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.
I.E. this is exactly way we didn't want people to keep substandard plans to begin with! Yet Republicans kept demanding let people keep plans which don't have the legal minimum levels of coverage. Insurance companies all said giving in to the Republican demand would change the risk pool calculations negatively but that is exactly what Republicans wanted and now they got it. Fortunately, my state insurance commissioner didn't allow these changes so they won't effect my state.
But there never has been -- nor likely will be -- a uniform definition of "substandard".
Let's say, pre-Obamacare, that I had an insurance plan for my wife and I that did NOT feature maternity coverage, mental health coverage, or pediatric dental -- because my wife and I weren't planning on having any more kids, we're both past the point of being "helped" mentally (well, she is...me, not so much), and we don't have children living with us. THAT is the coverage we want, because it fits our needs.
President Obama -- the same guy who lied about the terms surrounding his own mother's death in order to pimp Obamacare, and kept lying when WaPo called him and his campaign out on it -- says "hey, that plan is SUBSTANDARD. I know you don't want to have more kids, don't need mental help, and don't have kids living with you, but I am a better judge about what is substandard and what is not."
So you can't claim the "substandard plans" argument in the manner which you are -- often times, THAT is what the consumer wanted. If I want a home owner's insurance plan with a $5000 deductible, then THAT is what I should have. I don't need a liar -- Obama or any other liar -- telling me what is "right" and what is "wrong".
What happened was the PRESIDENT pulled the rug out from the insurance companies at the 11th hour by allowing a lot of people who were "happy with their plan, to keep their plan" (remember that LInE?). Well, the insurance companies realized that they were going to get the highest-risk people signing up immediately, all because Obama was trying to minimize the damage at the 2014 elections. The damage is going to come in skyrocketing premiums that won't hit until AFTER the 2014 elections.
Obamacare NEVER was about helping people. Obama could give a f**k whether you have insurance or not, whether you keep your doctor or not. Obamacare was all about what went down behind closed doors -- those same closed doors that he PROMISED would be transparent doors, remember? -- with BigInsurance, BigPharama, and BigMedical.
ACA or Obamacare or whatever you call it did nothing to make healthcare affordable. You can raise the penalty to $10,000 a year, that still doesn't mean families can AFFORD the plan. When your talking about adding $500, $600, $1200 a month to a family budget that is already tapped out then how does this plan help?
I wholeheartedly wish we could just stop with the whole political party nonsense and focus on the actual bill. It is possible to look at the bill without the politics and just say is it good or is it bad and fix it.
I want to watch a news channel that never mentions political ideologies and instead focuses on the specifics of plans, bills, laws, and proposals.
I.E. this is exactly way we didn't want people to keep substandard plans to begin with! Yet Republicans kept demanding let people keep plans which don't have the legal minimum levels of coverage. Insurance companies all said giving in to the Republican demand would change the risk pool calculations negatively but that is exactly what Republicans wanted and now they got it. Fortunately, my state insurance commissioner didn't allow these changes so they won't effect my state.
Who determines"minimum levels of coverage?"
Remember Obama along with HHS are the ones making up the rules as we go along.
The vast majority of people with plans canceled were not "substandard or junk". Remember if you may a change to your high quality major comprehensive that essentially covered everything except say a 60 day woman didn't want to pay for maternity rider. If that woman had made one minor change say change her deductible from $2500 to $3000. Her policy would be canceled.
That's what the left who continue to drink the leftist propaganda about junk policies. Even democratic politicians have stopped using the word junk policies.
You might have missed the memos that came out between 2010 after the law was passed when Obama was exposed to his own lies. Those memos was a concentrated effort to try to get people off their grandfathered plans. Not because they were junk. But to push more towards the exchanges to get the risk pool with more healthier people who otherwise would stay on their old plans.
Insurance companies are all in for the aca. Wouldn't you be to if the government were giving you a sweetheart deal?
I.E. this is exactly way we didn't want people to keep substandard plans to begin with! Yet Republicans kept demanding let people keep plans which don't have the legal minimum levels of coverage. Insurance companies all said giving in to the Republican demand would change the risk pool calculations negatively but that is exactly what Republicans wanted and now they got it. Fortunately, my state insurance commissioner didn't allow these changes so they won't effect my state.
If you want to blame Republicans you should put a BIG R next to Obama's name. He's The One who let insurers reinstate those so-called junk policies, not the R's. He did it because of the political damage and to recoup a wee bit of credibility after The Big Lie about keeping your insurance.
The risk pool was bad before Obama urged insurers to reinstate cancelled plans. If Sebelious ever releases the federal exchange data we'll have an idea of just how bad the demographics are and maybe how large the Democratic Party federal bailout of insurers will be.
All the complainers are worried Humana won't make enough profit? They believe things were so much better before when anyone with a preexisting condition was denied insurance so insurance companies could make huge profits by accepting only health people and dropping anyone that had the nerve to get sick or injured, or tripling their rates? All I ever hear from conservatives is repeal, repeal, repeal... I never see any actual plans for reform of the US healthcare system which is consistently ranked low among first world countries. The ACA has plenty of problems, but it can be reformed as all programs are, but republicans will refuse to reform, they want the old system back with unlimited industry profits, and many hardworking Americans left out in the cold unable to buy health insurance.
