Pre-existing conditions coverage

[Andylusion]

This is one of the most popular provisions in an otherwise despised law, Obamacare. It polls consistently well. And it sounds good: Insirance companies cannot deny coverage for pre existing conditions. Right?
But why would they deny coverage to begin with?
When they are forced to issue policies to people with pre existing conditions, who pays for the higher risk the company incurs by insuring them?
I realize these are beyond Stage One questions so the leftists here wont have a clue what I mean. But maybe some of the more informed posters can chime in.

Well first, how does insurance work?

If you punch in "insurance" into Wiki, you get this suitable definition.

Insurance is the equitable transfer of the risk of a loss, from one entity to another in exchange for payment. It is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss.

Now I highlighted the key words in there. "risk". "Contingent" "Uncertain loss".

You can't buy insurance against your Cable Bill. Why not? Because it's not uncertain. It's not a "risk" of loss. The chances that you will have a cable bill next month, is 100%.

See the way insurance works is, they take a look at the rough estimate based on your driving habits, and the rough estimate on how much it will cost to repair your vehicle model, and based on the actuarial tables of what the chances are of you having an accident, and the chances of what that accident might cost.... they come up with a auto insurance premium that covers that loss, and makes them a small profit.

Now, can you get insurance for a demolition derby driver? Of course not. The chances of you getting hit every other Saturday during the summer, is 100%. You ARE going to get hit in the derby.

Well.... why can't they cover that? Well because the cost of the premium would be the entire cost of replacing the derby car, plus a profit margin for providing the service.

But that price would be higher than the cost of replacing the car yourself 100% of the time. Therefore the customer would never buy that insurance, thus the insurance companies never bother to offer it.

Back to health insurance.

If you have a pre-existing condition, and it is 100% chance that you are GOING to have health care costs... the amount that the insurance company would have to charge would be high enough to cover the entire cost of the future medical expenses, plus a profit margin.

Now first off you wouldn't buy that policy to begin with, but it doesn't matter, because the dirty secret of insurance premiums, is that every single state in the union, already controls premiums. The company couldn't charge a high enough rate to make money on the policy anyway.... so they simply don't offer it.

What pre-existing conditions clauses did, was allow them to offer insurance against the uncertain risk, but exclude the 100% certain risk.

But now with Obama care, they have no choice but to offer insurance, and they can't deny anyone, and they can't have a pre-existing condition clause.

So the company must cover all the health care costs, even of 100% certain costs, but they can't charge enough in premiums to cover that cost.

So who pays?

We do. The cost for all these health insurance payouts, that the company can't recover from the individual, will come from the rest of us.

Eliminating the pre-existing condition clause, and mandating no denials of insurance, means all of our insurance premiums will rise faster than ever before.

 

[Andylusion]

It sounds nice that people who have preexisting conditions aren't denied coverage, but why should someone who costs more to insure pay the same premium as someone with no preexisting condition?

Its called "spread the risk."

No, it's not "risk". Risk implies an uncertain loss. Pre-existing conditions, means it's not uncertain. It's a 100% chance of loss.

More accurately, it's called spreading the cost. Which by the way, is what we've been doing for some time now.

Right now, the biggest increase in health care costs, has been Medicare and Medicaid. Those programs don't cover the full cost of treatment, and thus, all of *US* have had to pay a higher price to cover them.

Again, socialism makes us all poorer.

This new plan, will continue the spreading of the cost, driving up costs for everyone more.

 

[dnsmith35]

It sounds nice that people who have preexisting conditions aren't denied coverage, but why should someone who costs more to insure pay the same premium as someone with no preexisting condition?

Its called "spread the risk."

You mean spread the cost, which isn't fair, considering the ones that are at risk to be sick are the ones that are more Likely to get claims.

I obviously do not agree about the "fairness" any more than it is unfair for 2 people making the same money to pay the same income tax. Look at healthcare premiums as taxes everyone pays, and everyone then gets the benefit as needed.

 

[Andylusion]

Its called "spread the risk."

