Madison wrote:And if anyone doubts the reason why the insurance companies are jacking rates this time around (and note I said "this time around" since that's all that matters, rate increases in the past have nothing to do with this rate increase), there's a really simple solution. Call and ask them. Sounds crazy, but if you ask nicely, most insurance companies don't mind telling you the reason (or reasons) behind rate increases (goes for car insurance as well). Both health insurance companies I've spoken to had no problem pointing out the new government measures when I inquired as to why they are so much higher this year over last year.
While I don't doubt that Obamacare is the reason for the rate hikes this time around, do you really think they wouldn't lie to you? Or that they wouldn't raise their rates 10% when 9% would do? This makes a perfect scapegoat, don't you think?
True. It does make a good scapegoat. But at the same time, pretty much everyone knows that the new money from the previously uninsured won't make a dent against the new money being paid out by the insurance companies. It's really a no-brainer. So even if they raise rates a bit more than they *need* to, there is really no shock or surprise that they have no choice but to raise rates because of the new regulations (and will have to continue steep rate increases for several years to come).
Yes doctor, I am sick. Sick of those who are spineless. Sick of those who feel self-entitled. Sick of those who are hypocrites. Yes doctor, an army is forming. Yes doctor, there will be a war. Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
GiantsFan14 wrote: It's not baseless conjecture, it's common sense. If the insurance companies costs go up, then they have to raise rates to pay for it. The money has to come from somewhere.
It remains to be seen what will happen. Rates have been on the rise for quite some time, but as people utilize the free preventive care, don't go to the ER for minor sickness/injury, and avoid major surgeries because of said preventive care...common sense would indicate a savings. As was mentioned the mandate currently offsets the monetary risk of covering the people with pre-existing conditions.
As far as who it helps (in terms of John Q public)...
- people with pre-existing conditions who are currently employed/insured but looking to change jobs. - changing jobs would not cause you to loose insurance - people with pre-existing conditions who are not currently insured. -I can see this as a benifit but it still cost monthly insurance premiums - people who don't take advantage of preventive care because they feel they can't afford it. - but they will now be forced to pay monthly insurance premiums - the general health of the nation as a whole.
The way you quoted me makes it hard to address.
Pre-existing conditions - If you're moving to a government job or large corporation, then you will still be covered...but it's much trickier in other circumstances. If the job you have now is blue cross and your new employer uses blue shield, you could be out of luck if you have a pre-existing condition. There is cobra coverage you can use for 18 months while you attempt to get added onto the new program, but there's no guarantee that you'll be added to the policy.
Most people with pre-existing conditions are going to want coverage. With this bill insurance companies have to accept them, and at a competitive rate within their age group.
Preventive care point - yes, they will pay premiums...but in the long run it should be significantly cheaper than if they weren't insured and waited until something serious had developed (cancer, advanced heart condition, etc.). I definitely understand the point of "I want a choice" and the perceived infringement of civil liberties. I don't view it that way. We already have other services which are mandated through taxes which aren't specified as necessary for the federal gov to provide in the Constitution. I don't believe this is some sort of slippery slope step towards socialism (or irrevocable reliance on the federal government)...others do, although I recognize the huge shift in power from the states to the central government in the last 200 years.
Obviously people are going to think about these things differently. The current system is broken. People disagree on how to fix it. Like I've said, I think this bill needs to be amended quite a bit...it's flawed, but I think it's a start.
bleach168 wrote:Just look at the average cost for health care now compared to 4 years ago.
You might be the only one in U.S. that had their rates come down.
It's all documented here on the boards.
June 28th, 2006:
Madison wrote:My wife works for Brinks Incorporated. A global company worth billions. Want to know what healthcare insurance costs through her company? $800 per month.
Doesn't appear I mentioned the rate falling to $400 per month about a year and a half ago, but it did, and as of April 1st of this year, it's back up to $500.
Yes doctor, I am sick. Sick of those who are spineless. Sick of those who feel self-entitled. Sick of those who are hypocrites. Yes doctor, an army is forming. Yes doctor, there will be a war. Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
markj11 wrote:Wouldn't insurance companies be bringing a lot more money since now everyone has to buy insurance? Hopefully that would help offset the amount of new claims and keep rate increases from enormous.
