Changing health insurance after getting sick? - free market scenario

[presence]

Correct, yet it happens --- a lot.

but you have to ask yourself

WHY????


Answer:

because IF IT WAS AN INFECTION.... joe shmoe can't get antibiotics himself, his ONLY option is to go to "the accredited doctor" to get a "prescription" permit to treat himself. So the doctor is legally liable and can face a lawsuit for failure to diagnose and control the infection... so better safe than sued. Then joe shmoe who probably would not have taken an antibiotic on his own.... takes one because of the indoctrination to follow "doctors orders". He's being over medicated. "Insurance" MUST pay for it because "doctor said so".

The whole system is fucked because STATISM.

permit license accreditation permit permission regulation and lawsuits

'murica

 

[erowe1]

If it can happen in a government-run scenario, then it can happen in a free market scenario.

First of all, we should decline any demands that we come up with an explanation of how anything would work in a free market. Nobody can ever successfully do that. Whatever we come up with, the reality that will obtain in a free market is guaranteed to be much better, and much more complicated. The free market solution will surpass what any individual, or any think tank, or any bureaucracy, could plan. See Leonard Read's, "I, Pencil," for an explanation of this.

But if you want to toss something out there, just to show that it could happen, first recognize that within the free market, there would be a demand for health insurance that could be changed after getting sick. Given that, insurance providers would have incentive to meet this market demand. One way they might do this is by entering into contracts with one another that spell out terms under which customers of one could switch to another after getting sick, and then also spelling out terms with their customers in their contracts with them for how much more they have to pay in premiums in order to have that option available to them.

 

[farreri]

I still haven't gotten closer to the answers I was seeking.

 

[The Free Hornet]

I still haven't gotten closer to the answers I was seeking.

Stop wasting everybody's time. You don't get it because - by your own admission - you can't imagine what doesn't exist. The chokehold on medical services started with the IP clause of the constitution (authorizing patents via government force, not voluntary contracts). Things got worse with the AMA which exploited racism and useful idiots (the anti-abortion crowd) to gain a de facto monopoly on the supply of doctors.

Now you want a guarantee that [SICK BABY] won't cost [BIG BUCKS].

First, you've been told in plain English that a policy to do what you want is outlawed.

Second, were you able to buy that policy, you would do via paying a risk premium that not only includes the profits of the insurance company but their fancy marble floors too. So hopefully there is lots of demand for the insurance product you want or the overhead and lack of competition will lead you to [BIG BUCKS].

Third you have to undo the artificial monopolies that cause [BIG BUCKS] in the first place. Some might address a tradeoff between:

a) Do you want the existing tech out there at the lowest possible cost?
b) Do you want the tech out there to advance as rapidly as possible?
b-1) Is that accomplished by fewer artificial monopolies and trade restrictions?
b-2) Is that accomplished by a shitload of artificial monopolies and trade restrictions?

Anyway, it looks like you want some sort of guarantee that under liberty, "all your problems will seem so far away" (or however that Yesterday song goes ...).

I'm going to suggest quiet plainly that you're not cut out of this movement. That you lack something in your genetic makeup or intelligence that would let you understand that liberty is about the freedom to solve your problems not the guarantee that somebody else will solve them for you.

There are plenty of people out there perfectly happy to guarantee the health and safety of [SICK BABY]. It will cost you your liberty and everything you own, but you're not taking much advantage of those things so that is the route I advise. [Edit: It is likely to cost you your baby too but I believe he/she is better off without you so that is a consideration too.]


Edit : How the F U C K did S H I T L O A D turn into shitload? That is seriously not cool. I didn't ask for a fucking editor to change the meaning of my post*

* It appears to change in the display - not the editable copy of my post. Still not cool WTF is going on.

 

[oyarde]

I still haven't gotten closer to the answers I was seeking.

Try the LIFESKILLS thread .

