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.
State regulators can still make sure no fraud occurs - and there can still be local enforcement
Sounds good at first, but insurance companies are in this business to make a profit. The preferred risk people will benefit, but the low-income and/or high risk consumers won't benefit at all.
People keep saying we need to eliminate the pre-existing clause. Sounds like a great idea, but it makes little difference. Anytime you tell an insurance company to take on additional policyholders, the premiums will increase. For example, have you ever seen the ads for Final Expense (burial insurance) that say "you can't be turned down." Guaranteed issue policies are always more expensive to buy because they insure a large risk pool.
Florida already has a program to cover everyone, even if you have a pre-existing condition. It's to make insurance companies more competitive. Go to "Cover Florida" and look at the plans. One doesn't include hospitalization at all. That's called a Preventative Care policy. The other is called Catastrophic and has a $25,000 maximum annual benefit and a $50,000 Lifetime Benefit. The costs are according to age, which means that I'd pay about $475 a month. If you think this is good, then you never got sick and you definitely never had surgery. One heart attack would use your entire lifetime benefit and the $25,000 annual benefit would cover less than 1/2 of the hospital bill if you needed open heart surgery. So I guess a heart attack, cancer, stroke, etc. aren't considered catastrophes!
Sounds good at first, but insurance companies are in this business to make a profit. The preferred risk people will benefit, but the low-income and/or high risk consumers won't benefit at all.
People keep saying we need to eliminate the pre-existing clause. Sounds like a great idea, but it makes little difference.
Nancy - you have not read the legislation have you? None of them - isn't this right? It would appear so because if you had - your comments above would be unnecessary -
All legislation - all of them - WILL eliminate the pre-existing condition exclusions - ALL OF THEM. The difference between some of the bills is, some allow the insurance company to assess a "surcharge" for these types of polices - and the amount of that charge varies between the bills. The bills do however provide that if a surcharge is assessed - it can only be for a period of a year.
Spreading the risk pool out WILL REDUCE PREMIUMS. There is near universal agreement on this point - especially among the insurance companies. It will make the polices more affordable.
Of course there will be some that regardless of what is done - will still be unable to afford the coverage. Hence the provisions for subsidizes to help overcome that problem.
Nancy - you have not read the legislation have you? None of them - isn't this right? It would appear so because if you had - your comments above would be unnecessary -
All legislation - all of them - WILL eliminate the pre-existing condition exclusions - ALL OF THEM. The difference between some of the bills is, some allow the insurance company to assess a "surcharge" for these types of polices - and the amount of that charge varies between the bills. The bills do however provide that if a surcharge is assessed - it can only be for a period of a year.
Spreading the risk pool out WILL REDUCE PREMIUMS. There is near universal agreement on this point - especially among the insurance companies. It will make the polices more affordable.
Of course there will be some that regardless of what is done - will still be unable to afford the coverage. Hence the provisions for subsidizes to help overcome that problem.
Speaking of the subsidies.
Am I correct in that they will be available for a family of 4 with an $80,000 income and below?
Boy, that sure is generous in my opinion!
My husband's mother was born/raised in England. She moved to the US after marrying a Navy pilot, after WWII. All her family members staying in the UK. My husband has lived over there & here. We have very close friends in the UK, Germany & Canada. They are all happy with their healthcare systems. National Health costs through taxes rather than being taken from your paycheck. But unlike the US system, the European system is equal for all. Everyone gets good healthcare there. In the UK, elderly people can take a FREE bus to a clinic or an MD/RN will visit them at home. Wealthy people can do what they want anywhere, fly where-ever for special care but the poor are not denied care in Europe. It is an absolute MYTH that the elderly are denied healthcare in Europe. I personally know people over 60 who have had serious operations (ex: heart) at over age 60. There is SO much fear-mongering about the Obama plan. My friends & I do not have insurance in the US due to "pre-existing conditions." This is so unfair. My husband & I went into poverty level after my operation which cost us $33,000. Drug companies & insurance companies are making money hand over fist in America. It's time that health care be OUT of their hands!
Nancy - you have not read the legislation have you? None of them - isn't this right?
Does it matter what I answer? Apparently, you have chosen to arrive at your own conclusions.
I already pointed out that there are plans, like the ones in FL, that will cover pre-existing conditions after 12 months. So what? The cost is still very high. I disagree that competition always lowers costs. It doesn't mean I'm ignorant, only that you have a completely different way of looking at things, and choose to assume I'm clueless because I disagree with you. This is very typical, so I'm not surprised. Even if some prices are lowered to gain more business, it doesn't mean we'll get quality health care. There is a lot of competition in the auto industry. However, that doesn't mean if you shop for a well engineered automobile, you'll be able to save a lot of money. However, you can definitely find some cheap cars. McDonald's, Burger King and Wendy's all compete too. We aren't talking about cars or burgers, we're talking about our health.
Does it matter what I answer? Apparently, you have chosen to arrive at your own conclusions.
I already pointed out that there are plans, like the ones in FL, that will cover pre-existing conditions after 12 months. So what? The cost is still very high. I disagree that competition always lowers costs. It doesn't mean I'm ignorant, only that you have a completely different way of looking at things, and choose to assume I'm clueless because I disagree with you. This is very typical, so I'm not surprised.
Not at all Nancy -
But - I am informing you as to what is IN the legislation. And if ANY of the plans pass - pre-existing condition exclusions WILL BE eliminated. This is a fact.
My state also requires companies to take pre-existing conditions. The problem is the insurance companies charge so much that those with the pre -existing conditons can't afford it individually and employers are thinking twice when hiring those with pre-existing because the premiums goes up.
A simple question for all you health care experts.....
Which countries DO NOT have some form of socialized medicine/national health care?
Somalia?
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.
YES! Obama!
