# Health Insurers Raise Rates Because of Obamacare



## The Rabbi (Sep 8, 2010)

Like this should be a surprise to anyone.  Mandate more coverage, you thereby mandate higher rates.
Health Insurance Companies Dramatically Increase Premiums Due To The New Health Care Law And There Is Not Much We Can Do About It


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 8, 2010)

LOL, and what would have happened to the rates had the healthcare bill not been passed? Of course, they are going to say they have to raise rates because of Obamacare, Insurance companies were the biggest opponents to the bill! So, now they have perfect scapegoat when they jack up their rates, even though they were going up regardless, just like they have been for years. 

The healthcare bill fell far short of containing costs, but to actually believe that the rates are only going up because of "Obamacare" is ridiculous.


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 8, 2010)

Actually insurers SUPPORTED the bill.
Rates rose explicitly because of mandates in the bill.  Had the bill not been passed they would not have risen nearly as much.

Some facts in your next post would be a welcome change.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 8, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Actually insurers SUPPORTED the bill.
> Rates rose explicitly because of mandates in the bill.  Had the bill not been passed they would not have risen nearly as much.
> 
> Some facts in your next post would be a welcome change.



LOL, says the guy who makes outlandish claims without posting any evidence to back up this post. And just the fact that you actually believe that Insurance companies support the bill shows me enough about your intelligence. I'm done with this thread.


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 8, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Actually insurers SUPPORTED the bill.
> ...



Good Lord!  Will you shut the fuck and read something so you don't sound like a total ignorant simp?
Fascist Soup  Big Pharma And Insurance Industry Lobby Heavily For Obamacare
http://washingtonindependent.com/64497/insurance-lobby-we-do-want-health-reform-promise


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 8, 2010)

No wonder you're done with this thread.  You've been:


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 8, 2010)

I know I said I was done with this thread, but I HAD to comment that apparently reading *fascistsoup.com* would make me informed and less of a simp. Thanks for the laugh....honestly.


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 8, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> I know I said I was done with this thread, but I HAD to comment that apparently reading *fascistsoup.com* would make me informed and less of a simp. Thanks for the laugh....honestly.



There were actually two links there.
But if you have something--anything--to show health insurers resisted Obamacare tooth and nail then please post it.
But you can't.  Because they didn't.  They were onboard, smelling a new pool of healthy insureds that would make for revenue flow.

You are an uninformed turd of continental proportions.


----------



## Annie (Sep 8, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> LOL, and what would have happened to the rates had the healthcare bill not been passed? Of course, they are going to say they have to raise rates because of Obamacare, Insurance companies were the biggest opponents to the bill! So, now they have perfect scapegoat when they jack up their rates, even though they were going up regardless, just like they have been for years.
> 
> The healthcare bill fell far short of containing costs, but to actually believe that the rates are only going up because of "Obamacare" is ridiculous.



and your link to truth is where?


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 8, 2010)

Annie said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > LOL, and what would have happened to the rates had the healthcare bill not been passed? Of course, they are going to say they have to raise rates because of Obamacare, Insurance companies were the biggest opponents to the bill! So, now they have perfect scapegoat when they jack up their rates, even though they were going up regardless, just like they have been for years.
> ...



Fuggedaboutit!
Once he's been unmasked as an ignoramus his only choices are admit he's wrong, insist he's right despite all the evidence, or disappear.  And #1 ain't happening.


----------



## WillowTree (Sep 8, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> LOL, and what would have happened to the rates had the healthcare bill not been passed? Of course, they are going to say they have to raise rates because of Obamacare, Insurance companies were the biggest opponents to the bill! So, now they have perfect scapegoat when they jack up their rates, even though they were going up regardless, just like they have been for years.
> 
> The healthcare bill fell far short of containing costs, but to actually believe that the rates are only going up because of "Obamacare" is ridiculous.



How much are your monthy dues to the idiot's club?


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 8, 2010)

WillowTree said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > LOL, and what would have happened to the rates had the healthcare bill not been passed? Of course, they are going to say they have to raise rates because of Obamacare, Insurance companies were the biggest opponents to the bill! So, now they have perfect scapegoat when they jack up their rates, even though they were going up regardless, just like they have been for years.
> ...



It's free.  He makes them all look so darned smart they're happy to comp him.


----------



## Greenbeard (Sep 8, 2010)

This isn't an article about mandates on insurers, it's a populist anti-insurance company screed (complete with indignation at the compensation packages received by insurance industry executives and insurer profits).



> Not that health insurance companies ever needed an excuse to raise rates, but in 2010 many of them are blaming changes in health care law for the dramatic rise in premiums. [...]
> 
> Unfortunately, the truth is that this is nothing new.  Many health insurance companies have been increasing health insurance premiums by double-digit percentages year after year after year even as they continue to reel in record profits.
> 
> ...



It actually laments at one point that "Well, as it turns out, the new health care law does not give the federal government much regulatory power at all to prevent premium increases." The author wants more regulatory authority to deny what he sees as predatory rate hikes (he clearly likes state laws requiring prior approval for increases from state regulators). And he shall have it.

Did you actually read this beyond the title? This is an attack from the left.


----------



## Luissa (Sep 8, 2010)

I have never got this. Insurance companies are going to have how many more customers? 
A business that raises their rates due to more business, doesn't seem like a good business or corporation to me.


----------



## johnrocks (Sep 8, 2010)

Luissa said:


> I have never got this. Insurance companies are going to have how many more customers?
> A business that raises their rates due to more business, doesn't seem like a good business or corporation to me.



Having to insure just one person  who is already ill;such as someone with cancer; requires hundreds if not more healthy individuals who won't use their insurance, that's why.


----------



## WillowTree (Sep 8, 2010)

Luissa said:


> I have never got this. Insurance companies are going to have how many more customers?
> A business that raises their rates due to more business, doesn't seem like a good business or corporation to me.



Here's what you don't get little twitness.. pay attention now, mama is gonna splain it to you one more time. Insurance companies are gonna get 30 million more customers. Thirty million,, yep, a goodly number of whom cannot pay for their insurance. The rates on gonna go up on the rest of us. Did you feel a synapse there yet?  Hello?


----------



## Shogun (Sep 8, 2010)

infowars dot com.


