Pre-existing conditions coverage

[Smilebong]

Care to explain why you can make this statement about the ACA.

1. you are not forced to buy a car, therefore not forced to buy insurance if you don't need it
2. you are not forced to buy insurance in advance of buying a car and needing it later
3. insurance is required to cover liability for damage you cause to OTHER people's cars.
You are NOT required to buy insurance to cover your own costs which is OPTIONAL.
4. at least one state offers the option of showing "ability to pay" instead of insurance
5. you are not being forced by federal govt to buy insurance or pay a fine to the IRS

So why can't the mandate allow people "not to be fined" if we agree to pay for our own health care another way besides buying insurance? why is that a crime to be penalized?

Because Democrats don't believe that you are smart enough to handle yourself. Only they are. And that control freak mentality has gone straight to the top.

The word mandate, idiot.

 

[emilynghiem]

Rational? You want rational? (-:

It's a good question, and my net nanny won't let me see the OP. Tom Coburn and some other non-moonbats in the gop suggesting much the same, but the maj of the party preferred the do nothing approach.

For people denied coverage by private insurors, and who didn't have employer sponsored, the govt itself could have set up a funding pool. An insurer could be "hired," or perhaps more rationally, we'd just allow these folks to early enroll in medicare and pay for them via tax dollars.

That was pretty much the idea behind mandating just catastrophic coverage. The vast maj of costs come from late end care and really bad chronic stuff. Relatively speaking, wellness care is cheap.

Hey Bendog: I AGREE with setting up a funding pool (instead of insurance which isn't sustainable, even a microlending system to help communities invest in land to set up their own medical schools and internship programs in public health might work long term)

If Democrats were so concerned with uninsured, why not have the parties themselves set up pools. Why does everything have to go through federal government?

Can't people be taught to set up their own health care and education networks?
Why not reward citizens with tax breaks for investing in independence from govt welfare?
Why punish them with tax penalties for not buying into it?

 

[bendog]

Rational? You want rational? (-:

It's a good question, and my net nanny won't let me see the OP. Tom Coburn and some other non-moonbats in the gop suggesting much the same, but the maj of the party preferred the do nothing approach.

For people denied coverage by private insurors, and who didn't have employer sponsored, the govt itself could have set up a funding pool. An insurer could be "hired," or perhaps more rationally, we'd just allow these folks to early enroll in medicare and pay for them via tax dollars.

That was pretty much the idea behind mandating just catastrophic coverage. The vast maj of costs come from late end care and really bad chronic stuff. Relatively speaking, wellness care is cheap.

Hey Bendog: I AGREE with setting up a funding pool (instead of insurance which isn't sustainable, even a microlending system to help communities invest in land to set up their own medical schools and internship programs in public health might work long term)

If Democrats were so concerned with uninsured, why not have the parties themselves set up pools. Why does everything have to go through federal government?

Can't people be taught to set up their own health care and education networks?
Why not reward citizens with tax breaks for investing in independence from govt welfare?
Why punish them with tax penalties for not buying into it?

I'm one who argued Pelosi made it impossible for gopers to cross the aisle, even if the tea party were not there to primary them out.

 

[emilynghiem]

Care to explain why you can make this statement about the ACA.

1. you are not forced to buy a car, therefore not forced to buy insurance if you don't need it
2. you are not forced to buy insurance in advance of buying a car and needing it later
3. insurance is required to cover liability for damage you cause to OTHER people's cars.
You are NOT required to buy insurance to cover your own costs which is OPTIONAL.
4. at least one state offers the option of showing "ability to pay" instead of insurance
5. you are not being forced by federal govt to buy insurance or pay a fine to the IRS

So why can't the mandate allow people "not to be fined" if we agree to pay for our own health care another way besides buying insurance? why is that a crime to be penalized?

Because Democrats don't believe that you are smart enough to handle yourself. Only they are. And that control freak mentality has gone straight to the top.

Not sure which statement you are talking about. The first 5 refer to car insurance through the State, not ACA through the federal govt.

A. RE the mandate as treating citizens as criminals to be fined

The ACA mandates take away liberties without due process as required after a crime.
We used to have liberty to either buy insurance or pay for health care other ways, all by free choice.
Now we face tax penalties if we don't buy insurance, and aren't allowed other choices for paying for health care.
We haven't committed any crime and have not been proven by due process to have ill intent not to pay,
but are already treated as less than equal citizens by fining us where we used to have freedom to pay by free choice.

If you consider beliefs in free market as violated by this bill,
and "right to health care" as a belief, then the federal govt is essentially
fining people on the basis of creed; rewarding and favoring those who
believe in "right to health care through federal govt" and punishing
those who believe in free market systems, and even forcing us to
pay fines into a system we don't believe in! I believe that is unconstitutional.

