Xequecal wrote:
Yes, but they still are subject to the government mandate that people with pre-existing conditions be accepted, one that presumably wouldn't exist under a free market health care system. And I'm not moving the goalposts. The whole thread I've been talking about a congenital defect that certainly would qualify as a pre-existing condition when someone goes to look for a job.
Dude.. think about what you're arguing carefully -
If someone had a congential defect that would kill them without $100,000/year treatments, and it couldn't be afforded without insurance, and insurance would treat congenital defects as "pre-existing conditions"...
How in the **** would the person with the congenital defect ever live long enough to look for a job?Not only that, but you A) haven't been all that clear you're talking about congenital defects
B) Using the extreme free-market approach for some people here as a strawman for private healthcare that is still reasonably regulated with your reference to the center-right; complete free-market is not center-right, and
C) it is a false dilemma to compare free-market to completely government-dominated anyhow.
Quote:
Quote:
You didn't show that private insurance can't cover it at all. You just provided a cost for an expensive but unspecified medical treatment and arbitrarily proclaimed the private/charity insurance can't over it.
Now you're just inventing problems that exist from birth, assigning an arbitrarily high cost to them, and claiming the only way to deal with them is taking money from others. I can think of no condition existing from birth that costs 6 figures a year to treat that does not ALSO have a very high probability of resulting in early death regardless of treatment.
Moreover, you still have not dealt with the fact that fatal problems that are hugely expensive are simply a tiny part of what's being demanded as necessary treatment.
I haven't "invented" anything. You should read all my posts in the thread. I posted about a real medical condition (congenital B-cell dysfunction) that really currently costs $11k/month to treat. The condition is not likely to be fatal if treated, but almost guaranteed to be fatal if not.
Yes you did. You started talking about some $100,000/year treatment, and Shuyung already showed that your assumptions were wrong regarding this immunodeficiency. In case you hadn't noticed, $100,000 =/= 12 * $11,000, so I don't see how you are doing anything other than talking about some new invented disease. You also pointed out that it could be permenantly fixed with a bone marrow transplant, but then tried to handwave that away by claiming, for no reason other than your mental image of insurance and how it would work. Indeed, one wonders how insurance companies would even survive if they denied anything and everything beyond the most trivial expenses, as you imply. Who would buy insurance? No one would buy it, and doctors and hospitals would begin circumventing the insurance companies and offering services at prices people could afford simply to avoid the time and expense of clawing every payment from the insurance company. People would simply not buy insurance, realizing that the product was a complete sham that really covered nothing but trifles.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