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 8, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> This isn't an article about mandates on insurers, it's a populist anti-insurance company screed (complete with indignation at the compensation packages received by insurance industry executives and insurer profits).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes it is.  And anyone who says "insurance companies fought Obamacare" are neither Left nor Right. They are merely ignorant, like RDD1210.


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 8, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > This isn't an article about mandates on insurers, it's a populist anti-insurance company screed (complete with indignation at the compensation packages received by insurance industry executives and insurer profits).
> ...




Yep, Obama regularly trumpeted the fact the BIG insurance was on his side.


----------



## Greenbeard (Sep 8, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Yes it is.



So what's your point? You agree the law leaves insurers under-regulated?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 8, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> LOL, and what would have happened to the rates had the healthcare bill not been passed? Of course, they are going to say they have to raise rates because of Obamacare, Insurance companies were the biggest opponents to the bill! So, now they have perfect scapegoat when they jack up their rates, even though they were going up regardless, just like they have been for years.
> 
> The healthcare bill fell far short of containing costs, but to actually believe that the rates are only going up because of "Obamacare" is ridiculous.



They had to raise rates because they had to offer more stuff that I do not want, as well as deal with other increases in costs. But I do not have to worry, because Obama promised if I like my insurance, I can keep it, even though it is now illegal to offer my coverage.


----------



## Gatekeeper (Sep 9, 2010)

Thanks to 'Obama Care' our rates, after just increasing about 3 months ago, increased AGAIN! 
Co-pays from $10 to $30
ER $50 to $100
Special procedures $10-$300, hopefully medicare will pick up the payment being 2ndary to BCBS.
Monthly premium---up again, but at the moment do not have the amount, from 12,288/year for two people, btw.
Pretax Flexpay maximums starting Jan 1,2011 are* LOWERED*, we already used the $2400 we had this August, now we have to wait til Jan 1,2011 til get flexpay again and it will be even less.

Make a long story short as part of the lower middle class,

*We are being priced OUT OF HEALTHCARE* FORCED to support *Obama's dream* by ripping off the savings and dreams of those citizens already struggling to make ends meet.

My condition is now terminal, I feel sorry for those after I am toast, that have to deal with presidents such as this who feel that making a mark in history is worth tanking a countries economy and forcing the people to into economic slavery for decades to come.

It is time to make laws forcing politicians to do for the citizens FIRST instead of for themselves as MANY are doing now. Forcing them live at the levels of the average citizen and paying for their healthcare and other benefits and services as those who elected them to office have to live by. Maybe when that occurs they can really understand the plight of others, right now many of them use phony lip service telling us how 'they feel our pain'........BULLSHIT.

Thank You........that is all


----------



## johnrocks (Sep 9, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Yes it is.
> ...



Under regulated?


----------



## Greenbeard (Sep 9, 2010)

johnrocks said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



That's the point the article in the OP is making.


----------



## johnrocks (Sep 9, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> johnrocks said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...



Health insurance industry is and has been a very highly regulated sector for years.


----------



## Douger (Sep 9, 2010)

Mission accomplished !


----------



## Gatekeeper (Sep 9, 2010)

Post #26, Castro is your hero?  What a perfect example of a cretin. 

*



			Fidel Castro: Cuba's Communism Not Working
		
Click to expand...

*


> The fact that things are not working efficiently on this cash-strapped Caribbean island is hardly news. Fidel's brother Raul, the country's president, has said the same thing repeatedly. But the blunt assessment by the father of Cuba's 1959 revolution is sure to raise eyebrows.


FOXNews.com - Fidel Castro: Cuba's Communism Not Working

So much for your Castro's Cuba 'bullchit'. 

Obama's Plan isn't working either......................well it IS........for those in the inner circles.

Coming to think of it, the USA is now more 'cash strapped' than anytime in recorded history, for the non-politician citizen. One thing seems to never change, most of the the politicians are making out like bandits like they have been doing throughout history at the expense of the citizens. I don't recall seeing too many of them,politicians, receiving food stamps and in section 8 housing yet. But then again, in my opinion, we have a POTUS that is more concerned about his legacy and his  'forced upon the people, accomplishments', than anything else.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 10, 2010)

MSNBC reports that the White House is using their patented bully technique to force insurers to say their increases are not Obamacare related.  Nice.


----------



## blu (Sep 10, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> MSNBC reports that the White House is using their patented bully technique to force insurers to say their increases are not Obamacare related.  Nice.



yep, they have been doing it since it passed. remember when they tried to haul ceos in front of congress?


----------



## Care4all (Sep 10, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Like this should be a surprise to anyone.  Mandate more coverage, you thereby mandate higher rates.
> Health Insurance Companies Dramatically Increase Premiums Due To The New Health Care Law And There Is Not Much We Can Do About It



No need to be dishonest Rabbi....

http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=14509



2010 Family Health Premiums Rise 3 Percent to $13,770 in 2010


----------



## beowolfe (Sep 10, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Like this should be a surprise to anyone.  Mandate more coverage, you thereby mandate higher rates.
> Health Insurance Companies Dramatically Increase Premiums Due To The New Health Care Law And There Is Not Much We Can Do About It



This is why we need a single payor system.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 10, 2010)

beowolfe said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Like this should be a surprise to anyone.  Mandate more coverage, you thereby mandate higher rates.
> ...



A single payor system will still result in cost increases, reduced service and longer waits, rationed care, more paperwork and hassles, less patient control and the loss of many good doctors.  No thank you.


----------



## rdean (Sep 10, 2010)

Health Insurers Raise Rates Because of Obamacare 

That's like saying "The wind blows because of the trees".


----------



## Spoonman (Sep 10, 2010)

Nice healthcare reform libs. Yea you have a real handle on what you are doing.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 10, 2010)

Aetna Inc., some BlueCross BlueShield plans and other smaller carriers have asked for premium increases of between 1% and 9% to pay for extra benefits required under the law, according to filings with state regulators.

These and other insurers say Congress's landmark refashioning of U.S. health coverage, which passed in March after a brutal fight, is causing them to pass on more costs to consumers than Democrats predicted.

In addition to pledging that the law would restrain increases in Americans' insurance premiums, Democrats front-loaded the legislation with early provisions they hoped would boost public support. Those include letting children stay on their parents' insurance policies until age 26, eliminating co-payments for preventive care and barring insurers from denying policies to children with pre-existing conditions, plus the elimination of the coverage caps.

Weeks before the election, insurance companies began telling state regulators it is those very provisions that are forcing them to increase their rates. 

