Pre-existing conditions coverage

[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.

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.

ROMNEY: Actually, Newt, we got the idea of an individual mandate from you.

GINGRICH: That’s not true. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.

ROMNEY: Yes, we got it from you, and you got it from the Heritage Foundation and from you.

GINGRICH: Wait a second. What you just said is not true. You did not get that from me. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.

ROMNEY: And you never supported them?

GINGRICH: I agree with them, but I’m just saying, what you said to this audience just now plain wasn’t true.

(CROSSTALK)

ROMNEY: OK. Let me ask, have you supported in the past an individual mandate?

GINGRICH: I absolutely did with the Heritage Foundation against Hillarycare.

ROMNEY: You did support an individual mandate?

ROMNEY: Oh, OK. That’s what I’m saying. We got the idea from you and the Heritage Foundation.

GINGRICH: OK. A little broader.

ROMNEY: OK.

 

[JoeB131]

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, yeah, we could just have universal coverage where everyone is covered from cradle to grave like every other industrialized nation does.

The ones where they spend less, their people live longer and they have lower infant mortality rates.

Hey, here's a whacky idea. How about a system that is designed to treat the sick instead of making profits for insurance companies and paying CEO's 9 figure salaries?

 

[francoHFW]

Colbert Reveals GOP Opposition To Obamacare Was Just A Four-Year-Long Prank

 

[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.

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.

High risk not unlimited risk. I can get a 5 mil policy for a 70-year-old in good shape, if I have a mil or two to spend. For one in a coma there is no price. Someone has lied to you, and told you that Capitalism always has an answer? It doesn't in this case. No health insurance company wants sick people on the books. It's bad for business.

Even if your position was true, it isn't, who exactly would pay for all of this? And let's say that I need a liver transplant, what should a company charge me for a policy? The cost of the transplant alone, $570,000.00. Show us your math here little capitalist...

Transplant Living | Financing A Transplant | Costs

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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, yeah, we could just have universal coverage where everyone is covered from cradle to grave like every other industrialized nation does.

The ones where they spend less, their people live longer and they have lower infant mortality rates.

Hey, here's a whacky idea. How about a system that is designed to treat the sick instead of making profits for insurance companies and paying CEO's 9 figure salaries?

Wow, you are wacky! That kind of common sense is just not allowed here.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

Learn why Christianity forbade profits and interest charges, for centuries...

And the cons were for the mandate, before they were against it. You have to solve the Free Rider problem, and that's how you do it.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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......

Capitalism is not the answer for her, she's sick. She could have lost her job and been in the exact same position. You don't get your house from your job, there's no reason you should get your health insurance from them.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

Keep in mind that this is the first time the govt has ever forced it's citizens to buy a product. There should be no mandate. Period.

7 million if that is the real number

is extremely low when everyone is mandated to buy insurance

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

Keep in mind that this is the first time the govt has ever forced it's citizens to buy a product. There should be no mandate. Period.

7 million if that is the real number

is extremely low when everyone is mandated to buy insurance

Baby steps.

 

[francoHFW]

More like 15 million from all ways...

 

[Vermonter]

Here was the main reason the pre existing conditions got so much press.

People were working at a job they disliked and had health insurance for their family. One member of the family becomes ill with ovarian cancer. And the insurance covers it. But then another well paying job comes up with a new company. More money, better working conditions and chance for advancement.

But he can't go. Because the insurance at the new company won't cover his wife's cancer because it's "pre existing". To me that was wrong. I always felt that as long as a premium was being paid to the old insurer, the new company could insure her. So he's still at that lousy job.

But now it has bastardized into people who just didn't want to pay for health insurance suddenly being able to get it as soon as they become ill. They cannot charge a higher premium for that sudden insured either. Insurers go broke that way.

WE have the finest health care in the world. But somehow people think it should be free. They claim some "right to health care". But nobody can tell me how I have the "right" to someone else's labor.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Keep in mind that this is the first time the govt has ever forced it's citizens to buy a product. There should be no mandate. Period.

7 million if that is the real number

is extremely low when everyone is mandated to buy insurance

Baby steps.

more like jack booted thug steps

since the threat of breaking the law and penalties didnt work

 

[francoHFW]

About 4 million are blocked from Medicaid by mindless Red states, and then there's all the hater dupes who'd rather pay the penalty than get anything from that gd n***** lol...

 

[francoHFW]

Lots of people couldn't get health care at all, and people were cut off by junk insurers when they got sick. You live in a dream world, Pub dupes.And the good old days sucked...

 

[Bfgrn]

Here was the main reason the pre existing conditions got so much press.

