Any health insurance gurus out there?

[Scorcher]

The COBRA laws could vary by state I think. Looking at some COBRA forms now. Employers are required to provide written notice of continuation rights at the time of a qualified event. You have 60 days from the dated of the qualified event or the date coverage ended due to the event, whichever is later, to complete and return the form.

 

So if you left employment in the middle of the month and coverage ended at the end of the month, 60 days from the end of the month to get the papers filled out. You could also pick and choose which person, perhaps only the pregnant wife, to continue on with the coverage.

 

 

This! Check on Cobra right away. If she had a decent HR person he/she might be able to help. Also you need to get good coverage so your baby will be covered right away. Do you have insurance where you work? I was in this situation and was very lucky. She had a waiting period before being eligible for insurance at work. She got pregnant the month of her eligibility. We paid cash for an initial doctor's visit and then went to a different doctor once her insurance came through. The first claim was not filed until her coverage started, and her insurance covered her pregnancy. To say that we were very lucky is an understatement.

[caddyman]

Our system is so stupid. Good luck Seahawk. I've got no experience with this area, but hopefully something will work out. I have heard of a lot of people without insurance paying a very small portion of the actual "bill" that a hospital sends you (most of the numbers are inflated to ridiculous levels that nobody actually pays). I've also heard people talk about paying the bill before they left the hospital and getting a better discount. Good luck and congrats on the kiddo.

 

Please tell me how in this case our system is stupid. His wife quite her job with coverage and he was not in a rush to get new coverage. Now when he knows he needs it, he wants coverage. He is a guaranteed loss for any insurer for a number of years based on what he will pay vs. what they will cover if he got the coverage now. This is one of the very scenarios that many people said would kill obamercare if it went into effect full force. Don't carry insurance until you need it. There are a lot of people that choose not to get coverage. You hear about the 45 million uninsured all the time. The number of people that can't get insurance is not anywhere near that. When I was in my twenties, the last thing I wanted to spend money on was health ins. premiums. There are a lot of people that feel that way. Then something happens and they want coverage. The OP does not seem like one of those people though. I think he knows he kind of screwed up. He definitely got the COBRA notices and I am sure he ignored them because the premiums were too steep. I still don't see where any of this is the fault of our system.

[matt770]

The gov't should be confiscating at least 70% of our income to ensure all Americans are covered womb to tomb, even the ones who don't work and lay around all day killing themselves with Big Macs and 64 oz. Cokes.

[wiegie]

Please tell me how in this case our system is stupid. His wife quite her job with coverage and he was not in a rush to get new coverage. Now when he knows he needs it, he wants coverage. He is a guaranteed loss for any insurer for a number of years based on what he will pay vs. what they will cover if he got the coverage now. This is one of the very scenarios that many people said would kill obamercare if it went into effect full force. Don't carry insurance until you need it. There are a lot of people that choose not to get coverage. You hear about the 45 million uninsured all the time. The number of people that can't get insurance is not anywhere near that. When I was in my twenties, the last thing I wanted to spend money on was health ins. premiums. There are a lot of people that feel that way. Then something happens and they want coverage. The OP does not seem like one of those people though. I think he knows he kind of screwed up. He definitely got the COBRA notices and I am sure he ignored them because the premiums were too steep. I still don't see where any of this is the fault of our system.

 

Why were the premiums too steep? Because insurance companies know that there is a problem of adverse selection in that the people most likely to buy insurance are those who are the most likely to have high health costs--hence they adjust premiums upward. How could we fix this problem as well as the problem of people choosing not to buy coverage? Easy enough: mandate that everyone buys insurance. I'm guessing that's not the answer you were looking for, but it is a fairly decent answer (and it's what the Heritage Foundation was arguing for two decades ago as well as being what Romney did in Massachussetts).

 

[Square]

Please tell me how in this case our system is stupid.

Can you name another industrialized nation that a person that gets pregnant in the middle of switching jobs is now facing thousands and thousands of dollars just to have a baby? They are unable to just apply and pay for insurance (even at a very high premium). I guess stupid is the only way I can describe that portion of our system. People should be able to live, get sick, have accidents, get preggo do whatever and still be able to get insurance coverage. As far as Weigie's solution, I think it's a good idea. It's basic game theory that the best way to make it work is to make everyone 100% involved or else people will try to cheat the system (like the people who clog up the ERs without insurance do currently since they know they'll still be treated).