Previously the administration had calculated that the batch of changes taking effect this fall would raise premiums no more than 1% to 2%, on average.

Insurers Pin Rate Hikes on Health Law - WSJ.com

President Barack Obama's top health official on Thursday warned the insurance industry that the administration won't tolerate blaming premium hikes on the new health overhaul law.

"There will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases," Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a letter to the insurance lobby.

"Simply stated, we will not stand idly by as insurers blame their premium hikes and increased profits on the requirement that they provide consumers with basic protections," Sebelius said. She warned that bad actors may be excluded from new health insurance markets that will open in 2014 under the law. They'd lose out on a big pool of customers, as many as 30 million people nationwide.

The letter to America's Health Insurance Plans was the latest volley in a war of words over who gets the blame for rising premiums. Polls show that many people expect their costs to go up as a result of the law, but there's also widespread mistrust of the insurance industry.

An HHS official said the letter is a pre-emptive move, after the department learned that several smaller carriers around the country are blaming the new law for rate increases this year.

The Associated Press: HHS to insurers: Don&#39;t blame us for your rates


----------



## Spoonman (Sep 10, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Aetna Inc., some BlueCross BlueShield plans and other smaller carriers have asked for premium increases of between 1% and 9% to pay for extra benefits required under the law, according to filings with state regulators.
> 
> These and other insurers say Congress's landmark refashioning of U.S. health coverage, which passed in March after a brutal fight, is causing them to pass on more costs to consumers than Democrats predicted.
> 
> ...



I see the healthcare industry is walking all over the president now. That boy gets no respect.


----------



## Care4all (Sep 10, 2010)

i don't know how ANYONE with a brain that is working, can take the health insurance company's word that it is ''obama care'' that has made them raise their prices 3% in 2010?  Just analyzing the chart of their increases in premium prices for the past 10 years can clearly see that they have raised their prices EVERY SINGLE YEAR....did obama care make them go up the past 10 yrs?

you are being fooled by their propaganda....

and the person in rabbi's example said her prices went up 50% because of Obama care, do you really believe this?

sheesh...


----------



## Spoonman (Sep 10, 2010)

Care4all said:


> i don't know how ANYONE with a brain that is working, can take the health insurance company's word that it is ''obama care'' that has made them raise their prices 3% in 2010?  Just analyzing the chart of their increases in premium prices for the past 10 years can clearly see that they have raised their prices EVERY SINGLE YEAR....did obama care make them go up the past 10 yrs?
> 
> you are being fooled by their propaganda....
> 
> ...



One thing for sure. We will no longer be fooled by Obama's lies.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 10, 2010)

Care4all said:


> i don't know how ANYONE with a brain that is working, can take the health insurance company's word that it is ''obama care'' that has made them raise their prices 3% in 2010?  Just analyzing the chart of their increases in premium prices for the past 10 years can clearly see that they have raised their prices EVERY SINGLE YEAR....did obama care make them go up the past 10 yrs?
> 
> you are being fooled by their propaganda....
> 
> ...



Even the government figured 1-2% for this year Care.  Now, it should really make you take pause if they are off 33% on the ten year figure.


----------



## chanel (Sep 11, 2010)

> President Barack Obamas top health official on Thursday warned the insurance industry that the administration wont tolerate blaming premium hikes on the new health overhaul law.
> 
> There will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a letter to the insurance lobby.
> 
> Simply stated, we will not stand idly by as insurers blame their premium hikes and increased profits on the requirement that they provide consumers with basic protections, Sebelius said. She warned that *bad actors may be excluded from new health insurance markets* that will open in 2014 under the law. Theyd lose out on a big pool of customers, as many as 30 million people nationwide.



Hot Air  Sebelius: insurers who criticize ObamaCare may get locked out of system

Criticize the government and they will put you out of business.  Unbelievable.


----------



## Gatekeeper (Sep 11, 2010)

chanel said:


> > President Barack Obamas top health official on Thursday warned the insurance industry that the administration wont tolerate blaming premium hikes on the new health overhaul law.
> >
> > There will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a letter to the insurance lobby.
> >
> ...



Great, another example of  government rule through Fear, Threats & Intimidation?
Sounds just like  what our schools  and other sources told us about many years ago that other countries did, they were condemned, for using the same tactics as our government is using now. Yes the "America of Change", it certainly has.


----------



## chanel (Sep 11, 2010)

How much "misinformation" has been spread by the "bad actors" in the WH? How many "bad actors" in Congress STILL haven't read the bill? Maybe they should be held to the same standard.

Drain the swamp.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 11, 2010)

Obama would never allow the EPA to issue swamp draining permits.


----------



## johnrocks (Sep 11, 2010)

Care4all said:


> i don't know how ANYONE with a brain that is working, can take the health insurance company's word that it is ''obama care'' that has made them raise their prices 3% in 2010?  Just analyzing the chart of their increases in premium prices for the past 10 years can clearly see that they have raised their prices EVERY SINGLE YEAR....did obama care make them go up the past 10 yrs?
> 
> you are being fooled by their propaganda....
> 
> ...



What's the difference between believing them and their propaganda and trusting government and their propaganda?


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 11, 2010)

johnrocks said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > i don't know how ANYONE with a brain that is working, can take the health insurance company's word that it is ''obama care'' that has made them raise their prices 3% in 2010?  Just analyzing the chart of their increases in premium prices for the past 10 years can clearly see that they have raised their prices EVERY SINGLE YEAR....did obama care make them go up the past 10 yrs?
> ...



You can appeal to the government for redress in the case of corporation issues.


----------



## johnrocks (Sep 11, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> johnrocks said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



You can sue corporations, corporations can't force you to do business with them, they can't seize your property ,they can't throw you in prison for not paying premiums.


I trust neither but I damn sure not going to trust something that can literally snuff my life out for whatever it deems criminal behavior.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 11, 2010)

johnrocks said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > johnrocks said:
> ...



So you understand my point you just missed that I am on your side.


----------



## WillowTree (Sep 11, 2010)

Care4all said:


> i don't know how ANYONE with a brain that is working, can take the health insurance company's word that it is ''obama care'' that has made them raise their prices 3% in 2010?  Just analyzing the chart of their increases in premium prices for the past 10 years can clearly see that they have raised their prices EVERY SINGLE YEAR....did obama care make them go up the past 10 yrs?
> 
> you are being fooled by their propaganda....
> 
> ...