 

[Danke]

Stop wasting everybody's time. You don't get it because - by your own admission - you can't imagine what doesn't exist. The chokehold on medical services started with the IP clause of the constitution (authorizing patents via government force, not voluntary contracts). Things got worse with the AMA which exploited racism and useful idiots (the anti-abortion crowd) to gain a de facto monopoly on the supply of doctors.

Now you want a guarantee that [SICK BABY] won't cost [BIG BUCKS].

First, you've been told in plain English that a policy to do what you want is outlawed.

Second, were you able to buy that policy, you would do via paying a risk premium that not only includes the profits of the insurance company but their fancy marble floors too. So hopefully there is lots of demand for the insurance product you want or the overhead and lack of competition will lead you to [BIG BUCKS].

Third you have to undo the artificial monopolies that cause [BIG BUCKS] in the first place. Some might address a tradeoff between:

a) Do you want the existing tech out there at the lowest possible cost?
b) Do you want the tech out there to advance as rapidly as possible?
b-1) Is that accomplished by fewer artificial monopolies and trade restrictions?
b-2) Is that accomplished by a shitload of artificial monopolies and trade restrictions?

Anyway, it looks like you want some sort of guarantee that under liberty, "all your problems will seem so far away" (or however that Yesterday song goes ...).

I'm going to suggest quiet plainly that you're not cut out of this movement. That you lack something in your genetic makeup or intelligence that would let you understand that liberty is about the freedom to solve your problems not the guarantee that somebody else will solve them for you.

There are plenty of people out there perfectly happy to guarantee the health and safety of [SICK BABY]. It will cost you your liberty and everything you own, but you're not taking much advantage of those things so that is the route I advise. [Edit: It is likely to cost you your baby too but I believe he/she is better off without you so that is a consideration too.]


Edit : How the F U C K did S H I T L O A D turn into shitload? That is seriously not cool. I didn't ask for a fucking editor to change the meaning of my post*

* It appears to change in the display - not the editable copy of my post. Still not cool WTF is going on.

New profanity feature. Go to your settings and turn it off.

 

[silverhandorder]

Right now it makes no sense to get the expensive policy. Because if u get sick you end up paying out as much as expensive policy costs and then deductible kicks in. The system is fucked. It's like a 2000$ tax on people who don't get sick. I would imagine in free market insurance would be at leat 2000$ cheaper annually.

 

[farreri]

Stop wasting everybody's time.

There's no forum rule that you must respond, so I'm not wasting anyone's time.

You don't get it because - by your own admission - you can't imagine what doesn't exist.

Yes, that's why I've been asking people to be a little bit more detailed and less vague.

The chokehold on medical services started with the IP clause of the constitution (authorizing patents via government force, not voluntary contracts).

I do not support special privileges called patents.

Things got worse with the AMA which exploited racism and useful idiots (the anti-abortion crowd) to gain a de facto monopoly on the supply of doctors.

I know about the AMA's anti-competitive practices.

Now you want a guarantee that [SICK BABY] won't cost [BIG BUCKS].

Nothing's a guarantee in life--except death & taxes. I'm trying to find out how the current health insurance system will change under a free market.

Anyway, it looks like you want some sort of guarantee that under liberty, "all your problems will seem so far away" (or however that Yesterday song goes ...).

No, I want to hear to plausible scenarios to get totally behind free market health care. It's hard for me to try to tell others to look into libertarianism when I don't know how free market health care would look like. How do expect people who don't understand the concept of a free market to all of a sudden trust it, especially when they think the crony capitalism we have now is the free market?

I'm going to suggest quiet plainly that you're not cut out of this movement. That you lack something in your genetic makeup or intelligence that would let you understand that liberty is about the freedom to solve your problems not the guarantee that somebody else will solve them for you.

Thanks for the insult, but I understand the concept of liberty. Maybe the real problem is some of you aren't cut out to explain how things will work.