[MrTed46]

Can you name another industrialized nation that a person that gets pregnant in the middle of switching jobs is now facing thousands and thousands of dollars just to have a baby? They are unable to just apply and pay for insurance (even at a very high premium). I guess stupid is the only way I can describe that portion of our system. People should be able to live, get sick, have accidents, get preggo do whatever and still be able to get insurance coverage. As far as Weigie's solution, I think it's a good idea. It's basic game theory that the best way to make it work is to make everyone 100% involved or else people will try to cheat the system (like the people who clog up the ERs without insurance do currently since they know they'll still be treated).

 

 

I'm not following you. The OP had a chance to apply for COBRA (by law) at a high permium but for whatever reason decided against it. Now that insurance is needed, the OP is looking for way to get it. What you are suggesting is that the system is broken because he can't get health insurance even at high premiums, but that does not make sense to me. It's equivalent to not insure your car for theft, then when it is stolen you call your insurance company to add theft so you can claim it stolen.

 

If you're going to compare country to country, the list will have to be greater than just health care. No 2 countries are the same.

 

I am not trying to post anything negative to the OP here, I just find this post confusing. I don't blame the system in this type of scenario.

[matt770]

I think the biggest obstacle to socialized medicine is our hughmongous dependent class. In the nations where it works, most people take pride in working and pay into the system, and are happy to do so. I don't think any other country has anything close to our percentage of lazy people, cheats, and illegal immigrants who leech off the system. People like me who pay taxes know damn well we'd be paying twice for health care -- once for me, once for some anchor baby or welfare queen.

[Big John]

Does yer wife look Mexican?

 

 

Filipino

[MikesVikes]

That is why most group dental plans have a waiting period for benefits if you don't get in during the open enrollment period when you first start employment. Otherwise people would just start and stop the insurance benefit when they need it.

[MikesVikes]

What if she lost her job? Would you then qualify for benefits?

 

 

If she decided to keep the insurance and continue to pay the premium, yes.

http://www.ppspublis...032707txtb.html

Edited June 14, 2012 by MikesVikes

[MikesVikes]

This happened to me with our first pregnancy. (I quit my job with the county and returned to a previous employer. I left him for more money to begin with and then he offered me more money to return about a year later.) I did continue to stay on the county's health plan when I quit there. Then I got married and about a year later we had our daughter. The period where we could continue to keep the insurance ended before our daughter was born. New insurance wouldn't cover any pre-natal or delivery. BUT if there were any complications during labor that came up, that would've been covered. After that fiasco, I got the best individual Blue Cross insurance they had at the time called Aware Gold. Then of course number two came along and he was born about a day before the new plan would cover it.

[delusions of grandeur]

Why were the premiums too steep? Because insurance companies know that there is a problem of adverse selection in that the people most likely to buy insurance are those who are the most likely to have high health costs--hence they adjust premiums upward. How could we fix this problem as well as the problem of people choosing not to buy coverage? Easy enough: mandate that everyone buys insurance. I'm guessing that's not the answer you were looking for, but it is a fairly decent answer (and it's what the Heritage Foundation was arguing for two decades ago as well as being what Romney did in Massachussetts).

 

 

1. To assume that "that the people most likely to buy insurance are those who are the most likely to have high health costs", really misinterprets the point of insurance in the first place, and in fact this thread shows why allowing pre-existing conditions to be covered would stand to bankrupt them... As we see here, there are plenty who will not get coverage until they need it. Thus you have people wanting to claim the benefits that they've never paid into. Insurance is in place for the unexpected, not to get something for nothing when you decide you need it.

 

2. That might assume that everyone should have insurance then, but what does this do to prices and competition? Because if the govenrment and taxpayers are going to pay for it regardless, then why would they even bother to keep their costs down?

 

And is it insurance or an entitlement at that point?