People were working at a job they disliked and had health insurance for their family. One member of the family becomes ill with ovarian cancer. And the insurance covers it. But then another well paying job comes up with a new company. More money, better working conditions and chance for advancement.

But he can't go. Because the insurance at the new company won't cover his wife's cancer because it's "pre existing". To me that was wrong. I always felt that as long as a premium was being paid to the old insurer, the new company could insure her. So he's still at that lousy job.

But now it has bastardized into people who just didn't want to pay for health insurance suddenly being able to get it as soon as they become ill. They cannot charge a higher premium for that sudden insured either. Insurers go broke that way.

WE have the finest health care in the world. But somehow people think it should be free. They claim some "right to health care". But nobody can tell me how I have the "right" to someone else's labor.

First, we DON'T have the 'finest health care in the world' on any measure of choice.

Second, NO ONE ever said health care should be free. See if you can recognize and identify the key word in this phrase...Single PAYER system.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Here was the main reason the pre existing conditions got so much press.

People were working at a job they disliked and had health insurance for their family. One member of the family becomes ill with ovarian cancer. And the insurance covers it. But then another well paying job comes up with a new company. More money, better working conditions and chance for advancement.

But he can't go. Because the insurance at the new company won't cover his wife's cancer because it's "pre existing". To me that was wrong. I always felt that as long as a premium was being paid to the old insurer, the new company could insure her. So he's still at that lousy job.

But now it has bastardized into people who just didn't want to pay for health insurance suddenly being able to get it as soon as they become ill. They cannot charge a higher premium for that sudden insured either. Insurers go broke that way.

WE have the finest health care in the world. But somehow people think it should be free. They claim some "right to health care". But nobody can tell me how I have the "right" to someone else's labor.

There's no right. It has to do with society and governments caring for and protecting their charges. It's why we have such things.

As for the labor of others, you make it here, which we both allow for and make possible, you owe some of it back to us. There is no free lunch, or road, or bridge, or legal system to defend your rights. With taxes you get civilization, without you have anarchy, and capitalism can't exist in anarchy.

 

[The Rabbi]

Here was the main reason the pre existing conditions got so much press.

People were working at a job they disliked and had health insurance for their family. One member of the family becomes ill with ovarian cancer. And the insurance covers it. But then another well paying job comes up with a new company. More money, better working conditions and chance for advancement.

But he can't go. Because the insurance at the new company won't cover his wife's cancer because it's "pre existing". To me that was wrong. I always felt that as long as a premium was being paid to the old insurer, the new company could insure her. So he's still at that lousy job.

But now it has bastardized into people who just didn't want to pay for health insurance suddenly being able to get it as soon as they become ill. They cannot charge a higher premium for that sudden insured either. Insurers go broke that way.

WE have the finest health care in the world. But somehow people think it should be free. They claim some "right to health care". But nobody can tell me how I have the "right" to someone else's labor.

First, we DON'T have the 'finest health care in the world' on any measure of choice.

Second, NO ONE ever said health care should be free. See if you can recognize and identify the key word in this phrase...Single PAYER system.

More low information.
We do have the finest healthcare system when it comes to both innovation and delivery of service once someone becomes ill. This has been proven many times over.
Second, who is the "payer" in single payer? Yes, the US Government.
Now get back under your rock.

 

[Bfgrn]

Here was the main reason the pre existing conditions got so much press.

People were working at a job they disliked and had health insurance for their family. One member of the family becomes ill with ovarian cancer. And the insurance covers it. But then another well paying job comes up with a new company. More money, better working conditions and chance for advancement.

But he can't go. Because the insurance at the new company won't cover his wife's cancer because it's "pre existing". To me that was wrong. I always felt that as long as a premium was being paid to the old insurer, the new company could insure her. So he's still at that lousy job.

But now it has bastardized into people who just didn't want to pay for health insurance suddenly being able to get it as soon as they become ill. They cannot charge a higher premium for that sudden insured either. Insurers go broke that way.

WE have the finest health care in the world. But somehow people think it should be free. They claim some "right to health care". But nobody can tell me how I have the "right" to someone else's labor.

First, we DON'T have the 'finest health care in the world' on any measure of choice.

Second, NO ONE ever said health care should be free. See if you can recognize and identify the key word in this phrase...Single PAYER system.

More low information.
We do have the finest healthcare system when it comes to both innovation and delivery of service once someone becomes ill. This has been proven many times over.
Second, who is the "payer" in single payer? Yes, the US Government.
Now get back under your rock.

U.S. scores dead last again in healthcare study

A patient waits in the hallway for a room to open up in the emergency room
at a hospital in Houston, Texas, July 27, 2009.

