Pre-existing conditions coverage

[Bfgrn]

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?

As a pragmatic realist, my hope for health care reform was a 'public option'. The ability for ME to PAY FOR, BUY, PURCHASE the same medical insurance that is called Medicare.

You are an idiot. You prove it every fucking day...

"People are not on unemployment for 2 years because there are no jobs. There are no jobs because people are on unemployment for 2 years."

 

[Zoom-boing]

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. Insurance is about pricing risk. Period. People with PEC pose more risk. Ergo they should be more expensive to insure. I believe the problem was that state agencies would not allow insurers to price the risk. Ergo, they wouldn't issue policies to people who had PEC.

The issue is that insuring PEC isn't free. It involves greater risk that must be paid for somewhere down the line. Obamacare's mandates, as Jillian with her usual obnoxious barely correct distortions mentioned, achieves this by forcing healthy people to over pay for their risk profile to subsidize people who underpay for theirs.

So why not get rid of any mandate to cover anything and allow insurers to price policies as they see fit?

I've stated such many times and, like your post, it gets ignored.

People with pe's absolutely should pay more because they are a higher risk to insure. So much more that they can't possibly afford it? No, don't be ridiculous. But more? Absolutely.

Why should someone who does not have a pe (and is therefore a lower risk to insure) have to pay more just so someone who does have a pe (and is therefore a higher risk to insure) can pay 'the same'?

obama brags about pe people 'paying the same' as if it's a good thing for everyone, as if it makes sense. He's a moron.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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?

Nearly everyone will pay, and the rich will pay more. I have no problems with that. Adam Smith didn't either.

 

[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. Insurance is about pricing risk. Period. People with PEC pose more risk. Ergo they should be more expensive to insure. I believe the problem was that state agencies would not allow insurers to price the risk. Ergo, they wouldn't issue policies to people who had PEC.

The issue is that insuring PEC isn't free. It involves greater risk that must be paid for somewhere down the line. Obamacare's mandates, as Jillian with her usual obnoxious barely correct distortions mentioned, achieves this by forcing healthy people to over pay for their risk profile to subsidize people who underpay for theirs.

So why not get rid of any mandate to cover anything and allow insurers to price policies as they see fit?

I've stated such many times and, like your post, it gets ignored.

People with pe's absolutely should pay more because they are a higher risk to insure. So much more that they can't possibly afford it? No, don't be ridiculous. But more? Absolutely.

Why should someone who does not have a pe (and is therefore a lower risk to insure) have to pay more just so someone who does have a pe (and is therefore a higher risk to insure) can pay 'the same'?

obama brags about pe people 'paying the same' as if it's a good thing for everyone, as if it makes sense. He's a moron.

If the number is right, it is a good thing, but there is only one real solution and it isn't Capitalism in this case. Now, if you want blue tennis shoes, knock yourself out.

 

[Bfgrn]

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. Insurance is about pricing risk. Period. People with PEC pose more risk. Ergo they should be more expensive to insure. I believe the problem was that state agencies would not allow insurers to price the risk. Ergo, they wouldn't issue policies to people who had PEC.

The issue is that insuring PEC isn't free. It involves greater risk that must be paid for somewhere down the line. Obamacare's mandates, as Jillian with her usual obnoxious barely correct distortions mentioned, achieves this by forcing healthy people to over pay for their risk profile to subsidize people who underpay for theirs.

So why not get rid of any mandate to cover anything and allow insurers to price policies as they see fit?

I've stated such many times and, like your post, it gets ignored.

People with pe's absolutely should pay more because they are a higher risk to insure. So much more that they can't possibly afford it? No, don't be ridiculous. But more? Absolutely.

Why should someone who does not have a pe (and is therefore a lower risk to insure) have to pay more just so someone who does have a pe (and is therefore a higher risk to insure) can pay 'the same'?

obama brags about pe people 'paying the same' as if it's a good thing for everyone, as if it makes sense. He's a moron.

Which is why we need universal health care in this country. Profit before patients must END.