[wiegie]

1. To assume that "that the people most likely to buy insurance are those who are the most likely to have high health costs", really misinterprets the point of insurance in the first place,

to not understand my point means that you don't understand how the insurance market works... there is no doubt that people who think they are more likely to need insurance will be the people who are most willing to purchase it (ceteris paribus)

 

and in fact this thread shows why allowing pre-existing conditions to be covered would stand to bankrupt them... As we see here, there are plenty who will not get coverage until they need it. Thus you have people wanting to claim the benefits that they've never paid into. Insurance is in place for the unexpected, not to get something for nothing when you decide you need it.

which is why you need to mandate that everyone has insurance at all times

 

2. That might assume that everyone should have insurance then, but what does this do to prices and competition? Because if the govenrment and taxpayers are going to pay for it regardless, then why would they even bother to keep their costs down?

competition among insurers will keep prices low.

[And is it insurance or an entitlement at that point?

 

it would be insurance for everyone who pays for it--it would be a type of welfare for those people who can't afford it (who the government then has to subsidize) Edited June 14, 2012 by wiegie

[delusions of grandeur]

to not understand my point means that you don't understand how the insurance market works... there is no doubt that people who think they are more likely to need insurance will be the people who are most willing to purchase it (ceteris paribus)

 

which is why you need to mandate that everyone has insurance at all times

 

competition among insurers will keep prices low.

it would be insurance for everyone who pays for it--it would be a type of welfare for those people who can't afford it (who the government then has to subsidize)

 

Really? Hasn't medicare just caused costs to rise, and the cost be transferred to the privately insured? If everyone has insurance, then doctors can charge more to buy fancy machines and insurance companies must charge more. I'd say it's a big part of the problem with why prices are as high as they are, why insurance is becoming a necessity. Is competition currently overcoming government healthcare? I'd say not....

 

Fruther, insurance is not an entitlement. Just because we've chosen not to let folks die on the streets does not mean that we should be further obligated to pay for their choices and healthcare, by guaranteeing that no matter what choices they make, they'll be fully covered. I pay more for insurance because I smoke, but I don't want anyone else to have to pay for my poor choices.

 

If you want further clarification, I'll ask my folks and brother, who all work in the insurance business, as it is possible that I don't have a full grasp on the issue, but for an economist, your view seems to be awfully simplistic.

[matt770]

it would be insurance for everyone who pays for it--it would be a type of welfare for those people who can't afford it (who the government then has to subsidize)

 

I'd be curious to know what percentage this group would represent. I'm guessing something like 25%. I'd also be curious to know how illegal immigrants would be managed. IMO, if you have a non-life-threatening illness, go the f back where you came from and see a doctor.

[Square]

I'm not following you.

Meh, my post may not of made much sense. I really don't put much effort into these kinds of threads because this place is usally fare more about arguing or playing "gotcha" than just trying to have a discussion (while not assuming everyone else is an idiot, evil, commie, or all the above). All that being said, I'll offer this as a bit of my perspective on the overall topic.

 

Compared to a place like Canada (or Japan, Australia, England, etc.) where there is a "Healthcare System", here in America we have a "Healthcare Industry". If somehow we managed to implement a unified, decent, and fair healthcare system, saving billions, the US Healthcare Industry will be losing those same billions in profit. I think the system is held in place because people are getting rich off of it and that has far more to do with anything (especially compared to the actual welfare of the citizenry).

 

Better Healthcare for less money, yet the current right opposes it for ideological reasons (I've voted GOP most of my life). Smart business people should support obvious efficiency improvements like eliminating middlemen. Yet many would vehemently oppose, against there own best interests, cutting out the healthcare middleman such as insurance. I think if we had a true healthcare system, a citizen in the greatest nation on earth would be able to be in between jobs get pregnant and not face possible financial ruin.

 

Think of how many people spend everything they have to fight a disease. It's great you're alive but I don't think you should face bankruptcy if you are unfortunate enough to have a medical disease. Or the people that never go see a doc for preventative care when they think something is wrong. How many posts have we had around here for people saying "I haven't been able to feel my arm for two days, what do you guys think I should do? I heard there is a vag doc in SD that might be able to help me for free online here".

 

So as far as I can see, the system works if you make good money and aren't sick very often (or you have great personal wealth). The average citizen would have an easier time in almost any other 1st world country. I realize some people are fat, some are lazy, some are illegal, but I think that is more perception than reality that they are the serious problem. Here is a link to an article about a Harvard study that showed

 

Harvard researchers say 62% of all personal bankruptcies in the U.S. in 2007 were caused by health problems—and 78% of those filers had insurance

http://articles.cnn....ce?_s=PM:HEALTH

 

So personally I would change big things to fix our system, but even little things like allowing insurance to be sold across state lines, or getting insurance completely out of the entanglement of employers would be drastic improvements. As I see it, an average person that gets sick is better off in another country than he is in America and I guess that kind of pisses me off (damn it, now that I've gotten all "detlefian" with this post, i gotta get back to work. I'd hate to get fired and then hit by a bus. I might lose my house).

[Big Country]

You do know that those countries pay a much higher tax rate to support those programs? So, while it *may* be cheaper, it will be more of a shift of paying insurance companies to paying higher taxes.

 

Additionally, having relatives in some of the countries you mention and also having received medical attention in England and Ireland, I would be interested in hearing just what it is you are defining as "Better Healthcare for less money".

 

All that said, I am not oppossed to some variant of a nationalized, or possible a state level variant of healthcare. The reason that individual plans cost so much is because they are based on a pool of 1. Group plans are significantly cheaper because of the larger pool of individuals paying in. I think a hybrid system of sorts for people that did not get insurance through work coulkd purchase insurance through a state level group plan from insurers, and, much like companies do, offer multiple levels of coverage (PPO, HMO, higher deductible, etc.) from multiple companies so they would compete with lower rates.

 

This would allow non-employer plan individuals to still get reasonable coverage (that they pay for themselves) at a competitive, more affordable rate, and keeps healthcare from being a government institution. I would like to think that access to affordable care would encourage more people to actually get coverage rather than go without so that it would not be somethng that was legally required, although, I do think that if you could tie having proof of medical coverage to getting something like a driver's license, it could sort of force the issue without making it truly mandated.

[matt770]

Meh, my post may not of made much sense. I really don't put much effort into these kinds of threads because this place is usally fare more about arguing or playing "gotcha" than just trying to have a discussion (while not assuming everyone else is an idiot, evil, commie, or all the above). All that being said, I'll offer this as a bit of my perspective on the overall topic.

 

Compared to a place like Canada (or Japan, Australia, England, etc.) where there is a "Healthcare System", here in America we have a "Healthcare Industry". If somehow we managed to implement a unified, decent, and fair healthcare system, saving billions, the US Healthcare Industry will be losing those same billions in profit. I think the system is held in place because people are getting rich off of it and that has far more to do with anything (especially compared to the actual welfare of the citizenry).

 

Better Healthcare for less money, yet the current right opposes it for ideological reasons (I've voted GOP most of my life). Smart business people should support obvious efficiency improvements like eliminating middlemen. Yet many would vehemently oppose, against there own best interests, cutting out the healthcare middleman such as insurance. I think if we had a true healthcare system, a citizen in the greatest nation on earth would be able to be in between jobs get pregnant and not face possible financial ruin.

 

Think of how many people spend everything they have to fight a disease. It's great you're alive but I don't think you should face bankruptcy if you are unfortunate enough to have a medical disease. Or the people that never go see a doc for preventative care when they think something is wrong. How many posts have we had around here for people saying "I haven't been able to feel my arm for two days, what do you guys think I should do? I heard there is a vag doc in SD that might be able to help me for free online here".

 

So as far as I can see, the system works if you make good money and aren't sick very often (or you have great personal wealth). The average citizen would have an easier time in almost any other 1st world country. I realize some people are fat, some are lazy, some are illegal, but I think that is more perception than reality that they are the serious problem. Here is a link to an article about a Harvard study that showed

 

[/b]

http://articles.cnn....ce?_s=PM:HEALTH

 

So personally I would change big things to fix our system, but even little things like allowing insurance to be sold across state lines, or getting insurance completely out of the entanglement of employers would be drastic improvements. As I see it, an average person that gets sick is better off in another country than he is in America and I guess that kind of pisses me off (damn it, now that I've gotten all "detlefian" with this post, i gotta get back to work. I'd hate to get fired and then hit by a bus. I might lose my house).

 

TLDR. Commie.

[Square]

You do know that those countries pay a much higher tax rate to support those programs? So, while it *may* be cheaper, it will be more of a shift of paying insurance companies to paying higher taxes.

Yes. I also know that those countries pay far less per capita than the US does for healthcare cost. So the idea that it "might" be cheaper seems a stretch to me. I'd submit that it has been "found" to be cheaper by almost every 1st world country.

