Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
the ones who keep trying to defend this are the ones who still have their same insurance I would bet on it but their time is coming too~~~ 93 million is how many I heard will be hit by 2014~~
lets see how they love it then!
and I want to see Obama and his family on this as well as congress and the unions!!!
You are right..it's just a matter of time for them. HHS modified the grandfather status rules in favor of big business.
Individuals will lose their status first and then the group plans.
It's already down to a mere 30% of group plans having grandfather status.
When Obamacare passed over 50% of group plans qualified.
It's not private business when taxpayers are paying for it through the nose with high ER rates. What happens when you have a catastrophic illness and no insurance? You get FREE medical care in the form of filing bankruptcy. What happens then? The rest of us all pay for it when the medical rates go up. Don't tell me if you were diagnosed with cancer you would refuse treatment and just die from it. No one would.
I keep hearing this over and over.
Where are the statistics that prove this ?
This was a talking point to push Obamacare that was never proven.
So why didn't the law create a catastrophic insurance plan for just those uninsured? Why force everyone to get comprehensive insurance with coverage that you may or may not need? That's the thing. Obamacare is trying to sell these so-called essential components as though it is the minimum everyone needs. The truth is that these so-called essential components are, in many cases, simply not needed by everyone. The claim is that they wanted to help those who could not get insurance (e.g. pre-existing conditions) be able to purchase insurance. This problem has already been addressed with high risk insurance pools. Why not work with the current construct in place already instead of dramatically altering the insurance of the 80% that were happy with their current plans?
I agree with most of your points. However, I do think that something had to be done with regard to some of the less-than-stellar practices of the insurance industry. Take this example for instance. I'm going to summarize it. It was in yesterday's Washington Post and it was a good write up. I can't find the link but I'll keep looking and add it.
"Teddy" was a $9 per hour worker. He is single, no children, and has Aspberger's. He's not independent per se, but he did by himself a catastrophic health insurance plan. He consistently bought the same policy from Accenture but he had to renew it every 6 months. He did this for years and never touched the policy. One day, his health started failing. He put off going to the doctor because he had very limited funds and his insurance plan did not cover routine visits. He finally scraped up enough and went. Had plenty of tests run and it was discovered that he had some form of kidney disease. The damage was done but it was treatable and the progression could be stopped. It took months to figure out his diagnosis as he had to pace out his visits. Finally he opted to undergo the very expensive treatements and, for once, he would hit levels of expenditures that his health insurance would pay for.
But, unfortunately, his health insurance refused to pay. Why? Because they treated each of this 6 month renewal policies as a separate, stand alone policy. So he was diagnosed under one of the 6 month policies and his treatment fell under another. The insurance company refused to pay due to "prexisting condition." He had to quit his job and was then treated under a welfare situation, of which we the taxpayers paid for.
So, I think in an attempt to make sure that all plans were containing reasonable coverage and that insurers couldn't "game" the insurees, there has probably been too many generalizations done.
All the men crying about having to cover maternity and other 'female' care.
We women have been covering your prostate and testicular cancer care for years. We don't whine about it. Women have been paying higher premiums for years because being a woman is a pre-existing condition according to most insurance companies.
Healthy babies and mothers are good for the country. If you have to pay an extra $1 a year for it, too bad.
By the way, the people who dropped you are an insurance company...not the gov't. It would take almost nothing for an insurance company to improve their policies to meet federal standards -- like car companies, food companies, and the rest. But they'd rather drop you or sell you something more expensive. So go be mad at the right people instead of blaming all your woes on the President.
I agree with most of your points. However, I do think that something had to be done with regard to some of the less-than-stellar practices of the insurance industry. Take this example for instance. I'm going to summarize it. It was in yesterday's Washington Post and it was a good write up. I can't find the link but I'll keep looking and add it.
"Teddy" was a $9 per hour worker. He is single, no children, and has Aspberger's. He's not independent per se, but he did by himself a catastrophic health insurance plan. He consistently bought the same policy from Accenture but he had to renew it every 6 months. He did this for years and never touched the policy. One day, his health started failing. He put off going to the doctor because he had very limited funds and his insurance plan did not cover routine visits. He finally scraped up enough and went. Had plenty of tests run and it was discovered that he had some form of kidney disease. The damage was done but it was treatable and the progression could be stopped. It took months to figure out his diagnosis as he had to pace out his visits. Finally he opted to undergo the very expensive treatements and, for once, he would hit levels of expenditures that his health insurance would pay for.
