Health Care Debate

I am watching a debate on health care and want to give you two things to think about.  When thinking about then remember virtually all health care is arranged through your work and private instance (like when you buy auto insurance) is virtually non-existent).

Preexisting conditions - this show compared preexisting conditions to a rickety old house vs a new house.  The proper analogy is you loose your house and the insurance company for your new employer refuses to cover you because you have high blood pressure or are overweight.  This would be like the auto insurance companies only deciding that you cannot have coverage after having an accident, whether it was your fault or not.  Having more people in the insurance pool is the purpose of spreading the risk around.

Keeping kids on insurance until they are 26.   The reason for this is not to soak insurance companies, but rather to insure a group that is not in the job place.  Right now, these people get thrown of their parents policy at 21 and unless they are able to get student insurance, often work part time or minimum wage jobs were they cannot get insurance.  Both of my children are are under 26 but have found a way to be insured, but if they were unemployed then how would they get coverage?  This is not free, the parents have to have them on a family policy and and pay extra.  Since young people have lower claims for the most part this is where insurance companies may be making more money - money that can balance out the older population.

So think twice when you here people talking about health care reform and how some of these changes are detrimental the people they are trying to help.

BTW: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/14/business/14health.html?_r=1

ChrisZ