Insurance firms serve a terribly necessary operate in our society. The aim of insurance is to share risk. Risk is the number of economic loss that somebody is willing to assume in an activity. For example, a bank wouldn't loan cash for the aim of buying a house, unless the house was protected against losses like fire, wind and different perils. That protection is provided by a House owner's policy.
A loan to get an automobile wouldn't be offered unless the automotive was insured for losses by theft or collision. That protection is provided by an auto policy.
Health insurance may be a policy that shares the chance of losses caused by injuries or illness. A share of the chance is assumed by the individual through a deductible or co-pay. In-other-words, if someone visits the doctor, that individual could be required to pay the first $fifteen or $20 of the visit. The health insurance company assumes the risk of the remainder of the cost.
That shared risk comes concerning through an exchange of 'thought'. Consideration is value. The insured pays a premium in exchange for the promise of the insurance company to pay bound prices related to the insured's health care. That brings us to the controversy surrounding the govt's efforts to institute what some call universal health care.
Irrespective of what facet of the argument you're on, in favor or against universal health care, one issue has been settled. President Obama stated publicly that it is impossible to insure the 'uninsured' without further costs. Thus, the concept that this can be a 'deficit neutral' policy has been debunked by the administration itself. Either taxes go up to obtain the program, or health care can have to be rationed to stay costs neutral, or bring them down.
In response to the general public out-cry concerning a government health care program, the administration has known as the insurance corporations villains. Once all, insurance corporations exclude preexisting conditions for some period of your time when an individual enrolls (but that's not forever the case with cluster policies), and insurance corporations are creating a 'profit'.
PreExsiting Conditions
Think concerning the concept of risk and preexisting conditions. An individual contains a home that has been broken by fire. Would a homeowner's insurance company currently write a policy that would cowl the repairs to home caused by the preexisting hearth? After all not! That's not shared risk, that is dangerous business.
A private includes a preexisting health condition, say diabetes. Purchasing a policy that might exclude the treatment for diabetes for a restricted amount of time (usually 2 years), currently ends up in a shared risk. The health insurance company can cover the person for alternative perils, and if that individual pays the premiums over time, that exclusion relating to the preexisting condition is then dropped.
Is it possible for the govt. to insure everybody in the United States and force insurance companies to supply policies without regard to preexisting conditions? It's possible, but not while not driving the price of health-care approach up. Once all, the money to pay the doctors and hospitals have to return from somewhere and President Obama stated that 'We are out of money'. Since the government does not earn money, its solely source of revenue is taxes.
Profit
Insurance corporations are being forged because the unhealthy guy since firms make a profit. That do you prefer, companies that are well run that make a profit, or a corporation like General Motors that needed billions of bucks of taxpayer cash to bail the company out? A profit is what allows firms to expand services and provide jobs. Corporations that fail to make a profit, go out-of-business.
The government not only fails to make a profit, as a well run business entity should, it runs at a deficit. The newest example is Cash for Clunkers. Not solely was taxpayer money used to subsidize auto sales, currently car dealers are complaining that the government isn't sending the checks for the Clunkers that were promised. It appears that many patrons will have lost their previous cars and currently face repossession of the new cars purchased since the cash for the program did not really exist.
This doesn't bode well for a government run health care system.
Tort Reform
Doctors and hospitals should practice defensive medicine. People can sue for anything. Tort lawyers use a 'shot-gun' approach when filing a malpractice lawsuit. All doctors, nurses, technicians and hospitals concerned in an exceedingly case are named as a defendant, whether that party had any actual responsibility for the claimed injury and damage.
We would like a loser pay system, that provides that anyone who brings a lawsuit and loses, is required to pay the other aspect's attorney fees and expenses. That would get rid of most frivolous lawsuits and convey the costs of health care down.
Huge Government Solution
Government should be required to measure within its means. It will not, and the government, not insurance firms, is that the villain during this scenario.
The founding fathers did not foresee a large, powerful centralized government. That's what was the war of independence against England was all about. The US Constitution delegated specific powers to the Federal Government, and it will not specify taking up any non-public sector industry.
Medicare and Medicaid are government health care programs on the verge of collapse. Even President Obama admits Medicare can't be sustained. No program can be sustained when it runs at a deficit and all government programs run at a deficit.
Universal Health Care can run at a deficit from day one and that's simply bad business.
Author Resource:
Riley Jones has been writing articles online for nearly 2 years now. Not only does this author specialize in Home Health Care, you can also check out his latest website about: