Question on Insurance

Georgia may already offer this, but to my knowledge does not. Shouldn’t Georgia take the lead on offering no-frills insurance. What I mean is, most states, including Georgia, require certain things be included in health insurance. Those mandates drive up the cost. Why not scrap the mandatory minimums and let consumers pick and choose, adding to their policy those things they think they need.

Some states, though I don’t think Georgia is one, require mandatory pregnancy coverage in insurance policies — including for men. Why not scrap them all and help lower the cost. End the paternalism.

Just asking.

9 comments

  1. Mrs. Adam Kornstein says:

    I’m a tad confused, do you seriously believe that just because a company doesn’t have to pay for something, they automatically pass along saving to the consumers?

    As to coverage during pregnancy, are you also naive enough to believe that all women who are pregnant have the means and the access to carry the child to a healthy full term under private health coverage. It takes two to tango, so yes men should have to participate in paying for this coverage.

    In Georgia, 1 in 13 live births is under weight, health risks to mother and child are almost always mitigated by early, frequent and competent professional health care. Early prenatal care increases the live birth rate to 90%. The rate of inadequate prenatal care among births to women under age 20 (18.2%) was about 3 times higher than the rate among women ages 30-39 (5.5%).

    So much for the “culture of life”.

  2. The risk pool doesn’t really work if we’re not all in the pool. I understand the concept of this, but requiring coverage for breast cancer/mammagrams (for example) might add like $1 to the cost of a monthly insurance premium. Ok so that adds up to a lot when you have millions of Georgians insured, but on an individual level it will be well worth it when someone detects that they have this disease.

    I just don’t think consumers are sophisticated enough, for the most part, to formulate a policy that covers all of the areas it needs to cover. Since I think the government will end up getting stuck with the bill (or creditors when they file for bankruptcy) if they don’t have the coverage, it makes sense for the state to mandate that they do.

  3. Bull Moose says:

    Erick, I will cede to you that some of the “mandates” have gotten out of control, but most are genuine life saving screenings that save our health system millions upon millions of dollars every year.

    Through screenings we are turning the tide in early detection of cancer and other such diseases. Anyone will tell you that it is easier to treat these diseases when they are caught earlier, not to mention, the cost savings.

    You take away those life saving screenings and you’re talking about treating diseases at much later stages and at a signifcantly higher cost.

    What I’d like to see is the American Medical Association in conjunction with other such groups develop a set of national health screenings and see Congress act on a national level so that we can once and for all have an agreed upon set of true life saving health screenings.

  4. HeartofGa says:

    This only works if we believe that we can “trust” the insurance industry to pass on the savings. So far that has not worked so well with Tort Reform. Also, with the significant # of folks in Georgia who, for example, lack any health insurance at all, and the significant number of insured who are state-funded through Medicaid, PeachCare or Medicare, it is obvious that the taxpayers would be picking up the tab for drivers too tight to buy the medical on their car insurance. Just one example of how everybody pays- not just the individual who makes the choice or the company reaping the profits.

  5. Harry says:

    I live a holistic lifestyle, I’m self-insured, and I’m not about subsidizing somebody else’s unhealthy lifestyle or bad family history. At some point I may have to go to the VA Hospital, so be it. I’ve very likely paid in more than I’ll ever receive from the system. I’ll direct my charitable giving where I wish, not to the insurance and pharmaceutical industry who have sold out to advocacy groups and their own obscene profits. That’s my risk analysis. Please don’t tell me I should support you.

  6. Harry says:

    I believe in the concept of insurance, just not mandated or advocacy-driven insurance pools. I will not play in such a pool. It’s not cost-beneficial. I’m sure many others feel the same.

Comments are closed.