You mean spread the cost, which isn't fair, considering the ones that are at risk to be sick are the ones that are more Likely to get claims.

I obviously do not agree about the "fairness" any more than it is unfair for 2 people making the same money to pay the same income tax. Look at healthcare premiums as taxes everyone pays, and everyone then gets the benefit as needed.

No... you are missing this by a mile.

Why do boys pay a higher premium for auto insurance, than girls? Why do younger drivers pay a higher premium than older drivers?

Everyone get's the benefits of auto insurance when they pay the premiums. But the premiums are different for different drivers. A person with a long history of crashing into stuff, should logically and fairly pay a higher premium than those who have never had an accident in their life.

That's fair. Same is true of health insurance.

 

[The Rabbi]

This is one of the most popular provisions in an otherwise despised law, Obamacare. It polls consistently well. And it sounds good: Insirance companies cannot deny coverage for pre existing conditions. Right?
But why would they deny coverage to begin with?
When they are forced to issue policies to people with pre existing conditions, who pays for the higher risk the company incurs by insuring them?
I realize these are beyond Stage One questions so the leftists here wont have a clue what I mean. But maybe some of the more informed posters can chime in.

Well first, how does insurance work?

If you punch in "insurance" into Wiki, you get this suitable definition.

Insurance is the equitable transfer of the risk of a loss, from one entity to another in exchange for payment. It is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss.

Now I highlighted the key words in there. "risk". "Contingent" "Uncertain loss".

You can't buy insurance against your Cable Bill. Why not? Because it's not uncertain. It's not a "risk" of loss. The chances that you will have a cable bill next month, is 100%.

See the way insurance works is, they take a look at the rough estimate based on your driving habits, and the rough estimate on how much it will cost to repair your vehicle model, and based on the actuarial tables of what the chances are of you having an accident, and the chances of what that accident might cost.... they come up with a auto insurance premium that covers that loss, and makes them a small profit.

Now, can you get insurance for a demolition derby driver? Of course not. The chances of you getting hit every other Saturday during the summer, is 100%. You ARE going to get hit in the derby.

Well.... why can't they cover that? Well because the cost of the premium would be the entire cost of replacing the derby car, plus a profit margin for providing the service.

But that price would be higher than the cost of replacing the car yourself 100% of the time. Therefore the customer would never buy that insurance, thus the insurance companies never bother to offer it.

Back to health insurance.

If you have a pre-existing condition, and it is 100% chance that you are GOING to have health care costs... the amount that the insurance company would have to charge would be high enough to cover the entire cost of the future medical expenses, plus a profit margin.

Now first off you wouldn't buy that policy to begin with, but it doesn't matter, because the dirty secret of insurance premiums, is that every single state in the union, already controls premiums. The company couldn't charge a high enough rate to make money on the policy anyway.... so they simply don't offer it.

What pre-existing conditions clauses did, was allow them to offer insurance against the uncertain risk, but exclude the 100% certain risk.

But now with Obama care, they have no choice but to offer insurance, and they can't deny anyone, and they can't have a pre-existing condition clause.

So the company must cover all the health care costs, even of 100% certain costs, but they can't charge enough in premiums to cover that cost.

So who pays?

We do. The cost for all these health insurance payouts, that the company can't recover from the individual, will come from the rest of us.

Eliminating the pre-existing condition clause, and mandating no denials of insurance, means all of our insurance premiums will rise faster than ever before.

OK, that's pretty much where I was going with some corrections. Just because a person has a PEC does not equal 100% certaintly of a claim. Yes, in some cases it does but in most cases insurance companies denied coverage, knowing the person could go on Medicare or whatever. That's what happened in TN under Tenncare: insurers cherry picked low risk people because they knew anyone with a higher risk could go to Tenncare. So you had people who could well afford insurance getting it for free.
It would have been better had they allowed insurance comapneis to sell across state lines (a valid application of the Commerce Clause!), and created a pool of uninsurable people to take care of the bottom most rung of the risk pool. That would certainly have been better, fairer and cheaper than what we have.