I'm waiting for you to explain how when we guarantee insurance to 30 million MORE people, 26 year old children, no pre existing conditions, and no limits on coverage how our rates would NOT GO UP. How does that happen doyathink? YOU Democrats just sprinkle a little Fairy dust?


----------



## chanel (Sep 11, 2010)

It's all about da hope willow.  They "hoped" it would pay for itself.  Wouldn't it be a wonderful thing if all our bills were "paid by themselves"?


----------



## Spoonman (Sep 11, 2010)

chanel said:


> It's all about da hope willow.  They "hoped" it would pay for itself.  Wouldn't it be a wonderful thing if all our bills were "paid by themselves"?



It looks like their dream turned into a nightmare.


----------



## editec (Sep 11, 2010)

*



Health Insurers Raise Rates Because of Obamacare

Click to expand...

 
Yeah, because like before Obama came along with his plan, heath care rates weren't going up at all, were they?





*


----------



## CurveLight (Sep 11, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Like this should be a surprise to anyone.  Mandate more coverage, you thereby mandate higher rates.
> Health Insurance Companies Dramatically Increase Premiums Due To The New Health Care Law And There Is Not Much We Can Do About It




Yes obushama care sucks but you're a fool to believe corporations are justified just like the dumbasses who defended the tobacco companies raising their prices to pay for their own fuck ups.


----------



## Care4all (Sep 11, 2010)

WillowTree said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > i don't know how ANYONE with a brain that is working, can take the health insurance company's word that it is ''obama care'' that has made them raise their prices 3% in 2010?  Just analyzing the chart of their increases in premium prices for the past 10 years can clearly see that they have raised their prices EVERY SINGLE YEAR....did obama care make them go up the past 10 yrs?
> ...


It happens by selling more....the insurance companies will get 25 million more customers....most of them are young and healthy, who normally would not even buy insurance....only some or few are the ones that are sick, and actually needing it.

With the added millions of individual policies, they are taking in more gross (margin) dollars/money than with fewer policy holders, in which only SOME of it is needed to pay for the changes in policies required of them, by the new legislation...they come out billions upon billions ahead of the game.

This is a tactic used in business all the time...we are always trying to sell more, so we make more.

Only the insurance companies don't even have to try to sell more policies, or even spend any marketing money on it, or even compete to do it....because Congress handed it to them on a silver platter with their rule that health insurance is mandatory.  

Care


----------



## CurveLight (Sep 11, 2010)

Care4all said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...




I have a rough analogy.  The EPA recently passed new laws regarding work being done on homes with lead paint and MA has taken over enforcement of these laws.  As a small business owner in construction I have to pay for the new Certificates, training, and added costs of following stringent guidelines which increase costs both for materials and time.  Some clients are not happy but I'm providing them paperwork for every single additional cost including receipts for additional materials.
  (ironically, it's the wealthy clients that are bitching more.  When I say "wealthy" I mean $8-$10 million dollar estates where they drive convertible Bentleys)

Does anyone here think Health Care insurance companies are willing to be as transparent to justify their increased premiums?


----------



## Care4all (Sep 11, 2010)

johnrocks said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > i don't know how ANYONE with a brain that is working, can take the health insurance company's word that it is ''obama care'' that has made them raise their prices 3% in 2010?  Just analyzing the chart of their increases in premium prices for the past 10 years can clearly see that they have raised their prices EVERY SINGLE YEAR....did obama care make them go up the past 10 yrs?
> ...



Neither the Insurance Corporations or the Government should ever be trusted at face value, both need to be scrutinized, and what they are saying should not be trusted *until* you do some research yourself to see if they are BSing you...sometimes they are telling the truth, and sometimes they are not, like I said it's up to you or up to us, to discern this....

It is just as wrong to say that you don't ever trust them and know they are lying as it is to say you do trust them all of the time.

We have to get off our rear ends and do the leg work it takes, to figure it out...

With this thread op, I read the link for the person complaining and the health care company claims on earlier articles, and asked myself..."How can I verify this?" and thought, "if I found out how much they had been increasing insurance every year before Obama Care passed, it could give me a good idea of whether they were telling the truth or not." I found the chart that I posted above showing their increases each year for the past 10 years and that gave me my answer....

I am also a business person, and know what we do to increase business and how important it is to increase sales...not just for what I said in my previous post, but for other reasons as well...which make a company more profitable...by reducing the percentage of the cost of the company's overhead due to the increased volume.

I also know what we spent on marketing/advertising to increase our sales and the time we spent on analyzing our competition to out price them or out service them, in order to capture more of the market... so to increase our sales....  and KNOW that the Insurance companies will not be spending the kind of money on marketing or meeting or beating their competition that we had to spend to capture more of the market, because they are just being HANDED 25-30 million more policies, due to the mandate....no need to spend the marketing money etc. to increase their sales.

Care


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 11, 2010)

The insurance companies don't want these "sales".  It would be the equivalent of aggressively seeking to buy 100 slowpay accounts or getting a notice from the government you needed to do a recall on 500,000 sales items.


----------



## Care4all (Sep 11, 2010)

sl

i disagree

it is almost always advantageous to increase sales....

They want those customers, they were behind it 100%.... the Mandate was what they wanted and they wanted it without competition, without the public option...or coop option..


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 11, 2010)

Care4all said:


> sl
> 
> i disagree
> 
> ...



Disagreement is your perogative.  I reject almost all initial offers on car sales.  In the end probably accepting less than a third of final offers.  You simply have to maximize your profits and limit your losses.  If the government tried to force me to take on 100 late model cars with leaking head gaskets, I'd have to close the doors.  Simply to much risk.


----------



## boedicca (Sep 11, 2010)

Care4all said:


> It happens by selling more....the insurance companies will get 25 million more customers....most of them are young and healthy, who normally would not even buy insurance....only some or few are the ones that are sick, and actually needing it.
> 
> With the added millions of individual policies, they are taking in more gross (margin) dollars/money than with fewer policy holders, in which only SOME of it is needed to pay for the changes in policies required of them, by the new legislation...they come out billions upon billions ahead of the game.
> 
> ...





IOW, this is yet another transfer of income from the relatively less well off young to the relatively more well off elderly - done by forcing the young to overpay for something they neither want nor need.


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 11, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Yes it is.
> ...