But, unfortunately, his health insurance refused to pay. Why? Because they treated each of this 6 month renewal policies as a separate, stand alone policy. So he was diagnosed under one of the 6 month policies and his treatment fell under another. The insurance company refused to pay due to "prexisting condition." He had to quit his job and was then treated under a welfare situation, of which we the taxpayers paid for.
So, I think in an attempt to make sure that all plans were containing reasonable coverage and that insurers couldn't "game" the insurees, there has probably been too many generalizations done.
The WH appointed Liz Fowler as the architect of Obamacare.
She was a health insurance CEO who is the brains behind Obamacare.
Now that it's over she has taken a job as top lobbyist for Johnson and Johnson.
I'm sure she had peoples' best interest in mind over insurance companies when she put her plan together.
All the men crying about having to cover maternity and other 'female' care.
We women have been covering your prostate and testicular cancer care for years. We don't whine about it. Women have been paying higher premiums for years because being a woman is a pre-existing condition according to most insurance companies.
Healthy babies and mothers are good for the country. If you have to pay an extra $1 a year for it, too bad.
By the way, the people who dropped you are an insurance company...not the gov't. It would take almost nothing for an insurance company to improve their policies to meet federal standards -- like car companies, food companies, and the rest. But they'd rather drop you or sell you something more expensive. So go be mad at the right people instead of blaming all your woes on the President.
Really..almost nothing to pay for unlimited lifetime coverage ?
Don't tell me if you were diagnosed with cancer you would refuse treatment and just die from it. No one would.
That's not true at all. I have a friend who was diagnosed with stage 4 bladder cancer a few months ago and has chosen to not go through treatment. She has insurance that would cover it.
Really..almost nothing to pay for unlimited lifetime coverage ?
Insurance companies play the long odds all the time. *Most* people will not cost millions over their lifetime...a few will. You could be one. It's like the lottery -- in reverse.
Right now, they can drop you like a hot potato if you are projected to be one of those few, no matter how much you've paid them over the years. This law is the only thing that prevents them from doing that.
I really don't see why the Right is that frightened of something that could keep *themselves* from being the victim of these practices. Do you believe that bad things only happen to other people?
Insurance companies play the long odds all the time. *Most* people will not cost millions over their lifetime...a few will. You could be one. It's like the lottery -- in reverse.
Right now, they can drop you like a hot potato if you are projected to be one of those few, no matter how much you've paid them over the years. This law is the only thing that prevents them from doing that.
I really don't see why the Right is that frightened of something that could keep *themselves* from being the victim of these practices. Do you believe that bad things only happen to other people?
There was a cap on lifetime coverage. Ins companies knew their ceiling.
Obamacare removed that. It's now "infinity". How to you plan for infinity ? How big does your pool need to be ?
How do you cover a blank check ?
I agree with most of your points. However, I do think that something had to be done with regard to some of the less-than-stellar practices of the insurance industry. Take this example for instance. I'm going to summarize it. It was in yesterday's Washington Post and it was a good write up. I can't find the link but I'll keep looking and add it.
"Teddy" was a $9 per hour worker. He is single, no children, and has Aspberger's. He's not independent per se, but he did by himself a catastrophic health insurance plan. He consistently bought the same policy from Accenture but he had to renew it every 6 months. He did this for years and never touched the policy. One day, his health started failing. He put off going to the doctor because he had very limited funds and his insurance plan did not cover routine visits. He finally scraped up enough and went. Had plenty of tests run and it was discovered that he had some form of kidney disease. The damage was done but it was treatable and the progression could be stopped. It took months to figure out his diagnosis as he had to pace out his visits. Finally he opted to undergo the very expensive treatements and, for once, he would hit levels of expenditures that his health insurance would pay for.
But, unfortunately, his health insurance refused to pay. Why? Because they treated each of this 6 month renewal policies as a separate, stand alone policy. So he was diagnosed under one of the 6 month policies and his treatment fell under another. The insurance company refused to pay due to "prexisting condition." He had to quit his job and was then treated under a welfare situation, of which we the taxpayers paid for.
So, I think in an attempt to make sure that all plans were containing reasonable coverage and that insurers couldn't "game" the insurees, there has probably been too many generalizations done.
So we transform the entire mechanism for insurance in this country to go after the few unscrupulous insurers? To me, that's where the argument falls down. We've had consumer protections in this country for any number of things and didn't need to transform entire sectors to do so. Would this example you cited have benefited from one such consumer protection? Sure. Note, those types of protections are things both conservatives and liberals agreed upon. However, conservatives didn't feel it necessary to change the way everyone gets health insurance to fix these issues.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