 

[dnsmith35]

You mean spread the cost, which isn't fair, considering the ones that are at risk to be sick are the ones that are more Likely to get claims.

I obviously do not agree about the "fairness" any more than it is unfair for 2 people making the same money to pay the same income tax. Look at healthcare premiums as taxes everyone pays, and everyone then gets the benefit as needed.

No... you are missing this by a mile.

Why do boys pay a higher premium for auto insurance, than girls? Why do younger drivers pay a higher premium than older drivers?

Everyone get's the benefits of auto insurance when they pay the premiums. But the premiums are different for different drivers. A person with a long history of crashing into stuff, should logically and fairly pay a higher premium than those who have never had an accident in their life.

That's fair. Same is true of health insurance.

Carelessness in driving may justify a higher premium. Simply being sick does not, but I think the government should simply give them Medicaid and bill their employer if profitable.

 

[The Rabbi]

I obviously do not agree about the "fairness" any more than it is unfair for 2 people making the same money to pay the same income tax. Look at healthcare premiums as taxes everyone pays, and everyone then gets the benefit as needed.

No... you are missing this by a mile.

Why do boys pay a higher premium for auto insurance, than girls? Why do younger drivers pay a higher premium than older drivers?

Everyone get's the benefits of auto insurance when they pay the premiums. But the premiums are different for different drivers. A person with a long history of crashing into stuff, should logically and fairly pay a higher premium than those who have never had an accident in their life.

That's fair. Same is true of health insurance.

Carelessness in driving may justify a higher premium. Simply being sick does not, but I think the government should simply give them Medicaid and bill their employer if profitable.

They both justify higher premiums. The question is, Does the profile of this case create a greater risk of claim down the road? The answer in both cases is Yes. Whch is why their premiums ought to be higher.
Under Obamacare it is not higher. Because the excess risk is paid for by other people. That is unjust and unfair.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Its called "spread the risk."

You mean spread the cost, which isn't fair, considering the ones that are at risk to be sick are the ones that are more Likely to get claims.

I obviously do not agree about the "fairness" any more than it is unfair for 2 people making the same money to pay the same income tax. Look at healthcare premiums as taxes everyone pays, and everyone then gets the benefit as needed.

Healthy people are forced to pay more for the same coverage than they would if they were not subsidizing the sick. This means that healthy people are forced to pay for goods and services they do not receive.
There's -nothing- fair about that.

 

[dnsmith35]

You mean spread the cost, which isn't fair, considering the ones that are at risk to be sick are the ones that are more Likely to get claims.

I obviously do not agree about the "fairness" any more than it is unfair for 2 people making the same money to pay the same income tax. Look at healthcare premiums as taxes everyone pays, and everyone then gets the benefit as needed.

Healthy people are forced to pay more for the same coverage than they would if they were not subsidizing the sick.

Yes, that is the point. Requiring everyone to get into the system spreads the risk more uniformly.

This means that healthy people are forced to pay for goods and services they do not receive.

Actually they are gambling they won't need it. Requiring everyone to have liability insurance is no different than requiring all persons to join the risk bank for health insurance.

There's -nothing- fair about that.

No, its not. Because when those young healthy people have an accident, and they do, and they have no health insurance everyone else pays their bill. There is nothing inherently unfair about covering everyone. It would be easier if the government simply added Medicaid to the FICA/MC payroll taxes collected but most people, including young and healthy ones would not like Medicaid.

 

[dnsmith35]

No... you are missing this by a mile.

Why do boys pay a higher premium for auto insurance, than girls? Why do younger drivers pay a higher premium than older drivers?

Everyone get's the benefits of auto insurance when they pay the premiums. But the premiums are different for different drivers. A person with a long history of crashing into stuff, should logically and fairly pay a higher premium than those who have never had an accident in their life.

That's fair. Same is true of health insurance.

Carelessness in driving may justify a higher premium. Simply being sick does not, but I think the government should simply give them Medicaid and bill their employer if profitable.