No, dumbshit.  My point is just what I said it was: Insurers were among Obamacare's biggest SUPPORTERS.  So anyone who thinks that insurers opposed it have mush for brains.
Is that clear enough for you?


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 11, 2010)

Care4all said:


> i don't know how ANYONE with a brain that is working, can take the health insurance company's word that it is ''obama care'' that has made them raise their prices 3% in 2010?  Just analyzing the chart of their increases in premium prices for the past 10 years can clearly see that they have raised their prices EVERY SINGLE YEAR....did obama care make them go up the past 10 yrs?
> 
> you are being fooled by their propaganda....
> 
> ...



"Anyone with a brain that is working" would seem to count you out.
Did you read the linked article, where he basically the same point that insurers have been increasing rates every year?
The point is not that they have been increasing rates (like anyone didnt know that).  The point is that the increases will be MUCH FASTER now because of the additional mandates of Obamacare.
This stands to reason: mandate more coverage you effectively mandate higher rates to pay for it.  Who did they think was going to pay for all those increased mandates?  The tooth fairy?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 11, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



New Year, same old insults from Rabbi.


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 11, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...



I thought you were done with this thread pages ago, you smelly old troll?
Are you ready to admit the truth that insurers were among Obamacare's SUPPORTERS?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 11, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...




LOL, smelly old troll? Really? Ummm....Ouch? How old are you? 6 or 82?


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 11, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Were health care insurers supporters or opponents of Obamacare?  PLease just answer.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 11, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



I'll give you credit, at least you didn't try to insult me in this post. I guess it's a step in the right direction.


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 11, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



We don't need anything other than your answer on whether insurers were supporters or opponents of Obamacare.  Please answer the question.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 11, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



They were definitely NOT supporters of what Obama originally wanted to do, (ie. Single payer and then the public option), however I think they are very happy and "supportive" of the end bill especially compared to what Obama originally wanted to do.


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 11, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



OK, so you admit your post #2 where you write "insurers were the biggest opponents of the bill" was wrong and ill informed.
and you owe me an apology for your post# 4 where you write that the fact I believe insurers supported the bill speaks to my intelligence (implying in a negative way). 
Actually as it has tuned out my "belief" (because it wasnt belief at all  but knowledge) shows I am more intelligent, or at least better informed, than you.

Glad we cleared that up.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 11, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...




LOL, Ummm not exactly. To say insurers were "big supporters" of this bill all along the way is untrue and a lie. That's what my point was. Perhaps we were just not on the same page, but if you are trying to say that Insurance companies were on-board with the healthcare bill from the get-go then we still are not going to agree. You are hardly "better informed" than I am, more stubborn perhaps, but more informed...doubtful.


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 11, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



OK.
You have been shown conclusively to be wrong, and insulting.  Even when you admit it, you cannot admit it but look for some little loop hole or out.
You are not an honest debater but a skank.  And on to Iggy you go.  I dont have time for such people.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 12, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Oh well, I gave it one last try at having a real discussion with you. I can see now that despite my efforts, you never wanted the same. Rather, you'd just continue to insult me and be happy trying to simply "win" an argument. That's ok, at least I know I tried.


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Sep 12, 2010)

#1 the government has ZERO authority to tell me how to live my life, or tell me what I must or must not have. Unless you want them deciding if you can have an abortion, they should not mandate you to have something you probably cant afford


----------



## MajikMyst (Sep 12, 2010)

actsnoblemartin said:


> #1 the government has ZERO authority to tell me how to live my life, or tell me what I must or must not have. Unless you want them deciding if you can have an abortion, they should not mandate you to have something you probably cant afford



Wait?? If it doesn't have the authority?? Why are right wingers worried about banning gay marraige?? If they don't have the authority.. Doesn't that little fact make the gay marriage debate somewhat pointless?? Or are you wrong??

As for insurance raising their rates?? If you all were really worried about that, you would have voted for a public option to force the insurance to keep their rates down with some competition.. Since you conservatives didn't want a public option.. There is no reason to complain about rates.. You didn't want to do anything to help fix the problem so why complain about it??


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 12, 2010)

MajikMyst said:


> actsnoblemartin said:
> 
> 
> > #1 the government has ZERO authority to tell me how to live my life, or tell me what I must or must not have. Unless you want them deciding if you can have an abortion, they should not mandate you to have something you probably cant afford
> ...



Does gov't have the authority to regulate marriage?  Would seem so.  Does gov't have the authority to tell me I must buy a financial product?  Seems not.
So your comparison is wrong from the start.

Public option would not have kept costs down.  There is no evidence it would.  It would merely have resulted in single payer.  This is all well established for anyone paying attention.  That doesn't include you but I guess they don't give you newspapers in the asylum.


----------



## bromiley (Sep 15, 2010)

Anyway, outside of the President and congression Democrats who needed to play this up, it was well known that rates were going to go up now.

The increase this year is nothing unusual and is a sign that the HCR bill has done nothing of consequence so far. The difference being that this time they have a pre-packaged excuse for why they're gouging you yet again: Obamacare. The response from the statist thugs imposing ObamaCare was equally predictable


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 15, 2010)

bromiley said:


> Anyway, outside of the President and congression Democrats who needed to play this up, it was well known that rates were going to go up now.
> 
> The increase this year is nothing unusual and is a sign that the HCR bill has done nothing of consequence so far. The difference being that this time they have a pre-packaged excuse for why they're gouging you yet again: Obamacare. The response from the statist thugs imposing ObamaCare was equally predictable



Dunce.
The increases were larger than expected and totally due to mandates from Obamacare.  Do you think risk is free?  Do you think insurers can give away product for nothing?


----------



## Luissa (Sep 15, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> bromiley said:
> 
> 
> > Anyway, outside of the President and congression Democrats who needed to play this up, it was well known that rates were going to go up now.
> ...



So you think a program that would have increased their number of clients, would make an insurance company have to raise their rates? 

If you own a restaurant, and you say double the amount of customers you are getting, paying customers I might add. The insurance companies will be charging the government, for covering their new customers. Would you be forced to raise your prices? 
Obamacare is mostly providing insurance for people, through private plans. These insurance companies are going to have millions of new customers. How is the bad for them again?


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 15, 2010)

Luissa said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > bromiley said:
> ...



Dunce.  There is no individual mandate until 2014.  But mandated coverage starts this year.  Rates are increasing because coverage is mandated to increase.


