|
Below, you'll find extensive information on leading
highmark blue cross blue shield articles and products to help you on your way
to success.
The Immorality Of Guarantee Issue Health Insurance
By Rex Ryan, Fri Dec 9th
While there are genuine debates about whether privatized healthinsurance or nationalized policies make moresense, there can be little doubt that guarantee issue policiesrepresent the most immoral type of hybrid between the two. Theargument that everyone should be covered by isan argument for a nationalized health care policy. By contrast,believers in privatized argue that a privatesystem yields more efficient pricing and cost controls in thehealth care field. But with guarantee issue health insurancepolicies, an immoral situation is created that undermines thebenefits of a privatized system by poorly and immorallyimplementing some of the edicts of a nationalized system. Canada has a nationalized health care policy that many in theU.S. wish to emulate. While the idea of promising health carebenefits to all citizens is appealing, there are downsides. Forexample, many in Canada are forced into long waiting lines toreceive health care treatment. In fact, the Canadian courts justruled that many laws which barred citizens from seekingalternative options were unconstitutional. Ifthe health care system in Canada were capable of serving allcitizens in a timely manner, there would be no need to seekalternate routes. The Canadian courts were correct to view lawslimiting how people can spend their own money for their ownhealth benefits as inconsistent with their fundamental freedoms.But barring those attempts by legislators to enforce a monopolyon nationalized health insurance, the premise of taxpayerssupporting a nationalized health care system makes sense from anethical point of view. In such a system all taxpayers aresubject to the same benefits and burdens with respect to theirexisting tax structures. Similarly, a privatized system like that inplace in the United States makes sense from an ethicalstandpoint. While it can lead to tragedies where uninsuredpeople contract illnesses and cannot pay for medical treatment,it
treats people in a fundamentally fair manner. Everyone isfree to make their own decisions, and pay or suffer thepotential consequences. Those who wish to spend money toguarantee funds are available in case of medical emergencies arefree to do so, and at a price that falls within theirstatistical risks.
But guarantee issue laws for companies arefundamentally unfair. They punish those who are willing to payfor insurance by saddling them with costs far beyond what theyshould owe statistically, or what they should owe in anationalized system. rates in guarantee issuestates like New York and New Jersey are around 3 to 4 times whatthey are in other states. Is it fair for a consumer in NewJersey to pay three times as much for the same health insuranceas they would in another state? Of course it isn’t. Theseconsumers have been unfairly placed into a statistical pool thatisn’t representative of their health care needs, and forced topay far more for than their situation dictates.And they are forced into this situation precisely becauselawmakers have chosen a terrible hybrid model that removes anypretense of fairness in pricing that exist in the more naturalnationalized and privatized models. As more and more people in the guarantee issue states becomeunable to afford health insurance, those states will be forcedto answer for the fact that their policies have made themleaders in the numbers of uninsured. A new law called the HealthCare Choice Act is being proposed to allow residents of onestate to purchase from another. Whilelegislators in guarantee issue states will oppose such laws,they’ll have a hard time pretending they’re doing so on behalfof their constituents who are actually paying for healthinsurance. About the author:Rex Ryan maintains the website: http://www.buyinsurancecheap.info
|
