Allow me to retort.
I'm sure a woman's insurance policy covers a litany of problems that only men have to deal with, so you and Rush can stop complaining now--both men and women have to cover things they don't need.
Really? REALLY? I thought it was just men who had to pay for women's only issues. I didn't think there were any medical conditions that were exclusive to men. I mean, women can get testicular cancer, right? And a swollen prostate? And torsion?
I'm talking about freedom for both men and women--I don't think women ought to be forced into plans that cover things they'll never have to worry about either.
Also, if you're a man with a family policy, then you would need to have pregnancy coverage, mammogram coverage etc. anyway because your policy would no doubt also be covering the female members of your family as well.
Wow. And I thought a family policy still only covered me.
State law isn't the only problem. State law or no state law, insurance companies would still fill your policies with a crap load of stuff you'll never use and charge you an arm and leg for it because it makes them a lot more money.
Well, because the insurance industry is so heavily regulated, we'll never know. But, I'll guarantee you this: if there was a population of people like me who wanted
a la carte policies and insurance companies were allowed to offer them, at least one insurance company would jump at the chance to grab up that market share. That's just economic reality . . . you know, that if people demand something, someone will supply it.
Insurance companies are like the cable and satellite companies. They refuse to sell services a la carte because they get way more money locking you into big, expensive packages than they ever would letting you pick and choose to buy only what you want.
Cable companies are granted virtual monopolies by law as far as provision of services through cables, so they don't have an incentive to offer services differently. Satellite television provides the first real competition they've ever had, and you're starting to see varieties in programming pop up--family tier, for instance.
There is no state law mandating what channels the cable companies have to sell in their packages, and yet the cable companies still only sell huge cable packages--they refuse to sell channels a la carte. Why do you think insurance companies, who have absolutely no competition until you reach age 65, would be any different than the cable companies if they were given free reign to offer whatever services they want at whatever price they want?
Again, they are granted virtual monopolies by law--so, government artificially stamps down the competitive environment.
It's no different with insurance companies. There are certain laws (excludability of premium payments through employers from taxation) at the various state and federal levels that also help ensure the dominance of a handful (or even one) insurance company per state.
So, you can't state they wouldn't offer a great deal of alternatives when the government prevents them from having any real competition (and thus any real incentive to change).
What incentive do they have to make their policies more desirable and more affordable? What incentive do they have to let you pick and choose what services you want to pay for?
See above.
Why would the insurance companies allow you to pay twenty bucks every two weeks for a couple of services, when they can get you to pay one hundred bucks every two weeks for a ton of services that they know you'll never be using? That's greed, plain and simple, and insurance companies are notorious for it.
First of all, health insurance companies have relatively thin profit margins in comparison to other industries. And, according to a recent AMA study, Medicare has a higher claim denial rate than any of the largest 9 or 10 insurers. So, yeah . . . it's the insurance companies that are greedy.
Second, I love the bolded part. Why? Because I have three basic tiers of health coverage offered at work through UnitedHealthcare. As a single male, I use the ultra-high-deductible plan combined with a health savings account (HSA). And do you want to know what my premium is? Yeah . . . it's 20 bucks ($19.33, exactly) every two weeks. And the top tier? It's just over $100, if memory serves me right. So, they're allowed to offer different plans, even if they all cover the same things. And they do. Why would they give me a choice? WHY??
These laws aren't passed so the government can limit your freedom of choice, no, they're passed so the health insurance companies can't limit your freedom of choice.
They're actually passed because lobbyists fork over a lot of money to a government that wants to have the final say over every aspect of our lives. And, after much money and self-righteous posturing, politicians mandate that insurance companies cover things they'll never have to worry about paying (but have to charge me for, anyway). But hey, whatever you want to believe, man.
Do you think it's a state law that makes health insurance companies refuse to cover services you paid good money for just because you're deemed not eligible for those services at that time by some corporate suit who's more worried about money than human life?
Actually, that would be contract law. It's rooted more in common law than any specific state law. And, refusal to fulfill your part of the contract immediately makes you in violation of the contract agreement and subject to being sued for damages. Insurance companies cannot by common law violate contract law without being subject to penalty. But, I wonder if you are as irate about Medicare's claim denials?
Do you think it's a state law that makes health insurance companies refuse to cover you if you have a preexisting condition?
Contract law. Do you think that people should be able to sign up for auto insurance the day after a crash and then force the insurance company to pay for the repairs?
Do you think it's state law that says health insurance companies are supposed to tell you what doctors you can and cannot go to?
Insurance companies can't force doctors to accept their beneficiaries.
Do you think it's state law that makes health insurance companies offer single person plans, and expensive family plans (two or more people), but no two person plans so married couples without kids don't have to spend hundreds of extra dollars each year on coverage for the "or more people" that the family policy always charges for?
Actually, the different plans (individual, family, parent/child, etc.) are mandated by state law. I could be mistaken on that, but I'm pretty sure that's the case.
Pfft....if you think the government is the only problem here, if you think the people in the government are the only ones who would want nothing more than to force you to do what they want, then clearly you're not paying enough attention. You're not seeing the forest through the trees.
I never said government was the only problem. Our "health care crisis" is a multi-faceted problem. But you know what's crazy? The government can "force" me to do things by rule of law. Corporations have no such ability, unless it's given to them . . . *drum roll* . . . by the
government.
And I'm paying enough attention to know that it's seeing the forest
for the trees. And if you think I don't pay attention to financial/governmental matters as it relates to health care and health insurance, then you clearly don't know what I do for a living.
Besides, I think that if you spend enough time in the Politics section, you'll find that we pay attention to a lot . . . even the libs.
Oh, and one more thing, how can you say the government is the big problem when you know damn well the insurance companies have so much influence in the government through lobbyists and campaign donations that they practically are the government?
If that's the case, then any health care reform that could potentially damage them will fail, right? Let's see what happens . . .
DKDetectiveBoo Boo Bubbles (he/him)
No back talk....
