What is the real cause of market failure in health insurance?
Answers: There are multiple issues. So I will approach each one separately and as neutrally as I can
The first issue is technology - With all of the cutting edge technological advances in medicine, people can get procedures done to fix problems that were not available in the past. These procedures cost a lot of money. Since the insurers have to pay the bill, the rates go up.
Pharmacueticals - These companies are continually coming up with advances in medicine. The problem is that most of the rest of the world cannot afford it. So the Pharmacuetical lobby invests a lot of money in Washinton to protect their profits. And, we as Americans pay much more than anyone else for their products. At the same time, the companies have a set amount of time before their products lose their patent, and where generic manufactures can compete against them. So what do they do, they change the shape, color or some inert ingredient and get the patent extended.
Society - We would rather treat symptoms than solve problems in our body. If fat, people would rather try a pill than to diet and exercise. So we are really just setting up ourselves for increasing our reliance on pharmacueticals. People also will run to the doctor for anything that bothers them, rather than just letting mother nature take her course...So we run to the doctor when we get the sniffles and the doctor writes up a prescription.
Doctors - They are so afraid of malpractice lawsuits that they will run an extraneuous amount of tests to rule out all other possibilities when diagnosing. These tests costs money...The other issue with doctors is that they get "incentives" from pharmacuetical companies to prescribe their products. My former doctor was nothing more than a drug dealer wearing a white jacket.
Medical Malpractice - The insurance premium the doctors are paying to cover malpractice are causing them to fight for more money from the health insurance carriers, driving up rates.
Lawyers - Need I say more.
In short, most of the problem is from greed and technology. The solutions are probably going to have to come from new legislation, tort reform, and education.
As an insurance broker, I may have a view of the world that is warped due to my job. In the past I have voted for Republicans to protect my income. This time, I have to vote for Barack Obama because I think his program just might work...
This question assumes that there is market failure. So far, Americans have a great deal more choice, flexibility and technology in their healthcare than most other countries. The record shows that smart, regulated markets have worked, at least until the recent spate of large rate increases.
Also, there is an assumption that we have a pure market for healthcare, when it is well documented that 45% of healthcare is currently government paid for, through a variety of public programs, mostly Medicare, Medicaid and Government employees/retires (including military).
Affordability is the main problem in the system. One reason rarely considered is cost transfer, from public payors who pay below cost, to private payors who pay above cost.
Those who question whether this exists fail to understand the 100 year history of hospital financing in the US, which has always relied on big transfers to make the books balance.
Basically, the US has an elaborate system of insuring and transfering real costs away from those actually consuming care. Every system that does that, always goes out of control cost wise, eventually.
Central planning using a pure govenment model might help this, but US citizens and particullarly Physicians have, every 10 years for last 100 years, always turned away from this model when push comes to shove. Most are not comfortable with any large institution managing all care, public or private.
We are probably headed for a continuation of our mixed model in the future, with more consumers picking up smaller medical costs and more government picking up hospital, surgical and pharmacutical costs, or at least regulating their pricing.
Health insurance and step children?
While I was innards out forms to change my husbands insurance coverage to include me and my oldest children I notice that they charge an extra $73.04 for 2 step-children. They are not considered regular dependants. I was the parent who carried insurance but when we moved to Wisconsin that changed and my ex-husband presently has to pass insurance as part of his child support court instruct. We have be here for just around 2 yrs and he has not have any insurance at all on the other hand. The child support that he is ordered to pay per week by a hair`s breadth covers the new insurance amount we will be paying departure only $3/week. They numeral his child support as a portion of all prerequisite bills which $3 will not cover anything. Can I take him rear to court and raise the child support to cover the extra insurance cost since he is ordered to pass the health insurance or is this only another thing that he can simply get away beside not paying?Answers: Yes, you can. So file away. You should be capable of get the $73.04 efficiently (but not the entire amount since you are also covered as the base loved ones member).
A site I've used for quotes in former times ...
http://www.safelinked.info/go.php?link=i...
Hope it all works out
If he be ordered to pay for insurance and have neglected to pay for over 2 years, I cannot see a referee NOT increasing your support to pick up the cost your husband is paying to insure your kids.
Take his lousy butt back to court.
Life insurance?
Is there any company contained by Canada that offers enthusiasm insurance without a suicide clause?!?i know most companies hold a 2-year clause..
even something less than 2 years would assist...
thanks..
Answers: No insurance company would want to differentiate itself within the market by offering a shorter suicide exclusion time. The technical residence is "adverse selection". If you had a shorter suicide exclusion interval you would attract a higher number of those who be contemplating suicide. Not something you want to do if you are a life insurance company.
No, it is sector of their underwriting process to net sure someone isn't planning to defraud the company out of money. A 2 year suicide clause is more or less an industry standard.
If you are asking this becuase suicide is something you are considering, I would strongly suggest seeking professional serve (both psyhcologically and finanically, if a money problem is one of the reasons you are considering this), as I'm sure this would not be the best picking.