Appeals Court rules Obamacare unconstitutional

[DGuller]

Of course costs go through the roof if people wait until the get sick to take out health insurance and their existing illnesses are covered.  That's why the health insurance companies have always excluded pre-existing conditions whenever they could.   And while that sounds terrible, it actually makes sense.  Covering pre-existing conditions doesn't make any sense--it's insuring against an event that's already occured.  It's as if someone didn't take our fire insurance until after their house burned down, and then the fire insurance company was expected to pay for the loss of their house and possessions anyway.

Of course it makes sense from an insurance perspective (ignoring the various ways people can fall through the cracks).  The question is, what is the purpose of health insurance?  Is the purpose to make it work as an insurance product, or is its purpose to provide people care when they get sick? 

[dps]

Of course costs go through the roof if people wait until the get sick to take out health insurance and their existing illnesses are covered.  That's why the health insurance companies have always excluded pre-existing conditions whenever they could.   And while that sounds terrible, it actually makes sense.  Covering pre-existing conditions doesn't make any sense--it's insuring against an event that's already occured.  It's as if someone didn't take our fire insurance until after their house burned down, and then the fire insurance company was expected to pay for the loss of their house and possessions anyway.

Of course it makes sense from an insurance perspective (ignoring the various ways people can fall through the cracks).  The question is, what is the purpose of health insurance?  Is the purpose to make it work as an insurance product, or is its purpose to provide people care when they get sick? 

Not the latter.  That's the purpose of hospitals, and doctors and other health care professionals.

[Jacob]

Not the latter.  That's the purpose of hospitals, and doctors and other health care professionals.

Very droll.

Alright then... how about this: what is the purpose of health insurance? To function as an insurance product or to provide access to hospitals, doctors and other health care professionals for those who need it?

[dps]

Not the latter.  That's the purpose of hospitals, and doctors and other health care professionals.

Very droll.

Alright then... How about this: what is the purpose of health insurance? To function as an insurance product or to provide access to hospitals, doctors and other health care professionals for those who need it?

From the perspective of the insurance company, the former. 

[Martinus]

It's funny how neopagans like dps can call themselves christian.

[DGuller]

From the perspective of the insurance company, the former.

How about from the perspective of society?

[dps]

From the perspective of the insurance company, the former.

How about from the perspective of society?

Well, most people I know think that health insurance exists for the same purpose all other types of insurance exists--to enable insurance companies to rip off their customers.


Ok, more serious answer--obviously, from society's POV, they exist to help people pay for health care. 

I don't really see the point of this line of discussion, though.  Obviously, if you're going to have health care insurance provided by businesses, you have to let them make a profit.  Otherwise, they go out of business (d'oh).  And if you want health insurance provided by the government, you still have to have some brake on costs, or otherwise it becomes prohibitively expensive, even for the government.

[Razgovory]

It's funny how neopagans like dps can call themselves christian.

What are you on about now?

[Razgovory]

From the perspective of the insurance company, the former.

How about from the perspective of society?

I think all companies exist for the same reason: to make a profit.  One of the reasons I've always found the slogan "run government like a business", so absurd.  If government was a business it'd just raise your taxes and cut all spending.

[DGuller]

I don't really see the point of this line of discussion, though.

That seems like the crux of the matter, though, so I'm not sure why you don't see a point in this line of discussion.  Insurance is often evaluated from the point of view of societal benefit, so you have to ask yourself what benefit it is to society to have a healthcare system that can leave people in the most dire need of it locked out of it altogether. 

If you don't mind a system where certain people are locked out, then a system of private health insurance where health insurers have a right to screen out applicants might work for you.  However, if you find such a concept barbaric, as most civilized countries do, then some other system needs to be utilized.  Mandating that insurers give every applicant a coverage in exchange for mandating that everyone applies for a coverage is one such system.  It's not the best system for the job, but given political realities, that's the best we can get.

[Ed Anger]

It's funny how neopagans like dps can call themselves christian.

What are you on about now?

I'd assume he is on some cock.

[dps]

I don't really see the point of this line of discussion, though.

That seems like the crux of the matter, though, so I'm not sure why you don't see a point in this line of discussion.  Insurance is often evaluated from the point of view of societal benefit, so you have to ask yourself what benefit it is to society to have a healthcare system that can leave people in the most dire need of it locked out of it altogether. 

If you don't mind a system where certain people are locked out, then a system of private health insurance where health insurers have a right to screen out applicants might work for you.  However, if you find such a concept barbaric, as most civilized countries do, then some other system needs to be utilized.  Mandating that insurers give every applicant a coverage in exchange for mandating that everyone applies for a coverage is one such system.  It's not the best system for the job, but given political realities, that's the best we can get.

Sure, a prohibition against excluding pre-existing conditions help people who have been turn down for health insurance because of their existing illnesses (or who are accepted but whose pre-existing conditions aren't covered), but nobody is addressing my point that a legal requirement that each individual purchase health insurance doesn't do anything to help people who haven't purchased health insurance because they can't afford it.  I've been trying to discuss the cost of purchasing health insurance, and everyone wants to respond to my point about cost by talking about pre-existing conditions.

[grumbler]

Sure, a prohibition against excluding pre-existing conditions help people who have been turn down for health insurance because of their existing illnesses (or who are accepted but whose pre-existing conditions aren't covered), but nobody is addressing my point that a legal requirement that each individual purchase health insurance doesn't do anything to help people who haven't purchased health insurance because they can't afford it.  I've been trying to discuss the cost of purchasing health insurance, and everyone wants to respond to my point about cost by talking about pre-existing conditions.

There are measures in the bill to help people get affordable health care, and those who really cannot afford health care get medicaid.

Cost is definitely an issue, though part of the theory is that having a larger participation will enable the insurance companies to reduce premiums.  That I will believe when I see it.

Still, the Bushcare system seems to be broken worse than Obamacare seems to be broken.  Bushcare really only works for the wealthy and some union members.

[DGuller]

I've been trying to discuss the cost of purchasing health insurance, and everyone wants to respond to my point about cost by talking about pre-existing conditions.

That's because the points are intricately connected.  Mandated coverage without individual mandate would result in policies having sky-high premiums.  Individual mandate, if set at an effective level, will prevent that.  The point is that individual mandate is actually making insurance more affordable than it would be without it, assuming that insurers won't be allowed to turn people away.  (More likely, lack of effective individual mandate would mean no policies being offered at all rather than them having sky high premiums, but the effect is the same,)