There are plenty of people out there perfectly happy to guarantee the health and safety of [SICK BABY]. It will cost you your liberty and everything you own, but you're not taking much advantage of those things so that is the route I advise. [Edit: It is likely to cost you your baby too but I believe he/she is better off without you so that is a consideration too.]

You're not going to convince too many liberals with an apocalyptic statement like that.

 

[The Free Hornet]

There's no forum rule that you must respond, so I'm not wasting anyone's time.

I've read your postings on multiple threads. They are needlessly argumentative (I'm needfully argumentative) and your adherence to rules is irrelevant even if true. You duck direct questions just as you demand specifics that don't exist. [I can't tell you what a free market solution would look like - you've even dug up the links yourself to find the dramatically lower, inflation adjusted costs You insist that something's missing. I insist you are somehow mentally deficient in the field of liberty and - generally - a waste of time].

Yes, that's why I've been asking people to be a little bit more detailed and less vague.

I do not support special privileges called patents.

I know about the AMA's anti-competitive practices.

... I'm trying to find out how the current health insurance system will change under a free market.

The current system CANNOT exist under a free market. It doesn't change, it evaporates. Look at the underlying pillars which you claim to understand - trade restrictions, patents, AMA (labor freedom) and now even more coercive participation (Obamacare - although Medicare, Medicaid, Cobra and must-treat rules are all coercive participation with direct or indirect costs to us). Our craptastic system doesn't exist without those pillars.

How do expect people who don't understand the concept of a free market to all of a sudden trust it, especially when they think the crony capitalism we have now is the free market?

Simple answer: they don't. You have to grasp basic mathematics prior to Calculus (as a rule of thumb).

Maybe the real problem is some of you aren't cut out to explain how things will work.

Correct. You may also note my ID is NOT THE AMAZING KRESKIN.

How things might work is the best you can hope for. If you got a bug this far up your ass because you're such a great pontificater of liberty, then do the research yourself. I contend that you won't understand it as your brain hiccups between "current health insurance system" and the freedom to live your life as you see fit.

In fact, your very attachment to the word INSURANCE (in your posts and the thread title which you started) is an indication of a diseased mind. That's your mind, by the way. Insurance is one of those things you can better define once the odds are known. Like playing blackjack, 'insurance' - as a rule - is a sucker's bet. That doesn't mean you don't take it just that you are accepting a lower rate of return in exchange for minimizing a loss (or words to that affect). Something else you can expect with insurance is that the less well defined the benefits, the greater the risk to the provider. So if I ask Allstate to insure "CAR" and the only information I give them is "CAR" they have no clue as to whether it's a brand new Tesla or some 'beater with a heater'. Assuming I could get insurance, I'll pay a huge premium as they assume a closer-to-worst-case scenario. That's why lifetime caps existed in many policies (which is somewhat comical with perpetual inflation and arbitrary pricing, but there you go).

What you - and many of your brethren - demand is some type of "health care cost/provider assurance". Even when you accept that outcomes are guaranteed, you want some assurance of a cost limit or coercing somebody to treat you (my proof, you want the "current health insurance system" only ... 'changed').

Anyway, what you demand is a suckers bet because - thankfully - we are relatively healthy despite the self-inflicted maladies (like poor diet, addictions, sedentary lifestyle). Sanitation, antibiotics, some vaccines all contribute to better health. All the systems of the world likely rely on people typically have either no problems, few problems (end of life) or problems they have become accustomed to treating ("HELP! There's another person growing inside me!").

So you demand of us (literally) or 'the free market' or the government to provide some assurance that has evolved already thanks to technology and advances in medical knowledge. Nobody ought to be taking credit for that and acting as the gatekeepers between us and a healthy life. Yet you demand it (see title "health insurance after getting sick" - please start parallel thread "house insurance after burning down f*cking house").

You're not going to convince too many liberals with an apocalyptic statement like that.

I can't speak to the word 'liberals'. I can only say that with all of the false premises and irrational demands, there is no way in hell I can convince YOU.