(Reuters) - Americans spend twice as much as residents of other developed countries on healthcare, but get lower quality, less efficiency and have the least equitable system, according to a report released on Wednesday.

The United States ranked last when compared to six other countries -- Britain, Canada, Germany, Netherlands, Australia and New Zealand, the Commonwealth Fund report found.

The current report uses data from nationally representative patient and physician surveys in seven countries in 2007, 2008, and 2009. It is available here

In 2007, health spending was $7,290 per person in the United States, more than double that of any other country in the survey.

Australians spent $3,357, Canadians $3,895, Germans $3,588, the Netherlands $3,837 and Britons spent $2,992 per capita on health in 2007. New Zealand spent the least at $2,454.

This is a big rise from the Fund's last similar survey, in 2007, which found Americans spent $6,697 per capita on healthcare in 2005, or 16 percent of gross domestic product.

"We rank last on safety and do poorly on several dimensions of quality," Schoen told reporters. "We do particularly poorly on going without care because of cost. And we also do surprisingly poorly on access to primary care and after-hours care."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 'payer' in single payer is We, the People.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

First, we DON'T have the 'finest health care in the world' on any measure of choice.

Second, NO ONE ever said health care should be free. See if you can recognize and identify the key word in this phrase...Single PAYER system.

More low information.
We do have the finest healthcare system when it comes to both innovation and delivery of service once someone becomes ill. This has been proven many times over.
Second, who is the "payer" in single payer? Yes, the US Government.
Now get back under your rock.

U.S. scores dead last again in healthcare study

A patient waits in the hallway for a room to open up in the emergency room
at a hospital in Houston, Texas, July 27, 2009.

(Reuters) - Americans spend twice as much as residents of other developed countries on healthcare, but get lower quality, less efficiency and have the least equitable system, according to a report released on Wednesday.

The United States ranked last when compared to six other countries -- Britain, Canada, Germany, Netherlands, Australia and New Zealand, the Commonwealth Fund report found.

The current report uses data from nationally representative patient and physician surveys in seven countries in 2007, 2008, and 2009. It is available here

In 2007, health spending was $7,290 per person in the United States, more than double that of any other country in the survey.

Australians spent $3,357, Canadians $3,895, Germans $3,588, the Netherlands $3,837 and Britons spent $2,992 per capita on health in 2007. New Zealand spent the least at $2,454.

This is a big rise from the Fund's last similar survey, in 2007, which found Americans spent $6,697 per capita on healthcare in 2005, or 16 percent of gross domestic product.

"We rank last on safety and do poorly on several dimensions of quality," Schoen told reporters. "We do particularly poorly on going without care because of cost. And we also do surprisingly poorly on access to primary care and after-hours care."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 'payer' in single payer is We, the People.

Yeppers...

 

[The Rabbi]

First, we DON'T have the 'finest health care in the world' on any measure of choice.

Second, NO ONE ever said health care should be free. See if you can recognize and identify the key word in this phrase...Single PAYER system.

More low information.
We do have the finest healthcare system when it comes to both innovation and delivery of service once someone becomes ill. This has been proven many times over.
Second, who is the "payer" in single payer? Yes, the US Government.
Now get back under your rock.

U.S. scores dead last again in healthcare study

A patient waits in the hallway for a room to open up in the emergency room
at a hospital in Houston, Texas, July 27, 2009.

(Reuters) - Americans spend twice as much as residents of other developed countries on healthcare, but get lower quality, less efficiency and have the least equitable system, according to a report released on Wednesday.

The United States ranked last when compared to six other countries -- Britain, Canada, Germany, Netherlands, Australia and New Zealand, the Commonwealth Fund report found.

The current report uses data from nationally representative patient and physician surveys in seven countries in 2007, 2008, and 2009. It is available here

In 2007, health spending was $7,290 per person in the United States, more than double that of any other country in the survey.

Australians spent $3,357, Canadians $3,895, Germans $3,588, the Netherlands $3,837 and Britons spent $2,992 per capita on health in 2007. New Zealand spent the least at $2,454.

This is a big rise from the Fund's last similar survey, in 2007, which found Americans spent $6,697 per capita on healthcare in 2005, or 16 percent of gross domestic product.

"We rank last on safety and do poorly on several dimensions of quality," Schoen told reporters. "We do particularly poorly on going without care because of cost. And we also do surprisingly poorly on access to primary care and after-hours care."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 'payer' in single payer is We, the People.

Again, try reading to my post and responding to it, rather than spewing crap.
Yeah, we the people are paying for welfare cases and food stamps. How's that working out for everyone?
You're full of shit. SIngle payer means "free ride on the backs of the "rich". No wonder liberals like it. More control, higher taxes, more government dependence. Whats not to like?