If you cannot be denied health insurance coverage when you get sick or injured, would you buy it now or just wait to write the "insurance" check when you need medical services?
I think the democrats didn't understand the question.
Oh wait. I can be denied under the current system...
@nicks51: You forgot to mention that the average Medicare recipient receives three times more in benefits than he/she pays into the system over a lifetime. Medicare is the greatest cost overrun for the taxpayer today. Great deal? Wow...just wow at your complete ignorance.
of course, the republicans would wait. No surprise there.
@section10 im not lying : buy then
this poll simply means: democrats are lying
Alabama, medicare runs an admin expense of just under 2%, for profit ins companies over 10% then factor in theid profits... Which is the better deal fir taxpayers?
@bgs7791: <sarcasm>yeah, 'cause the gov't is freaking awesome at everything they do. All these corporations just waste so much of our money that they stole from us to begin with. We should make it illegal to own any business and only let the gov't own all of them.</sarcasm>
Insurance companies need to go out of business. We need one national healthcare service. Insurance companies don't provide anything but an extra hurdle between you and your doctor.
@skeptisys: I seriously doubt anyone having anything to do with health insurance would have written a law requiring them to take any/every person, pre-existing condition or not AND cap what they are allowed to charge for premiums. "Hmmm, how do we put ourselves out of business... I know, Obamacare!"
Insurance companies profits have gone way up since obamacare. The law was written by the insurance lobbyists and would be the same if done by a republican president. Insurance rates continue to rise and we have less means to stop them.
If you are in a car wreck you cannot get coverage for something that happens before you sign your name.
Very very poorly written. As someone who processes a lot of insurance claims on a daily basis, the company is not going to pay for a claim if you didn't have active coverage on the date of service or may require prior authorization to pay.
And what about accident injuries? Car crashes? Good luck getting an insurance company to cover that.
Health insurance companies won't stick around to offer it if everyone exploits the system- and having had two expensive (~$100,000) operations for scoliosis on my on short notice, I know I wouldn't want to go through the hassle of trying to get insurance while also preparing for a 3-month recovery.
It isn't right to have the govt competing with private industry, especially when the govt can just add any costs and revenue shortfalls to the national debt. It's obvious that politicians have no concept of financial responsibility.
whenever companies are prohibited from denying or dropping coverage, they just raise the price until you self-deny.
This is only one of the crazy mandates that ensure Obamacare will be a disaster!
@bdrop, you're starting to get the picture, aren't you? Eliminating all pre-existing conditions exclusions is not economically feasible without a mandate, which is unconstitutional IMO.
Poorly worded question
...will take time to drive the private carriers out of the market. Then what?
@lizard, I'm pretty sure that's the goal of Obamacare. Obama has said many times single payer is his goal, it will just take time to get there. Meaning it
To all those who said that people would be wasting their money and should just buy coverage when they need it: how are the companies supposed to stay in business to provide you with coverage with no prior income?
@lizardo: which is, arguably, the ultimate goal of the bill. The ppl who wrote the bill could ultimately care less if the "individual mandate" is found unconstitutional at all. They win either way... insurance co's go out of business. Hence, the uproar from the ppl who don't like the HC bill.
@tony.. Which will ultimately drive insurance co out of business.
Your awesome man!!! I'm clicking ads all week
@lizardo this is what the new health care reform law will do - prevent insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions and place caps on premiums that can be charged
adverse selection...classic insurance dilemma...if you could buy insurance at any point without risk of being denied then the majority of people buying insurance would be those with illnesses therefore making the cost of insurance prohibitively expensive.
@frank Why would they need to go to the dr if nothing is wrong? Are you being sarcastic? If its just for a check up why cant they pay out of pocket? A drs visit is approx $150. Insurance is much more than that a month, visit or not.
Um, most women, 55% so far, would pay now. I guess periodic check-ups when "nothing's wrong" might be a good idea, remember everyone we're workin' with here.
@o'13.. Whats even more redic is the results of the pole! How silly that so many people would just blindly agree to throw their money in the garbage. Goes to show ya what we're workin with here..
Medicare for all. That is all. If anything to stop these stupid questions. Insurance companies will charge you somehow. That's part of their "profit motive"
@lizardo: you are correct. As is your answer. Who indeed would buy health insurance and spend hundreds of dollars every month if all the had to do was buy it right before they needed it?
Hey Tony. A good follow up question would b to c how many on soh have health insurance.
They'll find a way to deny u
This is a poorly written question. So am I to assume that an insurance company is going to insure me after I find out that I'm a diabetic who is going to require thousands of $ in supplies and charge me the same rate as the person who's been paying for insurance all along? Why would anyone pay b4??
Sorry, 40 yrs, not 30.
MrP, I find it comical and ironic that you misunderstood the question :)
The war on drugs is the simplest example. 30 yrs, billions of $, and nothing to show for it but a massive black mkt. The goal to reduce the amount of drugs by gov reg has simply not been effective. It had more neg impact than positive. Gov business regs are not so simple, but ultimately the same.
@jarhead & travn: agreed! And that is the $14 trillion dollar question. What is the appropriate (and minimal) amount of regulation required to protect the citizen (which is really, the only mandate, of the fed)?
TravN, I agree with everything you just wrote. I said free mkt is the BEST form of reg, not that it should be the ONLY. Waste is one of the few aspects of business I feel requires gov reg. The real question is how well does gov reg work?
..every company. We need regulation of businesses (insurance or otherwise) for the protection of all of us. Now if only we could agree on the degree of regulation.
@jarhead. I find fault in the idea that the free market provides all the regulation you need. In a perfect world, it would. Just as in a perfect world, communism would work. The problem is that companies hide their evil and market the good. It's impossible for all consumers to be fully educated on..
@Austrian, you're asking the wrong question.
Frank, how is agreeing not to steal more of people's money for programs that don't work or work less efficiently than the free market dumb? If someone signs a contract that they don't like, that's their fault.
What's so confusing? All other factors aside, would you buy health insurance now in case anything happens to you, or would you pay for your expenses if something happens to you?
This is one skewed poll question... How about you reword it
I nominate this poll for "Most Poorly Worded" award.
Skeptisys, you obviously live in the city! Your analogy is fallacious. I am not advocating no government, but a limited one. To your point, if you wish to live in a jurisdiction w a large socialist government, you may do so. Just don't try to turn the entire country into your big gov "utopia."