They both justify higher premiums. The question is, Does the profile of this case create a greater risk of claim down the road? The answer in both cases is Yes. Whch is why their premiums ought to be higher.
Under Obamacare it is not higher. Because the excess risk is paid for by other people. That is unjust and unfair.

Don't get the idea I like Obama care. I don't! But I do agree that no one should be without health insurance, healthy or not, because eventually they incur expenses others have to pay for.

 

[Bfgrn]

This is one of the most popular provisions in an otherwise despised law, Obamacare. It polls consistently well. And it sounds good: Insirance companies cannot deny coverage for pre existing conditions. Right?
But why would they deny coverage to begin with?
When they are forced to issue policies to people with pre existing conditions, who pays for the higher risk the company incurs by insuring them?
I realize these are beyond Stage One questions so the leftists here wont have a clue what I mean. But maybe some of the more informed posters can chime in.

Well first, how does insurance work?

If you punch in "insurance" into Wiki, you get this suitable definition.

Insurance is the equitable transfer of the risk of a loss, from one entity to another in exchange for payment. It is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss.

Now I highlighted the key words in there. "risk". "Contingent" "Uncertain loss".

You can't buy insurance against your Cable Bill. Why not? Because it's not uncertain. It's not a "risk" of loss. The chances that you will have a cable bill next month, is 100%.

See the way insurance works is, they take a look at the rough estimate based on your driving habits, and the rough estimate on how much it will cost to repair your vehicle model, and based on the actuarial tables of what the chances are of you having an accident, and the chances of what that accident might cost.... they come up with a auto insurance premium that covers that loss, and makes them a small profit.

Now, can you get insurance for a demolition derby driver? Of course not. The chances of you getting hit every other Saturday during the summer, is 100%. You ARE going to get hit in the derby.

Well.... why can't they cover that? Well because the cost of the premium would be the entire cost of replacing the derby car, plus a profit margin for providing the service.

But that price would be higher than the cost of replacing the car yourself 100% of the time. Therefore the customer would never buy that insurance, thus the insurance companies never bother to offer it.

Back to health insurance.

If you have a pre-existing condition, and it is 100% chance that you are GOING to have health care costs... the amount that the insurance company would have to charge would be high enough to cover the entire cost of the future medical expenses, plus a profit margin.

Now first off you wouldn't buy that policy to begin with, but it doesn't matter, because the dirty secret of insurance premiums, is that every single state in the union, already controls premiums. The company couldn't charge a high enough rate to make money on the policy anyway.... so they simply don't offer it.

What pre-existing conditions clauses did, was allow them to offer insurance against the uncertain risk, but exclude the 100% certain risk.

But now with Obama care, they have no choice but to offer insurance, and they can't deny anyone, and they can't have a pre-existing condition clause.

So the company must cover all the health care costs, even of 100% certain costs, but they can't charge enough in premiums to cover that cost.

So who pays?

We do. The cost for all these health insurance payouts, that the company can't recover from the individual, will come from the rest of us.

Eliminating the pre-existing condition clause, and mandating no denials of insurance, means all of our insurance premiums will rise faster than ever before.

The Case for the Individual Mandate in Health Care Reform

Until all Americans have access to health insurance in 2014 under the Affordable Care Act, 50 million people lack health insurance. Before the legislation is fully phased in, Americans can be charged higher premiums when they are sick, and adults can be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition. Oftentimes, all it takes is one illness or injury to send a family into bankruptcy. Illness or medical bills cause 62 percent of all personal bankruptcies, and a significant portion of medically bankrupted families lacked health insurance or experienced a recent lapse in coverage.

In short, health insurance does not provide security to those who need it the most.

Moreover, caring for the uninsured when they show up at emergency rooms exacts high costs on our society. The uninsured still receive health care—much of which is not paid for—at a cost of $57.4 billion in 2008, the last year for which data is available. That uncompensated care is paid for by taxpayers through public programs, by health care providers through lost profits, and by providers shifting costs to private insurers. In turn, private insurers may increase premiums. According to one estimate this cost shifting increases family premiums by more than $1,000 per year on average.