B. as for Democrats "not believing" it is more like "not trusting"
Democrats trust women with the choice of abortion and don't want federal govt
regulating that, much less "penalizing" that choice

But for the choice of paying for health care, they don't trust citizens to pay their costs.
So much they are willing to PENALIZE citizens for not buying insurance as the only option.

Then they defend this mandate, saying it is going to cut costs anyway and save lives.
But when the same arguments are given for PROLIFE arguments to save lives,
SUDDENLY the Democrats scream that the principle of FREE CHOICE is more important
and we should trust people to make the right choices.

C. this is further insulting when it is OKAY for DEMOCRATS to contradict their
own "prochoice" principles for political agenda, but then opponents jump all over Hobby Lobby for contradictions that are minor in comparison.

So they believe their views are superior and right, and others are wrong.
They overlook their own contradictions, but condemn others for less.

NOTE: I think this is because these liberals derive their defenses not from consent or the Constitution, but from political party. So they rely on these tactics to defend their positions.

 

[kiwiman127]

No, you're not.

Your right,,,,if you live in New Hampshire.
The remaining 49 states plus DC require car insurance.
Car Insurance Requirements by State - Cars.com

The federal government has no, zero, requirement for car insurance. Even though car insurance is sold across state lines and people drive across state lines for commerce every day.
Which was the point. MA has a mandate. They are welcome to it. I don't argue it is unconstitutional, as it plainly is. It is seriously bad policy, buit that's their problem, not mine.

I guess you should have clarified your statement?

 

[Clementine]

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.

What gets me about people's attitude toward insurance companies is that some think it's a right. At one time, there was no such thing. Some smart people realized that people could basically invest in their company and wind up with a large payoff in the event of a catastrophic event. I know many who paid premiums for years, then had the insurance company pay out big bucks for a lengthy hospital stay. My brother was in Mayo for 5 months and the bill exceeded $1 million. The total amount he paid into insurance was a small fraction of that. Many, like the Muslims, still believe it's gambling and want nothing to do with it. Without insurance, we'd all have to pay out of pocket for every single thing, from heart surgery to a car accident. Insurance companies aren't evil. It's government interference that has caused prices to elevate. When government started offering Medicaid and Medicare, they decided to pay only a portion of the actual bill and, of course, the cost was quickly passed on to those who had private insurance. That is why an aspirin tablet in the hospital costs $20. If all private insurance companies operated the same way government does, hospitals would all be out of business.

The government also made auto insurance mandatory. Thankfully, they didn't stop auto insurance companies from competing across state lines the way they did health insurers, so the competition keeps rates reasonable and companies offer more for the money. Of course, you can't expect to buy auto insurance and have them pay after the accident.

A lot of people chose not to buy health insurance. If they couldn't afford it, there was Medicaid. Many simply did not buy it and maybe didn't think about it until after they got sick. Nothing like expecting big pay outs right off the bat. Of course, the left sees deep pockets and wants companies to pay for anyone and everyone, regardless of the person's contribution.

Insurance companies have investors and they, like any company, exist to make a profit. It used to be a matter of choice whether you wanted to "gamble" with them or not. If you chose not to, your expenses were on you. It's that simple.

Now that it's mandatory to have it and the government is involved, the cost is way more expensive and the quality will suffer. Obamacare will run like Medicaid and Medicare, paying only a portion of the bill and, in most cases, the payment will not cover the actual cost of rendering care. The cost will continue to be passed onto private insurance companies, only now that cost will be even greater because the hospitals and doctors will pass the cost of hundreds of Obamacare patients on and it will be worse than ever. Given that people can now wait until they are sick to buy insurance, the cost will be greater for all because the person will have hefty bills from the start.

The young, healthy people are supposed to sign up so they can pay for all the elderly and sick people. That's not happening.

The fact that people will wait till they need care to get insurance means we all pay more. Nothing is free. Insurance companies want to stay in business and they wouldn't do that if we all waited till we needed insurance to buy it. That is what Obamacare encourages. Many are planning to pay a small fine, then waiting till they get sick before signing up. The number of people with pre-existing condition signing up for the first time will be overwhelming. I can't think of a better way to take down the insurance industry. The administration knows what it's doing. Taking over health care means killing the means that people have of handling it on their own.

It's bad enough that health insurers are expected to pay for every little thing. The idea was merely to cover the big expenses when there was an accident or illness. Just like auto insurance, it was meant for the big stuff. You don't expect auto insurance to pay for oil changes and tune ups, just major expenses. Yet, we expect insurance companies to pay for every little expense.

Insurance companies are being treated like the villains and all because they exist in the first place. What if they all went out of business altogether? Then what would you do? Of course, government would like that because it would mean complete government control and the worst healthcare in the world.

Insurance companies are technically gambling, though the odds are that you will need them at some point. You don't make the bet after you roll the dice. You don't buy car insurance after the accident. And you don't buy health insurance after you get sick. It doesn't work that way and never has.