You have exposed EXACTLY why Medicare came into being. Insurance cartels had no interest in insuring retired American.

Before Medicare, only 40 percent of nonworking seniors had health insurance, and of those with coverage, private insurance paid for less than 10 percent of their hospital bills. The principle of insuring only the healthy who consume little care and avoiding the sick has always driven our private insurance industry. No insurance company can make money by offering the same comprehensive, affordable coverage to seniors as Medicare, so they don't offer it. Our experience with Medicare Advantage, an effort to privatize parts of Medicare, resulted in our government spending $17 billion more for the same benefits available through Medicare. Our private insurance industry was in no hurry to insure seniors before Medicare started. They are in no hurry now. Medicare revolutionized health care access for seniors.

 

[Zoom-boing]

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. Insurance is about pricing risk. Period. People with PEC pose more risk. Ergo they should be more expensive to insure. I believe the problem was that state agencies would not allow insurers to price the risk. Ergo, they wouldn't issue policies to people who had PEC.

The issue is that insuring PEC isn't free. It involves greater risk that must be paid for somewhere down the line. Obamacare's mandates, as Jillian with her usual obnoxious barely correct distortions mentioned, achieves this by forcing healthy people to over pay for their risk profile to subsidize people who underpay for theirs.

So why not get rid of any mandate to cover anything and allow insurers to price policies as they see fit?

I've stated such many times and, like your post, it gets ignored.

People with pe's absolutely should pay more because they are a higher risk to insure. So much more that they can't possibly afford it? No, don't be ridiculous. But more? Absolutely.

Why should someone who does not have a pe (and is therefore a lower risk to insure) have to pay more just so someone who does have a pe (and is therefore a higher risk to insure) can pay 'the same'?

obama brags about pe people 'paying the same' as if it's a good thing for everyone, as if it makes sense. He's a moron.

Which is why we need universal health care in this country. Profit before patients must END.

You have exposed EXACTLY why Medicare came into being. Insurance cartels had no interest in insuring retired American.

Before Medicare, only 40 percent of nonworking seniors had health insurance, and of those with coverage, private insurance paid for less than 10 percent of their hospital bills. The principle of insuring only the healthy who consume little care and avoiding the sick has always driven our private insurance industry. No insurance company can make money by offering the same comprehensive, affordable coverage to seniors as Medicare, so they don't offer it. Our experience with Medicare Advantage, an effort to privatize parts of Medicare, resulted in our government spending $17 billion more for the same benefits available through Medicare. Our private insurance industry was in no hurry to insure seniors before Medicare started. They are in no hurry now. Medicare revolutionized health care access for seniors.

You didn't answer my question.

 

[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. Insurance is about pricing risk. Period. People with PEC pose more risk. Ergo they should be more expensive to insure. I believe the problem was that state agencies would not allow insurers to price the risk. Ergo, they wouldn't issue policies to people who had PEC.

The issue is that insuring PEC isn't free. It involves greater risk that must be paid for somewhere down the line. Obamacare's mandates, as Jillian with her usual obnoxious barely correct distortions mentioned, achieves this by forcing healthy people to over pay for their risk profile to subsidize people who underpay for theirs.

So why not get rid of any mandate to cover anything and allow insurers to price policies as they see fit?

I've stated such many times and, like your post, it gets ignored.

People with pe's absolutely should pay more because they are a higher risk to insure. So much more that they can't possibly afford it? No, don't be ridiculous. But more? Absolutely.

Why should someone who does not have a pe (and is therefore a lower risk to insure) have to pay more just so someone who does have a pe (and is therefore a higher risk to insure) can pay 'the same'?

obama brags about pe people 'paying the same' as if it's a good thing for everyone, as if it makes sense. He's a moron.

Which is why we need universal health care in this country. Profit before patients must END.

You have exposed EXACTLY why Medicare came into being. Insurance cartels had no interest in insuring retired American.

