86_regal wrote: ↑
Thu Oct 25, 2018 5:26 pm
I'm not seeing anything you've stated bear resemblance to a response to the questions I asked or the points I made.
Only healthy people should pay for and receive health care? I certainly agree that if "healthy" people pay for care, they should receive care. In the interest of applying the SAME rules to EVERYONE, ALL PEOPLE sick, healthy, small, large, tall, short, fat, rich, poor, etc. should receive health care when they pay for it.
Seems to me you're conflating health CARE and health INSURANCE coverage, they're not the same thing. Vehicle repairs or "auto care" such as changing oil, brakes and wiper blades, paid for entirely by YOU, is NOT the same as "auto insurance" which covers costs associated with auto accidents such as vehicle collision repairs and personal medical care in the event of injury, the cost of such coverage paid for by YOU to pay for the aforementioned costs, are paid by the insurance provider.
With that out of the way. Health insurance plan coverage terms are pre-defined. If an insurance company reneged on they're contractual obligations, they'd be facing a hell of a PR shitstorm which would not serve their future profits well. In fact, there are many cases in which Insurance Companies have covered high cost treatments despite there being no obligation just to prevent such bad press.
In terms of INSURANCE coverage of pre-existing conditions is a contradiction in terms. Again I ask, would it be a wise financial decision for a Home insurance company to cover the costs of homes that have already burned down? NO
I suppose theoretically an insurance company could provide coverage for virtually ANYTHING, I'm confident many wouldn't like the costs of such plans.
Sure, there's unscrupulous actors in the health insurance industry hell bent on plundering their clients to increase profits as there are in virtually all market sectors. How long will these insurance companies remain in business if they build a reputation for such conduct; not long.
Yes, health insurance is a gamble. The applicable catch 22 axiom of insurance is lamenting having to pay for it to have it when you don't need it and lamenting that you hadn't paid for it when you do need it.
As I've stated in the past in other contexts, prices are signals representing the costs and profits associated to produce a product of good, in large part due to the REAL WORLD effects of the scarcity of finite resources. There are no benefits without costs, NOTHING is free. So to answer your question (that I've already answered, rooted in the constraints of the REAL WORLD) IF you contract a disease that CAN be treated but at a LEGITIMATE cost $100K and you don't have or cannot get $100K, then YES, you are going to die. To influence our government officials through lobbying, PAC contributions, funding of special interest groups and the disparagment and mischaracterization of those in opposition to Universal Health Care to assure YOUR Health Care costs are covered at the FORCEFULLY EXTRACTED expense of everyone else NOT in need of it is no less ethically egregious and, IN PRINCIPLE, no different than the litany of corporate tax breaks, subsidies and special legal protections you justifiably bemoan.
Despite the serious ethical concerns of Socialization, the efficacy of such schemes is equally troubling.
The appeal of Socializing health care or Socialism in general, is the perceived benefit of diverting ones own individual costs (such as YOU Rebel, a person having reached retirement age, with little concern for having to fund this program yourself) onto everyone else, completely ignorant of the irrefutable law of scarcity leading many to indulgance and exploitation of those benefits for having been "insulated" from those costs INVARIABLY resulting in bankruptcy
Which I must add, doesn't sound very "Socialist" to me...