 

Here is a link to some numbers because I know you're a number cruncher (I don't mean that in a bad way or anything). These #s are from 2007. http://www.infopleas...a/A0934556.html

 

 

Country - Expenditure per capita (in US $)

United States - $6,096

 

Ireland - $2,618

United Kingdom - $2,560 (couldn't find specifically England)

 

Australia - $3,123

Canada - $3171

Japan - $2293

Germany - $3171

 

The shift of paying taxes instead of Insurance companies would save billions of the profit that Insurance companies currently make.

[wiegie]

but for an economist, your view seems to be awfully simplistic.

 

forgive me for not writing a treatise on health-care economics here in the tailgate (in other words, of course, I am presenting things here in a simplified format)

 

Concering the individual mandate (the main thing that I was talking about in this thread), this might be worth reading: http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/1989/pdf/ci_0891950494.pdf

[Big Country]

The full article goes longer, but you have to sign up for the website in order to get the full article. I'll highlight a couple things that I found interesting.

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION

A country's ability to provide for its population's health care needs is influenced by financial abilities, priorities of the government, and the political environment. Throughout history, various organizational research has demonstrated improved outcomes of health care variables such as infant mortality, fertility rates, and morbidity and mortality rates related to a combination of improved socio-economic conditions and public health measures (Guyer, Freedman, Strobino & Sondik, 2000). In response to these findings, many countries have improved health care, education and allocated financial support to programs aimed at continued improvement of socioeconomic conditions and public health.

 

These improvements are critical as the financial health of a country is important to its success in other areas. The supply of adequate health care, health care demands of citizens and the presence of funds available for health care are important factors in the health of a country. For individual citizens, the presence of an effective, efficient, high quality low-cost health care system is important for health and wellness. Without government-provided, or employersponsored, health care, few individuals can afford the ever rising costs of doctor visits, surgeries, or medications.

 

The purpose of this paper is to analyze data from North American and European countries and contrast multiple health care and health status variables along with economic and social variables within each selected country to determine the link between expenditures and improvements in such health measures. The specific countries were chosen for study as they all published data from the 1990-2000 decade regarding health expenditures, fertility and mortality rates, population ratios, and per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The United States (US), Canada, and Mexico represent North America while Germany, France, and the United Kingdom (UK) represent Europe. This information is useful in comparing nations based on growth or decline and how this change relates to a country's expenditure on health care. The findings are also important to determine how health care expenditures impact key measures of health.

 

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Since the pioneering paper on international health comparison is by Newhouse in 1977, there has been much research on health expenditure determinants. This interest in understanding health care expenditure has led to the creation of theories as well as the analysis of health care expenditures (Gerdtham and Jonsson 2000). There is an ongoing debate in the U.S. about possible universal coverage as a way to decrease the costs of care for the poor and the elderly. Recent statistics show much variation in spending among countries with no correlation between expenditure and performance goals (www.oecd.org).

 

While France is often touted as a model of health care efficiency for study, all do not agree. Heath, Dhalla, and Thomson (2008) agree it is misleading to state that "the World Health Organization anointed the French health care system as the best in the world" and that it "ranked Canada 30th in the same survey." France only ranks first in efficiency and this was calculated by relating a country's overall health achievement to its health system expenditures. Lopes (2007) supports the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development's view of France's total expenditure on health as a percentage of gross domestic product which was 10.5% in 2006 and began to match and then surpass Canada's at 9.5%. Reforms in 1996 through 1998 also sought to widen the financial base of the French social security system. The French national insurance system has maintained constant deficits since 1985; the deficit now tops $14.77 billion.

 

Rodwin (2003) agrees the French health system combines universal coverage with a public-private mix of hospital and ambulatory care and a higher volume of service provision than in the United States. Although the system is far from perfect, its indicators of health status and consumer satisfaction are high; its expenditures, as a share of gross domestic product, are far lower than in the United States; and patients have an extraordinary degree of choice among providers.

 

Kjellstran, Kovithavongs, and Szabo (1998) found the U.S. had the most inefficient outcomes in relation to money spent on health care and that one third of the retail price of prescription medications was spent on administrative costs and investors. However, the advent of "managed care" in the United States is having a favorable influence on the value of health care provided through private health insurance. Gains have been made by increasing the level of preventive care spending and reducing unnecessary care. However, overbearing managed care systems can cause a backlash by consumers and are subject to governmental intervention ("Private Health Insurance," 2004).