 

[farreri]

Um, OK.

 

[erowe1]

No, I want to hear to plausible scenarios to get totally behind free market health care. It's hard for me to try to tell others to look into libertarianism when I don't know how free market health care would look like.

But that's precisely what you should do. You're right, you don't know what free market healthcare would look like. Nobody really does. It would be impossible to know. If anyone could know it, then we could centrally manage it. But we can't. All we know is that, whatever the best kind of healthcare we can think of would be, what would prevail in a free market would be much better than that.

If all along shopping malls had been government-run, and somebody proposed privatizing them, the opponents of that would demand that we explain how in the world they would work in a free market, and none of us would ever be able to say. But of course those government-run shopping malls would never be as good as privately run shopping malls.

And since we know that there would be ways for private companies to handle changing insurance after getting sick, what more do you need to know?

 

[farreri]

But that's precisely what you should do. You're right, you don't know what free market healthcare would look like. Nobody really does.

Just going to tell you now, saying that is not going to sway a lot of people on the left, or even on the right.

 

[erowe1]

Just going to tell you now, saying that is not going to sway a lot of people on the left, or even on the right.

You keep saying stuff like this. Are you interested in getting the right answer to you question? Or would you rather get wrong answers that sway people.

If people need help with this concept, as I mentioned above, recommend Leonard Read's, "I Pencil," to them. In order for them to accept and understand the importance of free markets, it's vital that you get them to see their demands that you explain how it will work as illegitimate and symptomatic of the weakness of their own ideology.

 

[farreri]

You keep saying stuff like this. Are you interested in getting the right answer to you question? Or would you rather get wrong answers that sway people.

I'm hoping for logical answers so people can see how a free market health system could potentially work. I understand the argument that if health insurance still exists, people will by policies only covering catastrophic care and pay more out of pocket for routine care, but I see a problem with that and why I started this thread. Some people here talk about prepaid plans, but haven't been very detailed about how that would exactly work.

 

[erowe1]

Some people here talk about prepaid plans, but haven't been very detailed about how that would exactly work.

That's because working out the details would be done by the parties involved, not predetermined by some central planner. As long as you can show that it could be done, I don't see any point in making up details on behalf of imaginary other people.

 

[farreri]

That's because working out the details would be done by the parties involved, not predetermined by some central planner. As long as you can show that it could be done, I don't see any point in making up details on behalf of imaginary other people.

I'm still wondering how these prepaid plans would actually work.

 

[farreri]

I'm still hoping someone gives me more insight to how things might work in a free market health care system. I'm still not sure about who the scenarios I mentioned would pan out.

 

[oyarde]

I'm still wondering how these prepaid plans would actually work.

I had one once in a different Country . I pd the Hospital somewhere around 150 to 250 a yr American lump sum for one yr.Any urgent care I go there , zero bill .

 

[angelatc]

I'm still hoping someone gives me more insight to how things might work in a free market health care system. I'm still not sure about who the scenarios I mentioned would pan out.

What difference does it make?

Some of us are ld enough to remember a time when insurance policies were pretty much just major medical. In a free market, we would be able to choose that.
Changing insurance after getting sick means you do not actually understand insurance. Let's talk about cars. Changing policies after you've already had an accident? Good luck.

 

[Zippyjuan]

What difference does it make?

Some of us are ld enough to remember a time when insurance policies were pretty much just major medical. In a free market, we would be able to choose that.
Changing insurance after getting sick means you do not actually understand insurance. Let's talk about cars. Changing policies after you've already had an accident? Good luck.

"Um, yeah. Hello. I just wrecked my car. Can you help pay to fix it?"
"Do you have a policy with us?"
"No, but I would like one!"

Until you get some payments in (give them money), they aren't going to give you money (pay your claims). Otherwise they would go out of business with people signing up only when they needed money and quit so they get benefits without paying for them.