U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Thanksgiving Day!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-17-2010, 04:10 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,587 posts, read 3,964,078 times
Reputation: 4071

Advertisements

As pointed out in another thread, the most likely version of Obamacare requires insurance companies to sign people up even if they have a "pre-existing condition"... and the plan levies a relatively small fine on people who don't carry insurance.

So it makes clear economic sense for people to drop their health insurance and pay the fine, until they actually get sick or injured. Then they can sign up to have insurance companies pay for their medical care, paying the normal premiums, stay until the problem is remedied, and then drop the insurance again.

My question is:

How can the insurance companies survive when more and more of their "customers" do this?

A company is practically guaranteed under this plan, to get almost no premium payments from their "customers". And only then if they are simultaneously paying out much higher amounts for the medical care that EVERY customer needs. Customers who don't need medical care, have dropped their insurance (until the next sickness or injury). Even if the govt sends them money from the fines, it is a much smaller amount than ordinary premiums would be.

Any way you look at it, the cash flow is negative. This plan pretty much guarantees that insurance companies always pay out more than they take in.

How, exactly, will these companies survive economically?

When I ask this, I often hear snarls of "Oh, you're on the insurance companies' side, eh?"... especially when the snarler cannot answer the questions.

Is this the ultimate "revenge of the liberals"? Where angry leftists get to legally damage (or destroy?) insurance companies they imagine have somehow wronged them? Without having to prove to anyone they've actually been harmed?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-17-2010, 04:13 PM
 
29,990 posts, read 20,712,711 times
Reputation: 12374
They won't. This is why THIS bill is paving the road to a national socialist health control system.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2010, 04:39 PM
Status: "Happy Thanksgiving Week!" (set 3 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
69,693 posts, read 59,919,961 times
Reputation: 19992
Despite being instructed regarding this issue over and over again, you guys try to obfuscate it. The bill is meant to keep insurance companies from using a long-ago pre-existing condition to deny insurance ever again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2010, 04:58 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
30,992 posts, read 12,991,206 times
Reputation: 10985
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
As pointed out in another thread, the most likely version of Obamacare requires insurance companies to sign people up even if they have a "pre-existing condition"... and the plan levies a relatively small fine on people who don't carry insurance.
The plan also includes provisions to ensure these insurance companies don't manufacture pre-existing condition on the fly, as they have been caught doing while purging some not so fruitful consumers.

Having said that, it also proves why government must intervene and provide safety net to all people much less just those whose life and well being may have a lower price tag in the capitalistic Utopia most conservatives and republicans seem to maintain.

And if you have an issue with private companies being forced to do that, how about you start supporting public option. Or better yet, expansion of medicare to everybody who wants out of the clutches of privateers? Government already takes care of the elderly (medicare) that these insurance companies would never dare cover on their own... the same program that opposing politicians are selling to win votes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2010, 05:00 PM
Status: "V.O.A." (set 25 days ago)
 
Location: My ranch
15,145 posts, read 6,452,772 times
Reputation: 3984
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Despite being instructed regarding this issue over and over again, you guys try to obfuscate it. The bill is meant to keep insurance companies from using a long-ago pre-existing condition to deny insurance ever again.

so a health insurance company should not be allowed to deny insurance if a person with cancer or a past history of cancer applies for insurance for the 1st time?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2010, 05:06 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,862 posts, read 11,631,919 times
Reputation: 6292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
As pointed out in another thread, the most likely version of Obamacare requires insurance companies to sign people up even if they have a "pre-existing condition"... and the plan levies a relatively small fine on people who don't carry insurance.

So it makes clear economic sense for people to drop their health insurance and pay the fine, until they actually get sick or injured. Then they can sign up to have insurance companies pay for their medical care, paying the normal premiums, stay until the problem is remedied, and then drop the insurance again.

My question is:

How can the insurance companies survive when more and more of their "customers" do this?

A company is practically guaranteed under this plan, to get almost no premium payments from their "customers". And only then if they are simultaneously paying out much higher amounts for the medical care that EVERY customer needs. Customers who don't need medical care, have dropped their insurance (until the next sickness or injury). Even if the govt sends them money from the fines, it is a much smaller amount than ordinary premiums would be.

Any way you look at it, the cash flow is negative. This plan pretty much guarantees that insurance companies always pay out more than they take in.

How, exactly, will these companies survive economically?

When I ask this, I often hear snarls of "Oh, you're on the insurance companies' side, eh?"... especially when the snarler cannot answer the questions.

Is this the ultimate "revenge of the liberals"? Where angry leftists get to legally damage (or destroy?) insurance companies they imagine have somehow wronged them? Without having to prove to anyone they've actually been harmed?
It is my intent to do precisely as you describe. I am currently covered under Blue Cross/Blue Shield. However, should this Healthcare Insurance Reform bill become law, I intend to cancel my policy. When I need to see a doctor, I will get on-line and sign up for healthcare insurance on the day of my doctor's appointment. When the matter is resolved, I will once again drop all my coverage.

I also have absolutely no intention of sending anything to the IRS concerning my health insurance coverage in the hope that they attempt to fine/tax me. That will be all the standing I need to get the courts to eliminate the unconstitutional Bill of Attainder in this bill.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2010, 05:10 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
30,992 posts, read 12,991,206 times
Reputation: 10985
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeywrenching View Post
so a health insurance company should not be allowed to deny insurance if a person with cancer or a past history of cancer applies for insurance for the 1st time?
Should Medicare deny covering people with pre-existing condition? If health insurance companies can't do it, let the government do it... but hey you don't want that either. "As long as it is not me", right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2010, 05:12 PM
Status: "Happy Thanksgiving Week!" (set 3 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
69,693 posts, read 59,919,961 times
Reputation: 19992
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeywrenching View Post
so a health insurance company should not be allowed to deny insurance if a person with cancer or a past history of cancer applies for insurance for the 1st time?
Certainly not for a past history of cancer. Should my daughter, who had cancer at 14, not be able to get maternity insurance at 22?

I'm not sure about the other, but if they're going to get care, one way or the other, why not insure them so everyone gets paid?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2010, 05:13 PM
 
Location: California
25,519 posts, read 16,886,770 times
Reputation: 17968
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
It is my intent to do precisely as you describe. I am currently covered under Blue Cross/Blue Shield. However, should this Healthcare Insurance Reform bill become law, I intend to cancel my policy. When I need to see a doctor, I will get on-line and sign up for healthcare insurance on the day of my doctor's appointment. When the matter is resolved, I will once again drop all my coverage.

I also have absolutely no intention of sending anything to the IRS concerning my health insurance coverage in the hope that they attempt to fine/tax me. That will be all the standing I need to get the courts to eliminate the unconstitutional Bill of Attainder in this bill.
Here's a thought. Why don't you try that with your auto insurance and tell us how that works out? No need to pay for coverage on days you don't actually drive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2010, 05:17 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,862 posts, read 11,631,919 times
Reputation: 6292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Certainly not for a past history of cancer. Should my daughter, who had cancer at 14, not be able to get maternity insurance at 22?

I'm not sure about the other, but if they're going to get care, one way or the other, why not insure them so everyone gets paid?
Because they won't get paid. Why do you think doctors all over the nation refuse to see patients whose primary insurance carrier is MediCare? Doctors are getting paid pennies for every dollar they shell out. At age 65 everyone gets MediCare, whether they want it or not. It is as close to "universal" healthcare coverage as it gets. But what good is universal healthcare coverage when you cannot get treatment?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:24 PM.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top