Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
more at the source.Healthy consumers could see insurance rates double or even triple when they look for individual coverage under the federal health law later this year, while the premiums paid by sicker people are set to become more affordable, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of coverage to be sold on the law's new exchanges.
Healthy consumers could see insurance rates double or even triple when they look for individual coverage under the federal health law later this year, while the premiums paid by sicker people are set to become more affordable. Louise Radnofsky reports.
The exchanges, the centerpiece of President Barack Obama's health-care law, look likely to offer few if any of the cut-rate policies that healthy people can now buy, according to the Journal's analysis. At the same time, the top prices look to be within reach for many people who previously faced sky-high premiums because of chronic illnesses or who couldn't buy insurance at all.
Several big provisions in the law taking effect in six months affect rates for the estimated 20% of Americans who don't have coverage through an employer, Medicare or Medicaid. Plans must be available to consumers regardless of their health and must cover certain items such as hospitalization, maternity care and prescription drugs. The exchanges are set to open Oct. 1 selling plans effective Jan. 1.
A review of rates proposed by carriers in eight states shows the likely boundaries for the least-expensive and most costly plans on the exchanges. The lower boundary is particularly important because the government wants to attract healthy people to the exchanges, and they may choose to pay a penalty and take the risk of going without coverage if they believe they can't get an acceptable deal
Wonder why Republicans must fight those programs intended to help the American people? They fought Social Security tooth and nail, are still fighting it, and still using the same fear tactics they used in the Thirties. One might think Republicans would accept the fact that America, like the other industrial nations is going to have medical care, and then work to make it the best program we can create? Instead 65 years from now Republicans will still be fighting medical care, still trying to make it fail, still trying to convince the American people it will lead to communism, will make Americans weak and less able to do survive the rigors of the frontier? I guess that is just the way our nation works?
Wonder why Republicans must fight those programs intended to help the American people? They fought Social Security tooth and nail, are still fighting it, and still using the same fear tactics they used in the Thirties. One might think Republicans would accept the fact that America, like the other industrial nations is going to have medical care, and then work to make it the best program we can create? Instead 65 years from now Republicans will still be fighting medical care, still trying to make it fail, still trying to convince the American people it will lead to communism, will make Americans weak and less able to do survive the rigors of the frontier? I guess that is just the way our nation works?
Might have something to do with the fact that the programs suck, are counter productive, and ultimately fail.
Right. It doesn't happen. No insurance company ever dropped someone just because they became sick. They drop people because on investigation the person lied on the initial application.
Glad we cleared that up.
bullshit.....i met quit a few people in the course of delivering their mail that had that happen to them to the point were they had to sell the house because of medical bills.....i am glad i cleared that up.....
And of course they told you how they lied on their initial application. Right?
bullshit.....i met quit a few people in the course of delivering their mail that had that happen to them to the point were they had to sell the house because of medical bills.....i am glad i cleared that up.....
And of course they told you how they lied on their initial application. Right?
no they did not.....one guy had the fucking same company for 30 years....Kaiser.....they said it was a Technicality.....he did not list a job he had 40 years ago or some bullshit like that......the trouble with you Rabbi you believe every thing you are told.....try talking to people that have had this shit happen to them.....maybe if it happened to you or someone you know....you might have a different opinion....you were the same way in the threads about Pot.....no personal experience....it was all about what you were told.....
And that's why I call him an idiot, Harry. It's either that, or The Rabbi is just so consumed with hatred of President Obama and Democrats that he doesn't allow any facts, or any common sense to invade his bubble.yea i dont buy that either....
I provided proof that is exactly the case.
how is finding out you have prostate cancer early and treating it and beating it.....more expensive than waiting until you have it and now you need surgery and chemo and who knows what else?......same thing with Colon Cancer.....how is a Colonoscopy every few years more expensive than treating someone who has Colon Cancer?....