Before Medicare, only 40 percent of nonworking seniors had health insurance, and of those with coverage, private insurance paid for less than 10 percent of their hospital bills. The principle of insuring only the healthy who consume little care and avoiding the sick has always driven our private insurance industry. No insurance company can make money by offering the same comprehensive, affordable coverage to seniors as Medicare, so they don't offer it. Our experience with Medicare Advantage, an effort to privatize parts of Medicare, resulted in our government spending $17 billion more for the same benefits available through Medicare. Our private insurance industry was in no hurry to insure seniors before Medicare started. They are in no hurry now. Medicare revolutionized health care access for seniors.

You're such a low informtion loser.
Medicare is bankrupt. No wonder you like it.
Few people had medical insurance because few people needed it. You went to the doctor, you paid for it. Like any other service. But somewhere someone got the idea that medical insurance needed to pay for "first dollar" expenses. That is a grossly expensive and inefficient way to do it. It flourished in part because the tax system rewards companies that compensate in health insurance rather than paycheck.

There are non profit health insurance co ops. ANd they all go bankrupt. Because the profit motive keeps everyone honest.

 

[driveby]

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.

You're not forced to buy auto insurance?

No, the federal govt will not tax or penalize me if I do not buy car insurance. However, since obamacare set a precedent I could now easily see the feds forcing you to buy car insurance.

Yep, must make car insurance affordable for everyone!

 

[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.

Since no one is able to refute the fact that insurance companies have nothing to do with "pre-existing conditions", who SHOULD pay for them?

Right now, insurance companies are sometimes being forced to pay for them (in 100% contradiction of the company's reason for existence). That's what makes them so reluctant to take on any new customer that even MIGHT have a pre-existing condition.

If there was a way to guarantee to an insurance company that it will never have to pay for a pre-existing condition, it would finally be able to get on with the business of actual insurance. Then the problem would vanish - a win-win for all involved.

Can anyone come up with a suggestion for a group or some setup whose purpose would be to provide treatment (or payment for treatment) for pre-existing conditions? The local PTA is probably out. Government is also out, since its job is to protect our rights, and pre-existing conditions have nothing to do with them. Government's only ability is to restrict people and punish them. Plus the fact that government is so incompetent and inefficient at anything it does, that it should be restricted to only things that NO ONE else can do... and monitored hugely for even those things.

So, if government, insurance companies, and the PTA are out, who or what SHOULD pay for treatment of pre-existing conditions?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

Since no one is able to refute the fact that insurance companies have nothing to do with "pre-existing conditions", who SHOULD pay for them?

Right now, insurance companies are sometimes being forced to pay for them (in 100% contradiction of the company's reason for existence). That's what makes them so reluctant to take on any new customer that even MIGHT have a pre-existing condition.

If there was a way to guarantee to an insurance company that it will never have to pay for a pre-existing condition, it would finally be able to get on with the business of actual insurance. Then the problem would vanish - a win-win for all involved.

Can anyone come up with a suggestion for a group or some setup whose purpose would be to provide treatment (or payment for treatment) for pre-existing conditions? The local PTA is probably out. Government is also out, since its job is to protect our rights, and pre-existing conditions have nothing to do with them. Government's only ability is to restrict people and punish them. Plus the fact that government is so incompetent and inefficient at anything it does, that it should be restricted to only things that NO ONE else can do... and monitored hugely for even those things.

So, if government, insurance companies, and the PTA are out, who or what SHOULD pay for treatment of pre-existing conditions?

We The People. That is the Only option. Almost no one else has the resources. Sorry, but you're stuck with it. It's Reality.

 

[Little-Acorn]

There is no reason insurance companies would refuse people with pre-existing conditions.

Very true, unless they are then required to PAY for treatment of those pre-existing conditions. In that case, there is every reason for them to refuse. Starting with, "We are not in the business of paying for things that have already happened, just as we are not in the business of arrangine the order of the TV shows on your local cable service. It's not what we do, not what we ever claimed to do, and had absolutely no relation to anything we do."

Provided they could charge appropriately for it.