----------



## chanel (Sep 15, 2010)

Yes.  A woman on O'Reilly explained that the companies can no longer deny or require a co-pay for preventative tests like MRIs and conolonscopies and whatnot.  So not only are they being gypped out of the small co-pay, they are preparing for 30 million new tests that are now "free".  

It cracks me up when people use the word "free".


----------



## Greenbeard (Sep 15, 2010)

chanel said:


> Yes.  A woman on O'Reilly explained that the companies can no longer deny or require a co-pay for preventative tests like MRIs and conolonscopies and whatnot.



MRIs? No. Cost-sharing is eliminated for preventive services that have an A or B rating from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. That list can be viewed here. It ranges from an aspirin to a vision test to cancer screenings.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 15, 2010)

Luissa said:


> So you think a program that would have increased their number of clients, would make an insurance company have to raise their rates?
> 
> If you own a restaurant, and you say double the amount of customers you are getting, paying customers I might add. The insurance companies will be charging the government, for covering their new customers. Would you be forced to raise your prices?
> Obamacare is mostly providing insurance for people, through private plans. These insurance companies are going to have millions of new customers. How is the bad for them again?



Let us examine how this works.

A 20 something man looks at the individual mandate tax of $600 and then looks at the insurance premium of $300 a month. This means he has a choice between paying $3600 for something he doesn't want, or $600 for not getting it, which do you think he will choose?

On top of that, the mandate does not take effect until 2016, (after Obama is out of office) which means that this year insurers have to increase benefits, cover sick people, and cut their profits, all without the benefit of more customers. Explain to me, in very small words, how this is going to drive down premium costs this year.


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 15, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > So you think a program that would have increased their number of clients, would make an insurance company have to raise their rates?
> ...



GREEDY INSURANCE COMPANIES!!!  REPUBLICANS DONT CARE!!!  BOOOOSSSHHHHH!!

That's about the best response you'll get to your careful question.
Yes, mandates for increased coverage kick in immediately.  Thus prices must rise to cover them because the law did not limit premiums. nor could it because that would drive insurers out of business.


----------



## Greenbeard (Sep 15, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> A 20 something man looks at the individual mandate tax of $600 and then looks at the insurance premium of $300 a month. This means he has a choice between paying $3600 for something he doesn't want, or $600 for not getting it, which do you think he will choose?



Perhaps he'll opt for a catastrophic plan.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 15, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > A 20 something man looks at the individual mandate tax of $600 and then looks at the insurance premium of $300 a month. This means he has a choice between paying $3600 for something he doesn't want, or $600 for not getting it, which do you think he will choose?
> ...



I didn't when it was me, and I wouldn't now if I was 20 something.


----------



## Annie (Sep 15, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



My 24 year old son agreed with you. Luckily he just landed a job. For the past year + some months, he went without.


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 16, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Why would you?  If you get sick then you apply afterwards.  They can't deny you coverage.  That's the law.
From the time I was 20 until I was probably 35 or so I hardly ever went to the doctor, much less had anything that needed real attention.  All the health insurance I had basically wasted during that time.  IN retrospect anyway.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 16, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...



Ignorance on full display. You can't go without coverage and then just pick it up the day you get sick. What happens if you are in a car accident and are in a coma? Still gonna call to request coverage? Well thought out logic though. 

In reality, there will be enrollment periods preventing people from being able to do this.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 16, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Many states cover ar accidents under car insurance polices.  Nice job of thinking that through.


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 16, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



You'll have to excuse RDD.  He thought insurers were opposed to Obamacare so his level of knowledge here is minimal.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 16, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



LMAO!


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 16, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Nice non-response.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 16, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



You find it funny that you made an inaccurate and poorly thought out reply?  Good for you I guess.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 16, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



LOL, Ok, you have a stroke, or heart attack, or shot and are rendered unconscious, etc.... Is your master plan to still be covered by your car insurance? LOL.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 16, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Okay, switching back to that argument.  So, I got you on the car accident point.

Most people are well protected under bankruptcy laws and would suffer minimal losses on a medical bankruptcy.  People do this on a regular basis.  Care to inquire as to why it is so popular?  Cheaper than insurance and fairly easy to get.  No denial of coverage.  You do realize hospitals will give you care on the conditions you mentioned right?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 16, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



IT GETS EVEN BETTER! *Your solution is bankruptcy!!!* LMAO!!!!!      LOL!!!! Holy shit, I need to catch my breath. WOW!!!


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 16, 2010)

Yes, I'm the first to have ever considered it.


Illness and medical bills caused half of the 1,458,000 personal bankruptcies in 2001, according to a study published by the journal Health Affairs. 

Read more: Medical Bills Leading Cause of Bankruptcy, Harvard Study Finds


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 16, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Yes, I'm the first to have ever considered it.
> 
> 
> Illness and medical bills caused half of the 1,458,000 personal bankruptcies in 2001, according to a study published by the journal Health Affairs.
> ...



LOL, I'm still laughing! 

*You just proved exactly why health reform is needed in this country, because of the overwhelming number of people who went bankrupt due to medical bills. *

LOL, Thank you for the good laugh, I appreciate it.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 16, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I'm the first to have ever considered it.
> ...



When ARE they going to start healthcare reform?  The cost containment type.


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 16, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



You have been pwned from here to eternity.  Every post you have made is simply factually wrong.  When you can't refute it, you declare victory and go home.

The basic point is proven: young people will not enroll in insurance plans that exceed to cost of the fine for not doing it.  They will remain uninsured until they get sick, at which time they will apply for and get insurance.  If they can't, their relatives can certainly do it for them under power of attorney (didn't consider that one, eh?).
Thus insurers will not really get the stock of premium-paying low risk people they thought but will be stuck with mandates that raise exposure.
Thus rates will continue up at ever greater percentages until a government takeover is the "only" solution.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 16, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



I'm "pwned" but these two genius minds are suggesting medical bankruptcy and using power of attorney as solutions to the healthcare crisis. LMAO!!! If that's being "pwned" then so be it. Simply amazing!!!


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 16, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> Ignorance on full display. You can't go without coverage and then just pick it up the day you get sick. What happens if you are in a car accident and are in a coma? Still gonna call to request coverage? Well thought out logic though.
> 
> In reality, there will be enrollment periods preventing people from being able to do this.



