Fireball1244 wrote:
There are two parts to health reform: reform of access to make coverage universal, and reform of compensation and procedures to bring down costs. The former helps the latter, in that providing proper coverage should reduce the need for people to go to the ER for late, grossly expensive care for conditions that could have been addressed more cheaply earlier.
This is a myth. 25% of all health costs are incurred in the last year of life. No amount of alleged preventative maintenance can change that.
The larger the insurance pool, the better costs can be spread about. But it is, generally, the former issue, not the latter, that I'm most concerned with. The rich-man-gets-cured, poor-man-gets-buried system we have now is unjust and wrong, and a blight on our national character.
85% of people have health insurance. By bringing 'rich men' into it, you're distorting the issue. While I would love to see a national risk pool, I'd like to see an honest discussion and logical solution instead of an emotional one.
Do you think that my friend who got cancer at 18 should be left out of the medical system for his entire life, and left to die the next time he gets seriously ill?
Is it really your position that people with cancer and insurance don't get treated?
Or that people who pay their premiums every month without question should have their coverage pulled at the very moment they actually need it on some technicality that the company didn't even bother to look for until paying for care was suddenly required?
I don't think insurance fraud requires a total overhaul of the system.