Although health insurance is different than liability or property insurance, health insurance, like other insurance, is meant to pool risk.

The idea is almost like a savings account where you put money in the bank for a rainy/sick/injured day. Except that you put money in premiums, the health insurance company promises to pay if you need it for covered risks, and there is a balancing act on both parts; you know you will never get your premiums back even if you never submit a claim (unlike a savings account) the money is gone forever. But you also believe this is an acceptable risk because the health insurance company agrees to pay more than you could afford for a catastrophic event.
On the other end of this bargain, the insurance company realizes that of all the people they insure, there is a certain risk that they will have to pay some claims but that is an acceptable risk based on all the actuarial studies they've conducted - (they figure they'll still make a profit over all).

But this system was based on a couple of really important things:

Losses are unexpected. If they weren't, the savings account would be a perfect solution AND you'd get your money back if it turned out you didn't need it after all.

Losses are catastrophic. If they weren't you should have enough money in your checking account or under your mattress to cover it. It would be stupid to pay non-refundable premiums in advance for something so small and common.

There is nothing unexpected (or shouldn't be), in a pregnancy.
There is nothing catastrohpic about a sinus infection.
Preventive care is not even a loss and yet it is still covered in most health insurance plans.

How did this happen? Obviously, we, as a society, have made some decisions over the years about what we think should be a benefit of participating in our society. Much of these changes are mandated by law.

Now comes the question of risky behavior. In the traditional sense, if an insurance company new that you were inclined toward risky behavior they were well within there rights to adjust your premiums accordingly, carve out a particular risk from your policy (such as lung cancer for smokers), or deny coverage altogether.

Indeed, there are specific terms in the industry used to define "hazards" such as:
Moral hazard- an insureds intentional immoral and/or illegal behavior with intent to benefit from the coverage.

Morale hazard- the insured just really doesn't care because they know they'r covered.

It's time to make the decision whether or not health care should be national. It is unfair and impractical to mandate profits for a business and that is exactly where we're headed.

Should health care be available and accessible to all citizens as a social necessity or is health care a commodity in our capitalistic society?

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn

IMHO, the true measure of a society is how well its poorest live. One measure of this that I would use is the healthcare that they receive. As it stands currently, most of those on the bottom rungs of the socioeconomic ladder receive emergency care only, from overburdened emergency rooms. This model will keep some of them alive, but costs much more than providing basic preventative care would.

Unless we as a culture are willing to say that the uninsured can rot in the streets without any kind of care (which would result in drastic changes to the EMS system across the country), we will have to start providing preventative care for those who cannot insure themselves. The cost reductions alone, I would think, would make this worth it.


Oh, and BTW, note that the following are not mentioned in this thread:

gays
homosexuality
god
Islam
terrorism
Bush
Clinton
Obama
conservative
liberal

Kindly keep this one on topic?

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Doesn't this end up being socialism? I've nothing against a little socialism but on the whole, I still feel like the result is the least common denominator which is a disincentive. I'm trying to figure out, in my own mind, if health care is a piece of socialism I could swallow.
And this is why I'm pondering the subject to begin with.

I think, that we have already taken steps toward national health care - maybe as far back as the great depression era. To me, the only thing keeping the system privatized is our fear of socialism. But what we fail to realize is that we shot our capitalistic foot. The system is corrupt.

Can we continue with this hybrid?

I listened to the State of the Union speech last night just long enough to hear GWB address this specifically, (then gave in to sleep ), and noticed that Nancy Pelosi did not applaud at his solutions. I gather she wants national health care. ??

In his solutions, I couldn't help but notice this huge glaring problem - we will still have a substantial amount of uninsured, particularly considering he'd already discussed the Mexican immigration work visa program. The poorest will still not be able to afford healthcare!

He'd like to give us a tax break to buy health care. If you don't pay taxes because you don't make enough money, a break isn't going to help you buy insurance.

??

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn

Yeah, I guess it is socialist in nature. But, given my experience, I don't see another solution. We seem to be approaching a state of critical mass (pardon the cliche), and we have some very hard decisions to make.

Personally, I think that a mix of some socialist policies with responsible capitalism is an ideal mix. Some things just work better if profit isn't the main motive.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

What SHOULD be the main motivator in a nationalized healthcare system?

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn

To provide the best care to the citizenry with a reasonable amount of efficiency.



I know I'm going to get nailed on this one, but I've got to get started on my Japanese homework.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears