different era. This era saw wage limits and salary increase limits. So to get around it, employers paid a salary increase to loyal employees by paying for health care.

 

Anyone ever heard this story?