A lot more money? Most educated guesses say there are 30-50 million uninsured out there. The population is 300+ million. So 10-16% more money is all we're talking about. That won't come anywhere remotely close to offsetting the new expenses.
I think this kinda answers my question of who would benefit. This means that 84-90% do not benefit.
I ain't askin' nobody for nothin, If I can't get it on my own. - Charlie Daniels
With this bill insurance companies have to accept them, and at a competitive rate within their age group.
Can I get source on this... you read this in the bill itself? It would change my opinion on the Bill if it were to mandate that people with serious pre-exs were to have similar rates to those without. There must be some balance mechanism.
What is to be defined as the "group"? It could be that the group is other people at similar age with pre-existing conditions.
Q: Can I get insurance if I have a pre-existing condition?
A: Yes.
* One of the most important aspects of this reform is to finally end the practice of insurance companies denying you coverage based on your health status. * Soon after the law is enacted, insurance companies will no longer be allowed to deny coverage to children with pre-existing conditions. * This year, if you have been uninsured for 6 months and have a pre-existing condition, you will gain access to health insurance that was not previously available to you. A new program – known as a high-risk pool – will provide affordable insurance for Americans who are uninsured and have a pre-existing condition. * The high-risk pool will provide temporary protection for people with pre-existing conditions until 2014, when insurance companies can no longer deny you coverage based on your health.
From ABC News:
By 2014, insurance companies will be prohibited from denying coverage to adult patients with pre-existing medical conditions or charging them more because of these conditions.
OUCH. That's gonna hurt. Strap on your seatbealts this could be a bumpy ride.
markj11 wrote:Wouldn't insurance companies be bringing a lot more money since now everyone has to buy insurance? Hopefully that would help offset the amount of new claims and keep rate increases from enormous.
A lot more money? Most educated guesses say there are 30-50 million uninsured out there. The population is 300+ million. So 10-16% more money is all we're talking about. That won't come anywhere remotely close to offsetting the new expenses.
I think this kinda answers my question of who would benefit. This means that 84-90% do not benefit.
Unless they develop a condition which becomes pre-existing if they ever try to switch jobs or get laid off...
It's also very much up for debate on how much cost will be offset by the inherent health savings of preventive care and reduction of ER patients. And even if only 30-50 million people are helped (seems like a lot to me), it's also up for debate on whether any of the 84-90% will be at all "hurt" (other than people who don't have insurance and don't want it). One side says one thing and the other disagrees...I guess we'll see, though since rates have been on the rise for a while it might be hard to accurately see how this bill affects things...at least initially. I know I'm in the minority here, but I felt like it would be good to offer a different perspective...even if I'm largely ignored.
My feeling is that at the very least this bill allows people who weren't covered before to be covered no matter what. Our elected officials are pawns to corporations so there was no way any real reform was going to happen. Rates will raise because nobody ever had the public interest in mind, instead the Democrats thought they were doing a good deed to the needy and the Republicans didn't care that people didn't have health care. Neither party had any interest of calling out the entity that lines their pockets. The real blame lies on the American people who continue to elect these crooked parties, and I'm one of them. No longer.
What sustained Social Security and Medicare through the years was that they came to be viewed as broad entitlements that helped the middle class as well as the poor.
"Even conservatives who had ideological concerns about these bills couldn't oppose them because they developed such strong middle-class constituencies," says Professor Patashnik. "It's not clear this law will develop a similar level of support."
Nice way of saying the middle class knows it cannot afford this bill and will elect officials that oppose it and will kill it.
"The American people aren't going to take this lying down. The ink isn't even dry and there's a grass-roots revolt over this bill," he added, referring to two states that have voted to reject mandates in the law and 37 others considering such measures or court challenges.
39 out of 50 states... and counting... are officially against this bill.
Yes doctor, I am sick. Sick of those who are spineless. Sick of those who feel self-entitled. Sick of those who are hypocrites. Yes doctor, an army is forming. Yes doctor, there will be a war. Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by bleach168 » Tue Apr 06, 2010 5:07 pm 