Funny, there is nothing in there about quality going up. Even if the claim that hospitals are saving money is true, that does not indicate that quality is going up, nor is that necessarily a positive for anyone but the owners of the hospitals.
252 hospitals and physician groups across the U.S. have signed up to join the administrations accountable care program, in which they share the financial risk of keeping patients healthy.
Under the program, hospitals and physician practices take responsibility for tracking and maintaining the health of elderly and disabled patients. If costs rise beyond an agreed upon level, hospitals may become responsible for reimbursing the government. If they cut the cost of care while maintaining quality, hospitals share in the savings. The government expects the savings may be as much as $1.9 billion from 2012 to 2015. Early indications suggest they are starting to add up.
Rabbi... the conversation was about being dropped from the policy if something happens to you like getting LEGITIMATELY sick.....your comment about someone lying to the Ins Company was in response to this statement......
It should be shocking that an insurance company could drop you the moment you become unprofitable.
i understand what you were saying.....but what does that have to do with people who get legitimately sick and get booted off the policy?....
Right. It doesn't happen. No insurance company ever dropped someone just because they became sick. They drop people because on investigation the person lied on the initial application.
Glad we cleared that up.
bullshit.....i met quit a few people in the course of delivering their mail that had that happen to them to the point were they had to sell the house because of medical bills.....i am glad i cleared that up.....
Well, just talking off the top of my head I can list a few good things.
You will not be denied for a pre-existing condition if you get sick and you won't be kicked off your insurance if you become sick no matter what the condition.
You can stay on your parents plan until you are 26.
You can keep the insurance you have or you can pick one of the exchanges and more info. is coming out about them in October.
If you have Medicare the doughnut hole will slowly start closing and eventually be gone.
More preventative services will be covered under Medicare that were not before.
Medicaid coverage will expand for folks that need it.
I'm sure there's more if I went and looked but this is just a few basic points.
Are you 100% positive those are all good points? Why should parents be forced to support their children until the age of 26? Shouldn't they be able to tell them that they are adults and to get their own insurance, and take advantage of the lower rates?
You dont' get it. How many lives are lost because money that could have been spent on finding cures is spent instead on expensive screenings that are unnecessary?Sowell calls that "the fallacy of unlimited resources." We can think about the lives saved. What you are missing are the lives that would have been saved had more money been available for whatever.
But this is typical lib-speak. Another version of "we're doing this for the children!"
I understand what you are trying to say, but for me, the lives saved from preventative screenings is more important than cost, more preventative screenings means more things-mostly cancer caught early enough to save lives. I can understand some things not being done like a chest xray for example unless there is a problem and I can understand not doing a mammogram until 50. But other than that, I have seen a lot of info. over the years that shows preventative care saves lives and saved healthcare costs. Nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree at this point. It happens.
Well, just talking off the top of my head I can list a few good things.
You will not be denied for a pre-existing condition if you get sick and you won't be kicked off your insurance if you become sick no matter what the condition.
You can stay on your parents plan until you are 26.
You can keep the insurance you have or you can pick one of the exchanges and more info. is coming out about them in October.
If you have Medicare the doughnut hole will slowly start closing and eventually be gone.
More preventative services will be covered under Medicare that were not before.
Medicaid coverage will expand for folks that need it.
I'm sure there's more if I went and looked but this is just a few basic points.
Are you 100% positive those are all good points? Why should parents be forced to support their children until the age of 26? Shouldn't they be able to tell them that they are adults and to get their own insurance, and take advantage of the lower rates?
It's an option, not mandatory.
But what parent wouldn't say, even, "You can stay on our policy, and you pay us the difference each month"?
I don't know of any parents that willfully choose for their children to pay more than they have to.
Maybe you're a different type of 'parent'?
Right. It doesn't happen. No insurance company ever dropped someone just because they became sick. They drop people because on investigation the person lied on the initial application.
Glad we cleared that up.
bullshit.....i met quit a few people in the course of delivering their mail that had that happen to them to the point were they had to sell the house because of medical bills.....i am glad i cleared that up.....