While the uninsured still receive health care, they use much fewer health care services and do not receive all of the health care they need, which harms their health. The poorer health and shorter lifespans of the uninsured are estimated to cost the economy $207 billion a year.

Those who do have health insurance are at risk of losing it if they lose their job. Moreover, this risk may discourage employees from starting their own business or moving to a job in which they would be more productive—causing so-called “job lock.”

All of these problems have plagued the health care system for decades. If we want to solve them—but continue to rely on private health insurance markets—then the most effective solution involves a requirement to maintain health insurance coverage, known as an “individual mandate.” That is the approach taken by the national health reform legislation signed into law in 2010, the Affordable Care Act.

In this report we will examine why the individual mandate is an essential pillar of comprehensive health care reform. In states that tried market reforms without a mandate, premiums increased significantly and enrollment declined. By contrast, the Massachusetts health reform law enacted in 2006 included a mandate with the result that coverage is now near universal. Independent analyses of the Affordable Care Act indicate that the mandate will be instrumental in achieving near-univer- sal coverage, and that it will reduce premiums. Significantly, there is no evidence that any alternatives to the mandate would be nearly as effective.

 

[Andylusion]

This is one of the most popular provisions in an otherwise despised law, Obamacare. It polls consistently well. And it sounds good: Insirance companies cannot deny coverage for pre existing conditions. Right?
But why would they deny coverage to begin with?
When they are forced to issue policies to people with pre existing conditions, who pays for the higher risk the company incurs by insuring them?
I realize these are beyond Stage One questions so the leftists here wont have a clue what I mean. But maybe some of the more informed posters can chime in.

Well first, how does insurance work?

If you punch in "insurance" into Wiki, you get this suitable definition.

Insurance is the equitable transfer of the risk of a loss, from one entity to another in exchange for payment. It is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss.

Now I highlighted the key words in there. "risk". "Contingent" "Uncertain loss".

You can't buy insurance against your Cable Bill. Why not? Because it's not uncertain. It's not a "risk" of loss. The chances that you will have a cable bill next month, is 100%.

See the way insurance works is, they take a look at the rough estimate based on your driving habits, and the rough estimate on how much it will cost to repair your vehicle model, and based on the actuarial tables of what the chances are of you having an accident, and the chances of what that accident might cost.... they come up with a auto insurance premium that covers that loss, and makes them a small profit.

Now, can you get insurance for a demolition derby driver? Of course not. The chances of you getting hit every other Saturday during the summer, is 100%. You ARE going to get hit in the derby.

Well.... why can't they cover that? Well because the cost of the premium would be the entire cost of replacing the derby car, plus a profit margin for providing the service.

But that price would be higher than the cost of replacing the car yourself 100% of the time. Therefore the customer would never buy that insurance, thus the insurance companies never bother to offer it.

Back to health insurance.

If you have a pre-existing condition, and it is 100% chance that you are GOING to have health care costs... the amount that the insurance company would have to charge would be high enough to cover the entire cost of the future medical expenses, plus a profit margin.

Now first off you wouldn't buy that policy to begin with, but it doesn't matter, because the dirty secret of insurance premiums, is that every single state in the union, already controls premiums. The company couldn't charge a high enough rate to make money on the policy anyway.... so they simply don't offer it.

What pre-existing conditions clauses did, was allow them to offer insurance against the uncertain risk, but exclude the 100% certain risk.

But now with Obama care, they have no choice but to offer insurance, and they can't deny anyone, and they can't have a pre-existing condition clause.

So the company must cover all the health care costs, even of 100% certain costs, but they can't charge enough in premiums to cover that cost.

So who pays?

We do. The cost for all these health insurance payouts, that the company can't recover from the individual, will come from the rest of us.

Eliminating the pre-existing condition clause, and mandating no denials of insurance, means all of our insurance premiums will rise faster than ever before.