This is the post I responded to.  Thanks for the intellectual dishonesty.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 16, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Ignorance on full display. You can't go without coverage and then just pick it up the day you get sick. What happens if you are in a car accident and are in a coma? Still gonna call to request coverage? Well thought out logic though.
> ...



Bankruptcy!!! This is why republicans can't fix the healthcare system, you're suggesting bankruptcy as a solution!. Bwahahahahahahha!!!!


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 16, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Who is suggesting bankruptcy as a solution to health care problems?
No one.  It is a straw man of your own making.  The suggestion is that people ALREADY USE BANKRUPTCY as a solution to medical bills they cannot pay.  The Obamacare fix will not help that situation. In fact, it will make it worse.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 16, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



I asked what people should do who do not have health insurance and have a catastrophic incident. His suggestion was bankruptcy! "It's "worked" for so many people before, why not keep doing it" he says. LOL!!

And the removing of caps on coverages and coverage denial for pre-existing conditions DOES address this issue. 

The two of you are so ridiculously stubborn and biased it's quite literally breath taking. LMAO!!!


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 16, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> I asked what people should do who do not have health insurance and have a catastrophic incident. His suggestion was bankruptcy! "It's "worked" for so many people before, why not keep doing it" he says. LOL!!
> 
> And the removing of caps on coverages and coverage denial for pre-existing conditions DOES address this issue.
> 
> The two of you are so ridiculously stubborn and biased it's quite literally breath taking. LMAO!!!



Really?

This is the post I responded to:

"Ignorance on full display. You can't go without coverage and then just pick it up the day you get sick. What happens if you are in a car accident and are in a coma? Still gonna call to request coverage? Well thought out logic though." - RDD_1210 post #88

Further, I simply responded with what many people are doing to combet the issue.  You suggested I was wrong, so I posted information showing that is how almost 2 million people a year deal with it.

You have been wrong at every turn, so you resorted to lies and fabricated quotes.


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 16, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



You're making shit up again.
You did not ask that.  You asked about a very specific case of someone in a car accident AND comatose.
The response given was adequate.
Removing caps and pre-existing "addresses" the issue in the sense of making it worse.  It will encourage people to go without insurance, knowing full well they can get it later.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 16, 2010)

Insurance is the worst possible delivery system imagineable with a commodity people use as a benefit.
Is a car accident a benefit?
Is a death a benefit?
Group health insurance has ruined American health care. Anything where a third party pays the bill is ripe for fraud and waste.
Blank check health care for seniors must also end.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 16, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Concrete thinking at its finest. I used a car accident as an example, with the point being someone who is incapacitated and could not sign up for insurance on the spot. When this point went right over his head, I had to expand my example to show that people can be rendered unconscious in cases other then auto accidents. I'm sorry for assuming that he couldn't make the connection, which you seem to refuse to do either.

His "solution" for these people by declaring bankruptcy to cover their medical bills is FAR from adequate and is actually quite ridiculous and only further highlights the need for healthcare reform in this country. 

Next time, when you lose an argument, instead of making yourself look worse by posting further, just admit maybe you were wrong and stop posting.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 16, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Really?  My solution?  I don't even go to a doctor.  I have health insurance.  Almost two million Americans use it annually.  Yet, you choose not to  see it as an answer by many.  We had healthcare reform.  Did you get the memo?  How is it working out for you so far?  From what I see, it is increasing insurance premiums by 1-2% more than Obama said it would.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 16, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



I mean this is the nicest way possible.......if you're still advocating that people SHOULD be filing for bankruptcy to take care of their medical bills and DON'T see how that's a major part of the problem in this country with the healthcare system then you obviously lack the mental capacity to even try to continue to discuss this any further.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 16, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Why didn't the Dems eliminate medical bankruptcies then?  I mean this in the nicest way, but if you can't be more honest then STFU.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 16, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



Thanks again for the laughs!! Made my day.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 16, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Medical bankruptcies aren't a Dem priority.  Just what I thought.  Apparently you can't discuss the issue at all.  Nervous laughter often can cover for a lack of understanding.


----------



## Greenbeard (Sep 16, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Why didn't the Dems eliminate medical bankruptcies then?  I mean this in the nicest way, but if you can't be more honest then STFU.



Well, start with some facts:

Woolhandler and her colleagues surveyed a random sample of 2,314 people who filed for bankruptcy in early 2007, looked at their court records, and then interviewed more than 1,000 of them. 

They concluded that 62.1 percent of the bankruptcies were medically related because the individuals either had more than $5,000 (or 10 percent of their pretax income) in medical bills, mortgaged their home to pay for medical bills, or lost significant income due to an illness. On average, medically bankrupt families had $17,943 in out-of-pocket expenses, including $26,971 for those who lacked insurance and $17,749 who had insurance at some point.

Overall, three-quarters of the people with a medically-related bankruptcy had health insurance, they say.

"That was actually the predominant problem in patients in our study -- 78 percent of them had health insurance, but many of them were bankrupted anyway because there were gaps in their coverage like co-payments and deductibles and uncovered services," says Woolhandler. "Other people had private insurance but got so sick that they lost their job and lost their insurance."​
So it looks like if we're talking about medical bankruptcies, we're look at two basic kinds of people:


People who don't have insurance but get sick; or, conversely, people who get sick and lose their job/coverage because of it. Either way, they then have trouble paying for the care they need.
People who _do_ have insurance (the large majority) but find their coverage isn't comprehensive enough or that the cost-sharing is more than they can handle, financially.

So if you wanted to address this issue, how might you proceed? First, you might eliminate lifetime limits and put restrictions on annual limits with respect to benefits (I'll tack on there the obvious step of also ending rescissions). Second, you might put limits on out-of-pocket spending. Third, you might establish a uniform baseline standard of comprehensive coverage that plans must meet. Fourth, you might create viable alternatives to employer-sponsored coverage so that someone who loses their job need not necessarily become uninsured. All of these will be happening, some of them starting in plan years that begin after next week.

Combating medical bankruptcies means addressing their causes.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 16, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Why didn't the Dems eliminate medical bankruptcies then?  I mean this in the nicest way, but if you can't be more honest then STFU.
> ...



Democrats had their chance this last spring.  Why the fail?  Probably because your suggested fixes would make healthcare insurance too expensive for anyone but the rich or in Congress.