It's illegal in every State to drop peoples Health Insurance based on Claims Experience.
And even if the Company did, they're still on the hook for the Bills after the Health Insurance goes away. It's called COBRA, ERISA and TEFRA. Look them up. Or not. Just taking my word for it would be your best bet.
No Insurance Company can avoid paying an ongoing claim by canceling the policy holder.
It.Can.Not.Be.Done.
Period. It just can't be done. And anybody that says otherwise is an idiot, a liar or both
The employer should be shielded completely. General Motors would be able to compete better with more modern countries like Japan, Korea, and Germany if it didn't have to shell out $1500 per car in their workers' healthcare costs.Are you 100% positive those are all good points? Why should parents be forced to support their children until the age of 26? Shouldn't they be able to tell them that they are adults and to get their own insurance, and take advantage of the lower rates?
It's an option, not mandatory.
But what parent wouldn't say, even, "You can stay on our policy, and you pay us the difference each month"?
I don't know of any parents that willfully choose for their children to pay more than they have to.
Maybe you're a different type of 'parent'?
Many, if not most, Group Health Insurance Plans have two rates -- Single and Family.
Others (though that number is diminishing) offer three rate plans, single, married and family.
In any case, it doesn't matter whether you have one kid or ten kids on your Group Plan, it costs the same.
That's why keeping kids on the plan until age 47 is a good thing for the Insured. Not so good for the Ins Company or the Employer. But who cares about them anyway?
And all of that is free, Free, FREE! Right?
It's mind boggling to watch you idiots absolutely REFUSE to even take one minute to actually learn what the legislation does and does not do.
The legislation is so good that everyone is under penalty if the dont participate.
You are a jerk.
You can no longer lose your job and not get medical insurance after you find employment because of an illness that occurred under your previous medical coverage.
You can no longer be denied medical insurance for a childhood illness such as cancer.
Yes, let's require coverage for pre-existing conditions for all insurance. That way, you wouldn't have to buy homeowner's insurance until house catches fire...
Whoa! You really stumped me with that one!
You are one hell of a deep thinker, aren't you? Remind me never to get into a debat with you. You are way too smart.
It's mind boggling to watch you idiots absolutely REFUSE to even take one minute to actually learn what the legislation does and does not do.
The legislation is so good that everyone is under penalty if the dont participate.
You are a jerk.
Tell me one person who would rightfully want to not have insurance in this country. I'll wait.
The employer should be shielded completely. General Motors would be able to compete better with more modern countries like Japan, Korea, and Germany if it didn't have to shell out $1500 per car in their workers' healthcare costs.It's an option, not mandatory.
But what parent wouldn't say, even, "You can stay on our policy, and you pay us the difference each month"?
I don't know of any parents that willfully choose for their children to pay more than they have to.
Maybe you're a different type of 'parent'?
Many, if not most, Group Health Insurance Plans have two rates -- Single and Family.
Others (though that number is diminishing) offer three rate plans, single, married and family.
In any case, it doesn't matter whether you have one kid or ten kids on your Group Plan, it costs the same.
That's why keeping kids on the plan until age 47 is a good thing for the Insured. Not so good for the Ins Company or the Employer. But who cares about them anyway?
And I don't give a fuck about insurance companies. The health of the citizenship of a nation should not be a for-profit endeavor. I am for universal health care for the majority of the routine medicine performed daily.
And that's why I call him an idiot, Harry. It's either that, or The Rabbi is just so consumed with hatred of President Obama and Democrats that he doesn't allow any facts, or any common sense to invade his bubble.I provided proof that is exactly the case.
how is finding out you have prostate cancer early and treating it and beating it.....more expensive than waiting until you have it and now you need surgery and chemo and who knows what else?......same thing with Colon Cancer.....how is a Colonoscopy every few years more expensive than treating someone who has Colon Cancer?....