The Case for the Individual Mandate in Health Care Reform

Until all Americans have access to health insurance in 2014 under the Affordable Care Act, 50 million people lack health insurance. Before the legislation is fully phased in, Americans can be charged higher premiums when they are sick, and adults can be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition. Oftentimes, all it takes is one illness or injury to send a family into bankruptcy. Illness or medical bills cause 62 percent of all personal bankruptcies, and a significant portion of medically bankrupted families lacked health insurance or experienced a recent lapse in coverage.

In short, health insurance does not provide security to those who need it the most.

Moreover, caring for the uninsured when they show up at emergency rooms exacts high costs on our society. The uninsured still receive health care—much of which is not paid for—at a cost of $57.4 billion in 2008, the last year for which data is available. That uncompensated care is paid for by taxpayers through public programs, by health care providers through lost profits, and by providers shifting costs to private insurers. In turn, private insurers may increase premiums. According to one estimate this cost shifting increases family premiums by more than $1,000 per year on average.

While the uninsured still receive health care, they use much fewer health care services and do not receive all of the health care they need, which harms their health. The poorer health and shorter lifespans of the uninsured are estimated to cost the economy $207 billion a year.

Those who do have health insurance are at risk of losing it if they lose their job. Moreover, this risk may discourage employees from starting their own business or moving to a job in which they would be more productive—causing so-called “job lock.”

All of these problems have plagued the health care system for decades. If we want to solve them—but continue to rely on private health insurance markets—then the most effective solution involves a requirement to maintain health insurance coverage, known as an “individual mandate.” That is the approach taken by the national health reform legislation signed into law in 2010, the Affordable Care Act.

In this report we will examine why the individual mandate is an essential pillar of comprehensive health care reform. In states that tried market reforms without a mandate, premiums increased significantly and enrollment declined. By contrast, the Massachusetts health reform law enacted in 2006 included a mandate with the result that coverage is now near universal. Independent analyses of the Affordable Care Act indicate that the mandate will be instrumental in achieving near-univer- sal coverage, and that it will reduce premiums. Significantly, there is no evidence that any alternatives to the mandate would be nearly as effective.

Stop.....

Yes, Massachusetts has this policy. Now, what is the reality?

Health insurance premiums after the MassHealth system was imposed, were more than double the national average, and almost 40% higher than the next highest state.

MassHealth did not reduce insurance premiums. It did however, lower the quality of care. Wait times for health care in MassHealth is terrible.

The time people spending waiting in Massachusetts, is more than double than anywhere else in the entire country.

If Obama Care is ever enacted exactly like MassHealth, the left can praise themselves for successfully screwing over the entire country.

 

[Bfgrn]

Well first, how does insurance work?

If you punch in "insurance" into Wiki, you get this suitable definition.



Now I highlighted the key words in there. "risk". "Contingent" "Uncertain loss".

You can't buy insurance against your Cable Bill. Why not? Because it's not uncertain. It's not a "risk" of loss. The chances that you will have a cable bill next month, is 100%.

See the way insurance works is, they take a look at the rough estimate based on your driving habits, and the rough estimate on how much it will cost to repair your vehicle model, and based on the actuarial tables of what the chances are of you having an accident, and the chances of what that accident might cost.... they come up with a auto insurance premium that covers that loss, and makes them a small profit.

Now, can you get insurance for a demolition derby driver? Of course not. The chances of you getting hit every other Saturday during the summer, is 100%. You ARE going to get hit in the derby.

Well.... why can't they cover that? Well because the cost of the premium would be the entire cost of replacing the derby car, plus a profit margin for providing the service.

But that price would be higher than the cost of replacing the car yourself 100% of the time. Therefore the customer would never buy that insurance, thus the insurance companies never bother to offer it.

Back to health insurance.

If you have a pre-existing condition, and it is 100% chance that you are GOING to have health care costs... the amount that the insurance company would have to charge would be high enough to cover the entire cost of the future medical expenses, plus a profit margin.