Of course, insurance companies are wealthy and, therefore, evil so it's okay to punish them by forcing them to pay for everything for everyone.

 

[bendog]

Obamacare increases the number of customers insurers have, and uses public funds to buy policies.

I'm not shedding tears for insurers.

 

[The Rabbi]

Insurance is supposed to cover risks you yourself cannot afford to cover. I cannot afford $500,000 worth of cancer treatment. So I buy insurance for it. I can afford a $50 office visit. I can afford a $150 X ray. I should not need insurance for those things. Most people shouldn't.

 

[The Rabbi]

Obamacare increases the number of customers insurers have, and uses public funds to buy policies.

I'm not shedding tears for insurers.

No one is. They were the most enthusiastic supports of Obamacare, seeing guaranteed customers for eternity. But they made a devil's bargain and now they're stuck with it. Because the numbers wont add up: they have bought themselves the sickest, oldest customers and lost the legions of young healthy people willing to be ripped off.
The issue will come when their risk pools explode and they will come to the Feds for a bailout.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes and no, as long as the govern reflects CONSENT by ALL people as "we the people." Clearly half the nation does NOT consent, Jake.

This is not a Jacksonian democracy and never has been.

We the People by majority decide such things, and if it is questionable constitutionally, then it goes to SCOTUS.

Dear Jake: I agree that before we had the internet, we didn't have the ability to organize direct democracy by consent. But now we do. It can be partially indirect by representatives in government and by party, but through those systems citizens can have direct input too.

There is no excuse for continuing to impose political religions by party
abusing "majority rule" to do so.

The major parties collect so much money from constituents, they could set up and pay for programs and JOBS running their own administrations. Why not repurpose the resources we are already spending, and invest directly into reforms and solutions we believe in?

We have a much more educated, participatory citizenry, as reflected on even this forum.
We have political parties organized in hierarchical, democratically elected structures
from local to national, and even international organizations networked by online access.

How difficult is it to separate issues by party, and reward citizens for investing their tax dollars in their own solutions instead of imposing their beliefs on others who disagree?

It is already legal to do all this. It is even legal to issue your own currency to manage your own business networks and local economies. Anyone can set up their own credit unions, though it takes a lot more to set up a bank or a system like the Federal Reserve. But these were all built by investors working in groups, so anyone can do the same.

It is already legal to practice localized democracy and "decisions by consensus" as the Greens do. We might have to change some things to have a President and Vice President
from different parties, but most changes can be set up without government legislation.

Anyone can set up a business, nonprofit, school or caucus within a political party. Why not use those structures to organize networks to represent community interests?

As long as such networks are informative only.

Our Constitution clearly states that the President and our legislature are directors of our policy and legislation. Tradition, experience, and Article III give SCOTUS the power to opine on constitutionality of legislation.

If you want to change the Constitution to incorporate Jacksonian majoritarian democracy, you must amend it.

 

[Little-Acorn]

This is one of the most popular provisions in an otherwise despised law, Obamacare. It polls consistently well.

Of course it does.

If you made a law saying anyone who exceeds the speed limit, has to pay a fine of $1,000, but also gets a new Mercedes for free, guess which part of that otherwise-despised law would be the "most popular"? And would "poll consistently well"?

The fact that getting a new car has virtually nothing to do with exceeding the speed limit, is unimportant.

And "pre-existing conditions" have virtually nothing to do with insurance, either.

The entire purpose of insurance, and the fundamental reason it was invented, is to guard against bad things that might or might not happen in the future.

The fact that you caught the flu, or cancer, LAST week, obviously has nothing to do with "insurance" in any way.

Telling an insurance company to pay for an illness or injury you had before you signed up, is like telling the traffic court judge to give a speeder a new car because he banged the gavel and pronounced him guilty of speeding. The only reaction you should get to such a requirement, is a puzzled look and sardonic laugh from the judge, who knows you are full of it.

And you should get the same reaction from the insurance company. And for the same reason.

Handing out new cars (free or otherwise) is the job of a car dealer, not of the judicial branch of government.

And handing out payments for treatment of a pre-existing condition, is the job of... well, there isn't anybody with that job now, except the guy who got sick or injured. But it certainly isn't the job of an insurance company. Or a grocery store. Or the local PTA. Why on earth do you assign it to any of them?

If you want to set up some group whose job IS to pay for people's pre-existing conditions, fine. Go for it. Sounds like a very worthwhile thing to do - pre-existing conditions can bankrupt a guy, or worse. Let me know when you find a way to make it work, and sustain itself.

But why dump that obligation on a group who never volunteered for it, never had anything to do with it, and has no reason to take it on? Whether it's the PTA, the local Safeway, or an insurance company?