That would be a one-time charge, for the full amount the treatment (and any followups) cost.

Insurance is about pricing risk. Period.

Exactly correct.

People with PEC pose more risk.

Exactly wrong. They don't pose any risk at all. Instead, they present the 100% certainty that full payment is required.

Again, it's no different from forcing a fire-insurance company to take on and pay a customer whose house burned down yesterday. That customer certainly needs help. What he doesn't need, is "insurance". And forcing an insurance company, or a bank, or a Boy Scout troop, to pay for his misfortune, is absolutely inappropriate and unfair.

Ergo they should be more expensive to insure.

No. Ergo they must go somewhere other than an insurance company, bank, or Boy Scout troop, none of which have ever had anything to do with paying for events that have already happened and involve everything EXCEPT risk.

I believe the problem was that state agencies would not allow insurers to price the risk.

Because there is no risk. There is everything else: need, fear, shock, and huge loss. But risk, there isn't. So the situation has nothing to do with an insurance company (as you correctly pointed out above, then contradicted yourself in your very next sentence).

The issue is that insuring PEC isn't free.

No, the issue is that "insuring" PEC isn't risky. And so it has no more to do with insurance companies (which deal ONLY in risk) than it does with my daughter's corner lemonade stand.

It involves greater risk

Incorrect, as I pointed out above. It involves something that already happened, and so involves no risk at all.

Your weird and bizarre twisting of the word "risk" to try to make pre-existing conditions fit into it, is the source of your problem here.

That's what you get for listening, even briefly, to people like little housepainter, who can only spew out weird distortions and irrelevant talking points on cue, not solve real problems.

Don't feel bad, socialists the world over have been basing most of their existence on bizarre twisting of words like "risk", "fair", "own", and even "is", to fool people into thinking they cover things they obviously don't. Telling the straightforward truth, would leave those socialists with no reason for their existence at all. You are no socialist, but apparently you have allowed your perceptions to be distorted by these liars, enough to accept a piece of their newspeak and adopt one of their lies.

that must be paid for somewhere down the line.

This is obviously true. But dragging insurance companies into it, makes no more sense than dragging the Boy Scouts into it. What you need to do, is find someone for whom it DOES make sense to pay for events that already happened. And you're still at Square One, and will be until you get over your inexplicable obsession with the Boy Scouts paying (or was it insurance companies? same difference).

Obamacare's mandates, as Jillian with her usual obnoxious barely correct distortions mentioned, achieves this by forcing healthy people to over pay for their risk profile to subsidize people who underpay for theirs.

Correct. And you and I both know that that's no more fair than forcing the PTA to pay for them... or an insurance company... or the Boy Scouts.

Not until you get it OUT of your head that insurance companies have ANY responsibility for paying for PEC, will you be able to start solving the problem of who SHOULD pay for them. Until then, you will continue spinning your wheels, and piling injustice upon injustice with ZERO progress.

Well, you asked people to tackle the real questions and discuss the real problems. Careful what you wish for... especially when the problem is a very difficult one, as pre-existing conditions are.

 

[The Rabbi]

There is no reason insurance companies would refuse people with pre-existing conditions.

Very true, unless they are then required to PAY for treatment of those pre-existing conditions. In that case, there is every reason for them to refuse. Starting with, "We are not in the business of paying for things that have already happened, just as we are not in the business of arrangine the order of the TV shows on your local cable service. It's not what we do, not what we ever claimed to do, and had absolutely no relation to anything we do."

Provided they could charge appropriately for it.

That would be a one-time charge, for the full amount the treatment (and any followups) cost.


Exactly correct.

Exactly wrong. They don't pose any risk at all. Instead, they present the 100% certainty that full payment is required.

.