Now first off you wouldn't buy that policy to begin with, but it doesn't matter, because the dirty secret of insurance premiums, is that every single state in the union, already controls premiums. The company couldn't charge a high enough rate to make money on the policy anyway.... so they simply don't offer it.

What pre-existing conditions clauses did, was allow them to offer insurance against the uncertain risk, but exclude the 100% certain risk.

But now with Obama care, they have no choice but to offer insurance, and they can't deny anyone, and they can't have a pre-existing condition clause.

So the company must cover all the health care costs, even of 100% certain costs, but they can't charge enough in premiums to cover that cost.

So who pays?

We do. The cost for all these health insurance payouts, that the company can't recover from the individual, will come from the rest of us.

Eliminating the pre-existing condition clause, and mandating no denials of insurance, means all of our insurance premiums will rise faster than ever before.

The Case for the Individual Mandate in Health Care Reform

Until all Americans have access to health insurance in 2014 under the Affordable Care Act, 50 million people lack health insurance. Before the legislation is fully phased in, Americans can be charged higher premiums when they are sick, and adults can be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition. Oftentimes, all it takes is one illness or injury to send a family into bankruptcy. Illness or medical bills cause 62 percent of all personal bankruptcies, and a significant portion of medically bankrupted families lacked health insurance or experienced a recent lapse in coverage.

In short, health insurance does not provide security to those who need it the most.

Moreover, caring for the uninsured when they show up at emergency rooms exacts high costs on our society. The uninsured still receive health care—much of which is not paid for—at a cost of $57.4 billion in 2008, the last year for which data is available. That uncompensated care is paid for by taxpayers through public programs, by health care providers through lost profits, and by providers shifting costs to private insurers. In turn, private insurers may increase premiums. According to one estimate this cost shifting increases family premiums by more than $1,000 per year on average.

While the uninsured still receive health care, they use much fewer health care services and do not receive all of the health care they need, which harms their health. The poorer health and shorter lifespans of the uninsured are estimated to cost the economy $207 billion a year.

Those who do have health insurance are at risk of losing it if they lose their job. Moreover, this risk may discourage employees from starting their own business or moving to a job in which they would be more productive—causing so-called “job lock.”

All of these problems have plagued the health care system for decades. If we want to solve them—but continue to rely on private health insurance markets—then the most effective solution involves a requirement to maintain health insurance coverage, known as an “individual mandate.” That is the approach taken by the national health reform legislation signed into law in 2010, the Affordable Care Act.

In this report we will examine why the individual mandate is an essential pillar of comprehensive health care reform. In states that tried market reforms without a mandate, premiums increased significantly and enrollment declined. By contrast, the Massachusetts health reform law enacted in 2006 included a mandate with the result that coverage is now near universal. Independent analyses of the Affordable Care Act indicate that the mandate will be instrumental in achieving near-univer- sal coverage, and that it will reduce premiums. Significantly, there is no evidence that any alternatives to the mandate would be nearly as effective.

Stop.....

Yes, Massachusetts has this policy. Now, what is the reality?

Health insurance premiums after the MassHealth system was imposed, were more than double the national average, and almost 40% higher than the next highest state.

MassHealth did not reduce insurance premiums. It did however, lower the quality of care. Wait times for health care in MassHealth is terrible.

The time people spending waiting in Massachusetts, is more than double than anywhere else in the entire country.

If Obama Care is ever enacted exactly like MassHealth, the left can praise themselves for successfully screwing over the entire country.

The 'left' wanted single payer are at least a public option. But America is infested with fear filled right wing ideologues who worship what they falsely believe is a free market, when in fact it is a 'FEE" market.

The individual mandate was created by the right wing Heritage Foundation to address the "free rider' problem.

Conservatives have ZERO solutions, just scorn for what they once praised....

 

[The Rabbi]

Carelessness in driving may justify a higher premium. Simply being sick does not, but I think the government should simply give them Medicaid and bill their employer if profitable.