Paying for pre-existing conditions has never been the function of insurance companies, any more than it's the function of a grocery store or your local PTA.

Why dump it on any of them?

"People need someone else to pay for it" is not a sufficient reason to pick any one of those groups.

Looks like none of the members of this forum are interested in answering any of the difficult questions about getting Other People's Money to pay for pre-existing conditions.

They'd rather just assume insurance companies should pay for them. Quite without asking themselves why, or whether it's the least bit "fair".

 

[Political Junky]

Ryan is not going to get rid of Obamacare, nor is anyone else. No doubt, his posturing will win support from the Right.

 

[The Rabbi]

Ryan is not going to get rid of Obamacare, nor is anyone else. No doubt, his posturing will win support from the Right.

So how do you feel about the upcoming ball games?

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

Oh well, don't fret your pintsized brain over it, Rabid. By the end of the decade we will have full universal single payer, and no one will have to worry about pre-existing conditions.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Tell you what, you sniveling asshole. Why don't you explain it?

I shouldn't need to, it's very basic Capitalism. You will learn from others, not me. Let's see if they know.

IOW you cannot explain any of it. Not that it should surprise anyone.
You're dismissed.

Little one, I can explain all of it, but only to those who deal in reality.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

OK, since few thought to tackle the questions, here we go:
There is no reason insurance companies would refuse people with pre-existing conditions. Provided they could charge appropriately for it.

This should read: "There is no reason insurance companies would refuse people with per-existing conditions, provided they could charge appropriately for it.".

And while not true, no one wants "unlimited" risk, the truism is that a highly regulated market is not actual Capitalism. Actual Capitalism wouldn't touch these people with a ten-foot pole, hence why Capitalism has no valid answer to this issue but society does, and should.

 

[syrenn]

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.

perhaps you lack understanding of the purpose of the provisions of the ACA... wait... not PERHAPS... you do lack understanding of the purpose of the provisions of the ACA....

the point of the MANDATE is to make covering pre-existing conditions, etc, affordable for the insurance companies.

you're welcome.


no wonder no one listens to what you have to say.

well let me tell you how that is working out for my sister...

No...they did not deny her coverage...

that "coverage" is only going to be about 10% or less of the cost of what is needed...... excluding the drugs and visual therapy which are flat out not covered.

Before the change...she was covered 100%


just saying......

 

[The Rabbi]

OK, since few thought to tackle the questions, here we go:
There is no reason insurance companies would refuse people with pre-existing conditions. Provided they could charge appropriately for it.

This should read: "There is no reason insurance companies would refuse people with per-existing conditions, provided they could charge appropriately for it.".

And while not true, no one wants "unlimited" risk, the truism is that a highly regulated market is not actual Capitalism. Actual Capitalism wouldn't touch these people with a ten-foot pole, hence why Capitalism has no valid answer to this issue but society does, and should.

Bullshit.
Can you price the risk they represent? Answer, yes.
Ergo you can insure them.
High risk situations are insured all the time. Health insurance is no different.
Your low information is kicking in.

 

[Bfgrn]

Somehow, liberals think that you can charge next to nothing and give people insurance coverage that will pay for extremely expensive surgeries and sicknesses.

The problem is that overall, the sick people will buy that insurance. The healthy young people will not. So the sick people are the only ones paying premiums. And they are the ones collecting all the benefits and the cost has to increase. Otherwise, the Insurance companies cannot make money. That is what they are in business for, to make money. If I owned a business and the governemnt made me operate it so that I lost money, I would close up shop.

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while. You have unwittingly exposed the very CORE of why liberals are for a universal health care system like the rest of the industrialized world.

Intelligent human beings understand that profit does not come before life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

And you have also exposed the very CORE of why conservatives from the Heritage Foundation created the individual mandate. It is the only way a 'for profit' cartel run wealthcare system can survive.

 

[The Rabbi]

Somehow, liberals think that you can charge next to nothing and give people insurance coverage that will pay for extremely expensive surgeries and sicknesses.

The problem is that overall, the sick people will buy that insurance. The healthy young people will not. So the sick people are the only ones paying premiums. And they are the ones collecting all the benefits and the cost has to increase. Otherwise, the Insurance companies cannot make money. That is what they are in business for, to make money. If I owned a business and the governemnt made me operate it so that I lost money, I would close up shop.

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while. You have unwittingly exposed the very CORE of why liberals are for a universal health care system like the rest of the industrialized world.

Intelligent human beings understand that profit does not come before life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

And you have also exposed the very CORE of why conservatives from the Heritage Foundation created the individual mandate. It is the only way a 'for profit' cartel run wealthcare system can survive.

Conservaties didnt create the mandate. ANother lie.
Non profit insurers are big losers. One in VT just closed. The Left associates profit with vice. The truth is the opposite. With leftists, the truth is always the opposite.