You have some strange ideas about insurance, risk, and coverage. Let me see if I can help you.
Pre-existing conditions are just that: conditions that exist. They can run the gamut. And they run the gamut in how predictive they are of future claims.
I personally have had asthma since I was about 5 years old. Yet I am now over 50 and never have had a claim involving asthma treatment. Asthma is a pre-existing condition for me. My risk of making a claim in the future is higher for asthma treatment than someone who has never had it. But it is a higher risk, not a certainty. Should I pay more for coverage based on my pre-existing condition? Absolutely. But the chances of my making a claim can be tracked, calculated, and priced.
Similarly with diabetics. Some diabetics will present enormous claims in the future. Others smaller claims. Again, all of these risks can be calculated and priced.
Even someone with cancer as a pre-existing condition can be sold insurance. It wont be pleasant, of course.
For comparison, a customer of mine dealt with life insurance for very high risk/unusual circumstances. One of his customers was 58 years old, 5'6", over 300lbs and had had 2 bouts of melanoma within the past 5 years. He wanted a $1M policy. My customer was able to offer him one, because the risks he presented were quantifiable. It wasn't pretty in terms of pricing. But he could get one if he really wanted.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

1) We don't have the finest Health Care in the world. We trail most of the rest of the industrialized world in key statistics.
2) The problem with "pre-existing conditions' was that insurance companies were using a process called "Redaction" to call any illness 'pre-existing".

But here's the thing. Should health care be a consumer commodity, only available if you can afford it, or should it be a public service freely available to all. Every other country thinks it's the latter, and they spend a lot less than we do and get better results.

 

[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.

1) We don't have the finest Health Care in the world. We trail most of the rest of the industrialized world in key statistics.
2) The problem with "pre-existing conditions' was that insurance companies were using a process called "Redaction" to call any illness 'pre-existing".

But here's the thing. Should health care be a consumer commodity, only available if you can afford it, or should it be a public service freely available to all. Every other country thinks it's the latter, and they spend a lot less than we do and get better results.

Joe, vying for Lo-Lo Of The Year with his posts.
We lead the world in the most important measures.
If insurance companies called every illness pre-existing they would never pay out a claim. And no one would ever buy health insurance.
Health care is never free. No country thinks it is either. Every country, and every state, that has adopted some aspect of "free"health care has had to amend it or abolish it as costs skyrocket. Because when you make something free people use more of it.

 

[bluesman]

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.

So your "rightist" plan is to deny them coverage and then let them show up at the emergency room and get free treatment? Well I guess if it is "free" then that is a better deal. But since you are taking it beyond "stage one", then I guess we could put armed guards at the emergency rooms to make sure that the uninsured people don't get in and they can go off and die in private.

 

[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.

So your "rightist" plan is to deny them coverage and then let them show up at the emergency room and get free treatment? Well I guess if it is "free" then that is a better deal. But since you are taking it beyond "stage one", then I guess we could put armed guards at the emergency rooms to make sure that the uninsured people don't get in and they can go off and die in private.

What turnip truck did you fall off of again? On your head? At 60MPH? Only someone totally brain damaged would post crap like that. You dont have the slightest fucking clue what's being discussed. Go back and post about something you have experience with. Like watermelon and VD.

 

[bluesman]

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.

So your "rightist" plan is to deny them coverage and then let them show up at the emergency room and get free treatment? Well I guess if it is "free" then that is a better deal. But since you are taking it beyond "stage one", then I guess we could put armed guards at the emergency rooms to make sure that the uninsured people don't get in and they can go off and die in private.

What turnip truck did you fall off of again? On your head? At 60MPH? Only someone totally brain damaged would post crap like that. You dont have the slightest fucking clue what's being discussed. Go back and post about something you have experience with. Like watermelon and VD.

The break it down Einstein. How does the free treatment for the uninsured work? They go to the emergency room..., and then what?

 

[Geaux4it]

All this cluster is a fine example of why Pelosi said the Democrats will not run on the success of Obamacare in 2014.

It will be about jobs

Then that's a slam dunk win for the opposition party if the Dems do that.

They should avoid both topics

-Geaux

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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.

Wrong, the reason for the mandate is they knew no one in their right mind would sign up without being forced to.

Your welcome

 

[Politico]

Tee hee. None of this was ever about pre existing conditions.