They both justify higher premiums. The question is, Does the profile of this case create a greater risk of claim down the road? The answer in both cases is Yes. Whch is why their premiums ought to be higher.
Under Obamacare it is not higher. Because the excess risk is paid for by other people. That is unjust and unfair.

Don't get the idea I like Obama care. I don't! But I do agree that no one should be without health insurance, healthy or not, because eventually they incur expenses others have to pay for.

I agree that people should have health insurance. I also agree people should exercise regularly and quit smoking. But I am not willing to mandate any of those on people. That's what freedom is all about.

 

[The Rabbi]

The 'left' wanted single payer are at least a public option. But America is infested with fear filled right wing ideologues who worship what they falsely believe is a free market, when in fact it is a 'FEE" market.

The individual mandate was created by the right wing Heritage Foundation to address the "free rider' problem.

Conservatives have ZERO solutions, just scorn for what they once praised....

The Left's solution to the problem of gov't screwing up the system is more gov't. Always. Explain how a gov't that couldn't get a website to run correctly is going to manage everyone health care. Yeah, they wont.

More blather about how conservatives invented the mandate. that is total bullshit and it gets debunked on here about once a day.
And more bullshit about how conservatives (or maybe its Republicans--to you they're all the same) don't have any solutions. Another meme debunked about twice a day.
So other than repeating falsehoods, do you have anything to say before admitting your ass has been handed to you again?

 

[Seawytch]

Which healthcare programs in the US have the highest patient satisfaction? The government ones.

VA Posts Annual Medical Quality Report Quality of Care Better than Private-Sector Health Plans

Medicare Beats Private Plans for Patient Satisfaction: Survey

So, yes, I do want the government to "take over healthcare" and give us our Public Option if we can't have single payer. Just put Medicare on the exchanges for ANYONE to purchase...problem solved.

 

[The Rabbi]

Which healthcare programs in the US have the highest patient satisfaction? The government ones.

VA Posts Annual Medical Quality Report Quality of Care Better than Private-Sector Health Plans

Medicare Beats Private Plans for Patient Satisfaction: Survey

So, yes, I do want the government to "take over healthcare" and give us our Public Option if we can't have single payer. Just put Medicare on the exchanges for ANYONE to purchase...problem solved.

That's nice. Now go fuck yourself.
Because gov't programs have high levels of incompetence and lack of accountability. You want your healthcare overseen by someone who can't be fired, go right ahead. The rest of us understand the free market is what accounts for innovation and advances in medicine.

 

[Seawytch]

Which healthcare programs in the US have the highest patient satisfaction? The government ones.

VA Posts Annual Medical Quality Report Quality of Care Better than Private-Sector Health Plans

Medicare Beats Private Plans for Patient Satisfaction: Survey

So, yes, I do want the government to "take over healthcare" and give us our Public Option if we can't have single payer. Just put Medicare on the exchanges for ANYONE to purchase...problem solved.

That's nice. Now go fuck yourself.
Because gov't programs have high levels of incompetence and lack of accountability. You want your healthcare overseen by someone who can't be fired, go right ahead. The rest of us understand the free market is what accounts for innovation and advances in medicine.

Ooh...a little touchy there when your worldview is challenged aren't you? What do people like? They like the VA and Medicare...two "gubmit programs".

Are you trying to say that there are no medicare advances in France, Sweden, Germany, Japan, etc? Really?

 

[Seawytch]

CT scans and MRIs (Great Britain)
laparoscopic cholecystectomy (Canada)
percutaneous coronary angioplasty (Germany)
H. pylori treatment (Australia)

 

[The Rabbi]

CT scans and MRIs (Great Britain)
laparoscopic cholecystectomy (Canada)
percutaneous coronary angioplasty (Germany)
H. pylori treatment (Australia)

What?
http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/...ssItemIds=/content/book/health_glance-2011-en

OECD iLibrary: Statistics / Health at a Glance / 2011 / CT scanners, 2009 (or nearest year)