Horse Poop or Fertilizer

What if the insurance industry profited most when it did the most to enhance effectiveness, efficiency and caring even while absorbing the cost of covering the entire population (pure community-rating)--akin to universal healthcare?

raw

With "the story"--Democrats consider dropping insurance ban on pre-existing conditions--we learn that kids under 19 years of age won't be denied coverage for preexisting conditions to which a blogger interjects: 'that's because everyone over 19 will be denied coverage.'

January 25, 20102:04:30 PM EST, Fredrick H (a triple doctor) comments:

This bill is such a pile of crap already, but proponents kept pointing to the ban on pre-existing conditions as a reason to pass it anyway.

Now, in another brilliant move, terrified Dems are considering dropping even that!

They just want to pass ANYTHING, whether it helps patients or not, just so long as it doesn't make them look like the losers they have become.

"Incremental change" is one thing - passing a worthless bill just so you can dust off your hands and go on to something else, only makes a dire situation worse and longer lasting.

This is not only a repudiation of an express campaign promise. It is an Outrage!"

On Jan 26, 2010 2:40 PM, a national HMO officer (Deep Throat) quips:

The pre-existing condition ban is actually quite complicated. It requires a mandate to enroll younger, healthier persons. Otherwise it will make the insurance prohibitively expensive. This will now require bipartisan cooperation, and this is in short supply now.

January 26, 2010 4:52:08 PM EST, Dr. Jeff Kaplan wrote:

Yes, "It requires a mandate to enroll younger, healthier persons" but isn't that because you need to shield the insurance company from extraordinary loses? (Note: I did not say to maximize profits.)

January 26, 2010 4:59:52 PM EST, Deep Throat wrote:

I can assure you that if policies were sold now without excluding pre-existing conditions it would require premiums that would be truly prohibitive just to avoid actual loss on the business (forget profit). Younger, healthier persons would (and do now) avoid purchasing insurance - and for small group and individual we would have only higher risk. The cost of such a policy would more than triple overnight even without any margin. If mandated to offer, the product would lose enough to bankrupt all but the largest insurance companies. Even a large one would need to charge more to non-rated customers (large national accounts - and most of these are self funded anyhow) - making them uncompetitive for such customers.

What if the insurance industry profited most when it did the most to enhance effectiveness, efficiency and caring even while absorbing the cost of covering the entire population (pure community-rating)--akin to universal healthcare?