 

Frenk (2006) supports the need for Mexican health care reform because its health system has not kept pace with the pressures of disease, malnutrition, common infections, and reproductive health problems along with non-communicable disease and injury. Despite the fact that life expectancy at birth in Mexico has improved from 42 years in 1940 to 73 years in 2000, major inequalities persist in health and access to health care (Barraza-Llorens, Bertozzi, Gonzalez-Pier, and Gutierrez, 2002.

 

Tanne (2008) agrees the cost of common medical, surgical, and dental procedures varies widely across nine countries of the European Union, based on HealthBASKET (Health Benefits and Service Costs in Europe) studies but found the total cost of care for each procedure was lower than the average due in part to lower wage levels.

 

Sox (2008) agrees that reforming health care will not be easy, but argues that it's not impossible. Other countries have done it, and they have lower costs and better overall systematic performance than the U.S. Garber, Goldman, and Jena (2007) go so far as to suggest that spending could be reduced by as much as 30 percent without adversely affecting American's health. According Garber, et. al. (2007), the RAND Health Insurance Experiment (HIE) showed that U.S. spending on health care could be reduced by 30 percent if we improve the efficiency of the health care and if we delivered it in an efficient manner. The National Center for Policy Analysis (at www.ncpa.org) argues that the US devotes a significant amount of its health care expenditures to advanced cases and the elderly that use proportionately more resources, effecting the overall quality of health care.

 

Health Care Expenditures

Total health care expenditure continues to grow in United States at a fairly substantial rate although recent growth rate has shown some signs of moderating. Significant trends within the last few years are toward increased spending for medications that now comprise over 16% of all health care related expenses. However, capital spending is the area seeing the most significant level of growth. Investment in new technology has more than doubled in the last seven years ("Health spending", 2003). Technological investment in molecular biology, computer and medical science, electrical, mechanical, genetics and biomedical engineering (including cell, molecule and tissue), instrumentation, and advances in early detection that have allowed successful treatment of conditions that were previously untreatable. Ironically, this can serve to add even more cost to the health care system, as a larger segment of the population will live longer and utilize greater amount of health care services in the future (Holtz-Eakin, 2004).

[Yukon Cornelius]

only in America could an insurance company turn down a pregnant women.

[delusions of grandeur]

only in America could an insurance company turn down a pregnant women.

 

Why? It's called insurance, as in you've already paid in prior to asking it to pay you back. It's not JG Wentworth's "It's my money and I want it now". The whole point of why they don't cover pre-existing conditions is because then people wouldn't pay in and just buy it when they need it, bankrupting the insurance companies because no one would buy it when they didn't need it yet. The companies don't have to be greedy to see that this is a failing business model, and they're not charities.

 

But it isn't like she's being denied insurance as far as I know, they just had the ill-fortune of having a child at a time when not covered, so it won't be covered. Again, it's not an entitlement that you can just claim it when you need it without buying into it prior. That's like never paying your SS tax and then going in later demanding the money you never paid.

Edited June 15, 2012 by delusions of grandeur

[gbpfan1231]

only in America could an insurance company turn down a pregnant women.

I would bet they can get insurance and it would be covered if thy paid the asking price - they just want it at a cheaper price or the price they had before they made decisions that changed the game???

[Yukon Cornelius]

Why? It's called insurance, as in you've already paid in prior to asking it to pay you back. It's not JG Wentworth's "It's my money and I want it now". The whole point of why they don't cover pre-existing conditions is because then people wouldn't pay in and just buy it when they need it, bankrupting the insurance companies because no one would buy it when they didn't need it yet. The companies don't have to be greedy to see that this is a failing business model, and they're not charities.

 

But it isn't like she's being denied insurance as far as I know, they just had the ill-fortune of having a child at a time when not covered, so it won't be covered. Again, it's not an entitlement that you can just claim it when you need it without buying into it prior. That's like never paying your SS tax and then going in later demanding the money you never paid.

 

 

Yah I know it is very difficult for those CEO's of non profits to get by on 3 million dollar bonuses but what if say you are born with a condition? By your logic , they have the misfortune of not being able to get insurance because of the way they were born.

 

Since when is medical care an entitlement? let the old, stupid and handicapped die, that would eliminate 3/4 of the south.