----------



## Greenbeard (Sep 16, 2010)

Had their chance at what?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 16, 2010)

Has anyone ever answered what reporting purchases over $600 to the IRS has to do with Health Care Reform?


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 16, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> Had their chance at what?



Focus there Greenbeard.  What is the thread topic again?  Wipe your mouth your drooling.


----------



## Greenbeard (Sep 16, 2010)

saveliberty said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > Had their chance at what?
> ...



Have we moved on from "this law does nothing to prevent medical bankruptcies" to "this law does too much to prevent bankruptcies"?


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 16, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...



Well, the thread title says, "Health Insurers Raise Rates Because of Obamacare".  I'm inclined to say no, your totally off topic.


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 16, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Why didn't the Dems eliminate medical bankruptcies then?  I mean this in the nicest way, but if you can't be more honest then STFU.
> ...



Unfortunately all those "solutions" will result in health insurance which is cost prohibitive (see OP) so fewer people, not more, will be covered.
Or do you think that risk doesn't cost anything?
A solution worse than the problem.  
Leave it to the Democrats.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 16, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



The insurers can deny someone coverage based on the preexisting condition of them not having insurance?


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 16, 2010)

It was never about better or cheaper or more accessible health care.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 16, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I'm the first to have ever considered it.
> ...



Actually, he didn't. What he proved is that a study made a baseless claim. Actual court filings list medical expenses as the primary or secondary cause of bankruptcy in less than 15% of actual bankruptcies. The reason for this is actually pretty simple, most hospitals do not pursue delinquencies to the point that a person has to declare bankruptcy to avoid paying them. They have social service offices in order to find a way for people to get insurance after they need it, and they can write off the losses and get compensated through various taxing agencies if they do not pursue the accounts.


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 16, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



No, of course not.  RDD is not playing with a full knowledge pool and despite having been embarassed several times already for his ignorance he continues to post nonsense.


----------



## Care4all (Sep 16, 2010)

in massachusetts, a few years back, before I moved to maine...insurance companies COULD deny you their health insurance if you did not have health insurance previously....I kid you not!  It was like being denied for a preexisting condition.


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 17, 2010)

Care4all said:


> in massachusetts, a few years back, before I moved to maine...insurance companies COULD deny you their health insurance if you did not have health insurance previously....I kid you not!  It was like being denied for a preexisting condition.



Car insurance worked the same in PA when I was there.  So?

So MA passed Romneycare, which is not teetering on bankruptcy.  The governor's solution has been to exert more and more control over insurers.  Younger people aren't taking insurance,knowing they can get it later if needed.
In short, whatever we've predicted for Obamacare is happening right now with Romneycare.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 17, 2010)

I propose a private system where YOU own your own individual policy, pay the bills, scrutinize the billing and charges and then submit for payment to your insurance company be it through a benefit or your own.
That is NOT a third party system. That is how my policy works.
Group health care has ruined American health care. Americans, under group health care, utilize the system based on what IS COVERED, NOT ON WHAT IS HEALTHY FOR THEM.


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 17, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> I propose a private system where YOU own your own individual policy, pay the bills, scrutinize the billing and charges and then submit for payment to your insurance company be it through a benefit or your own.
> That is NOT a third party system. That is how my policy works.
> Group health care has ruined American health care. Americans, under group health care, utilize the system based on what IS COVERED, NOT ON WHAT IS HEALTHY FOR THEM.



The GOP basically proposed the exact same thing.  
Yes, third party payment has shredded the economics of health care, driving up costs phenomenally.


----------



## Care4all (Sep 17, 2010)

do you all really think the businesses buying these group plans for their workers do not have an incentive to negotiate and bring the health care costs down?


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 17, 2010)

Care4all said:


> do you all really think the businesses buying these group plans for their workers do not have an incentive to negotiate and bring the health care costs down?



No, they don't.
First, businesses don't negotiate health care costs.  They negotiate insurance rates.
But since insurance companies are state regulated and there are few of them, there is less competition.  But insurers do not have the ability to drop rates to zero.  Their business is very low margin, so everyone is going to quote within a range.  And that range is higher, thanks to Obamacare's mandates.

But leave it to you to mis-state fact and present a bungled question cum argument.  You truly are clueless here, aren't you?


----------



## Care4all (Sep 17, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > do you all really think the businesses buying these group plans for their workers do not have an incentive to negotiate and bring the health care costs down?
> ...



KUDOS!  

You are one of the most vulgar, and nonsensical posters on this board faux rabbi!!!!


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 17, 2010)

Care4all said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



Excellent!  Not only do you demonstrate your inability to debate, or understand what's been written, you can't even come up with an original insult, recycling them from that poor nutjob Jillian.


----------



## saveliberty (Sep 17, 2010)

Care4all said:


> do you all really think the businesses buying these group plans for their workers do not have an incentive to negotiate and bring the health care costs down?



I don't see us negoiating health premiums here.  Usually two or three agents come in and offer two or three plans each.  The owner and office manager review the plans for the best fit and costs and we have a new plan.

The history is, the premiums always go up and the coverage is the same or less.  I imagine we are not that different from other small businesses.


----------



## Greenbeard (Sep 17, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> I propose a private system where YOU own your own individual policy, pay the bills, scrutinize the billing and charges and then submit for payment to your insurance company be it through a benefit or your own.
> That is NOT a third party system. That is how my policy works.
> Group health care has ruined American health care. Americans, under group health care, utilize the system based on what IS COVERED, NOT ON WHAT IS HEALTHY FOR THEM.



It sounds like you're just pushing for more individual health insurance coverage over group (i.e. employer-based plans). I agree that's a better system but it's still third party payment.



saveliberty said:


> I don't see us negoiating health premiums here.  Usually two or three agents come in and offer two or three plans each.  The owner and office manager review the plans for the best fit and costs and we have a new plan.
> 
> The history is, the premiums always go up and the coverage is the same or less.  I imagine we are not that different from other small businesses.



How about some sort of SHOP exchange for small businesses, based on defined contributions from your employer but granting you full access to any plan of your choice offered through the exchange, similar to the exchange Utah recently rolled out. Does that sound appealing to you?


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 18, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see us negoiating health premiums here.  Usually two or three agents come in and offer two or three plans each.  The owner and office manager review the plans for the best fit and costs and we have a new plan.
> ...



Have those been shown to reduce insurance premiums?  Has any "exchange" system been shown to reduce premiums?
No, I don't think so.


----------

