cadenas
Posts: 517
Joined: 11/27/2004 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou quote:
ORIGINAL: cadenas quote:
ORIGINAL: eyesopened quote:
ORIGINAL: Brain There is a loophole in the Senate health-care bill, as currently written the health-care bill allows insurance companies to set limits. So if you reach your limit then you end up having to pay a lot of money. You simply cannot have limitless insurance. There isn't an insurance company in the world who could have so much cash as to pay all claims for all people regardless of the cost. There has to be limits. Your homeowner's, auto, life, flood, hurricane, travel, luggage, and Best Buy Extended Warranty all have limits. Hell, even Golden Corral has limits...all-you-can-eat-ends when the restaurant closes. Actually, insurances can very well be limitless, and unlimited insurances are generally not even much more expensive than insurances with a limit. That works because extremely high claims are very unusual with most types of insurances, so it doesn't cost them much more. Compare the cost of a $30k auto insurance, a $100k auto insurance and an unlimited auto insurance. They are usually within a few bucks of each other. Some insurances have limits for different reasons. Homeowner's insurances have limits to get people with expensive homes to pay higher premiums for the same coverage. That is why homeowner's insurances prorate even smaller claims if you are underinsured. For instance, if you have a $400k house and insure it for only $200k, the insurance is only going to pay 50% on your claim, even when the claim is small. With health insurance, the reason for limits is to be able to kick out insured patients. Plain and simple. If it was the case that unlimited health insurance would only cost an insignificant amount more on a group basis, why would they kick them out. They wouldn't, and I'll tell you. Unfortunately, it does cost significantly more, I posted a link up here a while back by the government, stating 50% of health care costs were due to like 5 percent(I think that was the correct percent, it's close to that, I'm sure) of the insured. Oh, I believe that, but that number actually is not all that revealing here. For one, it probably includes Medicare patients (I have seen similar numbers to yours, but I think it was across the whole population, not just the privately insured). For another, even those 50% would mostly be below the cap. For example: assume you have 1000 insured. Taking your numbers: 950 insured would incur, say, an average of $1000 each = total $950k 50 insured would incur, based on your numbers, an average $19,000 each = total $950k So your number is just plain not relevant for any kind of cap or limit. On the other hand, an organ transplant - probably the most likely type of treatment where you can reach a lifetime cap - is a very good predictor for needing ongoing medical treatment. And that's why insurance companies want to kick out such patients, even if they did pay for the initial expensive treatment. That's the purpose of the lifetime caps.
|