Posted by bad_luck on 11/2/2012 11:37:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/2/2012 8:26:00 AM (view original):Let's start at the beginning:
So you were afraid to quote the entire post? Do you think I can't remember yesterday?
As I said, you can send people to the doctor all you want for preventative care. There is NO GUARANTEE that it will help simply because people are gonna do what they like to do. If that's eating a box of donuts while injecting heroin, a doctor saying "Hey, fatass, stop injecting heroin" will not reduce insurance costs on the back end.
Honestly, you seem to be someone with zero life experience but with a working knowledge of insurance numbers. Unfortunately, "healthcare for everyone" because you read that it's a good thing isn't correct. Obviously $100 is less than $800,000 but it just doesn't have real world application in this situation.
You stated that people going to the doctor for things like cuts that need stitches are the reason health care costs are going up.
I disagreed. Not only is the incidence of policy holders using of health coverage unnecessarily relatively low, but also, in the long run, encouraging people to take care of small problems before they become big problems lowers costs.
Then you spewed 3,281 pages of non sequiturs about personal responsibility and preventative care not guaranteeing that people will be healthier because you can't tell people what to do.
Once again you're conflating the issue. Person A is injured/sick/in pain and wants to go to the doctor to try to fix the problem. Person B eats donuts and does heroin. Which person is going to be the one that wants to go to the doctor when (god forbid) they might have been able to solve the problem at home?
Person A is who this discussion (which you started) is about. Not person B.
I've seen the actuarial tables on this stuff and sell group health (along with property and casualty lines) for a living. You run a trucking company and think work comp is comparable to health insurance in terms of incentives.
I realize I'm late to the party, but it just isn't accurate to act as though "insurance companies" would rather pay for preventive care than to wait for a bigger problem.
I DO understand that it makes sense to do so, and maybe some insurance companies think that way, but recently (like in the last 5 years or so), many are unwilling to do so.
My family has a history of colon cancer. Several of my father's cousins died young (fifties) from failing to catch it early enough. My father has had a few scares, but has been proactive. I decided when I turned 40 I needed to have an exam. The doctor told me plainly that blue cross didn't cover these types of procedures unless I had symptoms. He basically coached me to lie and say I had blood in my stool which was the reason for the visit. They found a small polip and removed it.
Just today a friend of mine was diagnosed with cancer in the jawbone area. There is a scan (can't remember the name) that is FAR more accurate and enlightening when dealing with this, that if done would allow the doctors to see any and all instances of the cancer. The insurance company would not cover it, and are making him have a CT scan instead. A CT scan is alright, but not nearly as effective in nipping the problem in the bud NOW.
These are just two personal examples of insurance NOT covering preventive care as you seem to think they should or would without reservation. I don't think forcing insurance companies to cover people they normally wouldn't will result in an about face on this issue.