| Mendicate Bias said: Oh I definitely agree with you, the big health insurance companies love this new bill. I'm arguing from the standpoint of one very specific thing that was without a doubt broken before the reform. That being denial of coverage for individuals with pre-existing conditions. Also an extension of that, kicking people off insurance when their bills exceeded a certain limit. That was completely unjust, especially when many people are born with conditions they have no control over. But the bill as a whole is a major mess. What is your area of research? I'm in biotech myself. |
The problem with that is that the name of the game in insurance is assessing risk, and while I feel badly for anyone who has a pre existing condition that is no fault of his own, I don't think turning the entire concept of health insurance on its head was wise, nor is it a real solution even though it is politically popular. No one would seriously advocate homeowner's insurance to offer coverage for a house that is already on fire because it's unfair to discriminate against someone with a pre existing condition, but because of the emotional reaction that a medical condition evokes, we're willing to pretend that it's viable to do just that with people. Now that health insurance is just a giant, fucked up, for-profit welfare scheme, it's hard for me to see how fewer people are going to end up suffering as a result of this. Then again, I don't think the third party payer system works anyway, so maybe it's just a matter of going to hell sooner rather than later.
I work in pharmacology, mostly behavioral. I'm just a lowly lab tech, though.