What about millions of people like myself who is following the supposed American dream to start my own business? I belong to a networking group of other self employed people, healthcare was a constant source of stress and could cause people to be forced back into their corporate jobs if someone in their family got sick. I spent two years stuck in a corporate job because I don't believe in not having insurance, but some insurance bureaucrat denied me due to a minor issue my MD agreed was nothing to be concerned about and required no further treatment, but the bureaucrat paid to deny decided he/she knew better than my own doctor. I tried to get into a state high risk pool but was put on a waiting list for 6 months and then my rates would be $1700/mo even though I was a healthy 29 year old with no health problems, I couldn't start a business with a $1700.mo health insurance premium!
I was only able to get insurance when I moved to a state that was required to offer plans to anyone and could only put a hold on pre-existing conditions, not deny. My plan was crap, I received a cancellation letter, and had no trouble finding a much better plan for the same price, actually about $20 cheaper w/o subsidies. I can finally relax and know if I have a health problem I will be covered and not financially ruined. How dare people try to take that away from hardworking, tax paying self employed citizens!
All the complainers are worried Humana won't make enough profit? They believe things were so much better before when anyone with a preexisting condition was denied insurance so insurance companies could make huge profits by accepting only health people and dropping anyone that had the nerve to get sick or injured, or tripling their rates?
First this issue has nothing to do with pre-existing conditions, it has to do with a last minute rule change that the insurance companies have not planned for. For example suppose you owned a contracting firm and the government said we are going to outlaw the ladders you use in one year, in anticipation of that over the year you purchase new ladders and add the cost of that into new contracts. Last minute the government decides to change the rule making the new ladders you bought illegal, you're left holding the bag for the cost of the new ladders and the contracts that have not taken these costs into account. Business's can't operate like that, they need stability in rules and regulations and if you don't understand why this is an issue stay in the corporate world because you're not a candidate for self employment.
Secondly the insurance companies would love this law if it were going to work as intended. That's how they operate, they sign up a bunch of healthy people with the expectation that X percentage are going to get sick they will have pay expenses for. As far as this rule change goes you have a very large amount of people that will be keeping their existing insurance which is going to cut into the anticipated revenue. Somebody has to pay for that and that somebody is going to be other policy holders when the rates are calculated for next year.
On top of that since this mandate has no teeth many healthy people are not going to buy insurance exacerbating this issue greatly.
Quote:
I don't believe in not having insurance,
If you think you have issues now with paying health insurance wait until next year.
.... the US healthcare system which is consistently ranked low among first world countries.
Do you understand how those numbers are calculated? For example as I recall "financial fairness" made up 25% of the score, a country that spends $100 per patient would outrank the US as longs everyone in that country was getting $100 worth of care.
That last time the WHO published those figures was in the early part of the last decade and the reason they stopped is because of all the issues related with it.
You're using the traditional concept of 'insurance' in a time when even something like Medicaid is called insurance.
I'm using the US Supreme Court's definition of insurance....
Insurance is a contract whereby for a stipulated consideration, one party undertakes to compensate the other for loss on a specific subject by specified perils.
Excuse me for attempting to interject truth and reality into the discussion.
What do you call it when the goal-posts are moved to redefine something for political purposes?
That's propaganda and disinformation. I refuse to lower my ethical and moral standards and play the propaganda game....sorry 'bout that noise.
You don't have "health insurance." Why do you think I always put "health insurance" in quotes? To highlight the fact that you don't, and to hope against all hope that people will come to realize that what they have had since 1954 is Fee-for-Service which is not the same as insurance.
Do you understand the difference between insurance and fee-for-service?
Do you understand that the fee-for-service payment method provide no mechanism whatsoever to induce either users (consumers) or providers of healthcare services to control costs?
Do you understand that fee-for-service inherently inflates costs?
Why in the hell would you support a system that is ultimately detrimental and harmful to you over the short, mid and long-term?
Man, that is just freaking mind-boggling.
You understand that your government's own short-sighted policies influenced by the American Hospital Association created this mess you so vehemently despise, right?
Didn't I just say that fee-for-service inherently inflates costs?
What has been the response of your government? Established administrative and financial cost controls for Medicare providers. Did that work? Fail.
What did the States do? Started using administrative and financial cost controls on Medicaid providers, with the end result being the "federal" government stepping in to pick up more the costs. How's that worked out for everyone? Fail.
What did health plan providers -- you know, what you disingenuously called "insurance companies" do? They initiated administrative and financial cost controls, too.
And still your costs keep rising.
Quote:
Originally Posted by juppiter
Newsflash: You were already subsidizing them. When they went to the emergency room and couldn't pay their bills because they didn't have insurance, the hospitals charged customers with insurance more to make up for it.
Here.....Reading Is Fundamental....learn something.....
The term “emergency medical condition” means— (A) a medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in— (i) placing the health of the individual (or, with respect to a pregnant woman, the health of the woman or her unborn child) in serious jeopardy, (ii) serious impairment to bodily functions, or (iii) serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part; or (B) with respect to a pregnant woman who is having contractions– (i) That there is inadequate time to effect a safe transfer to another hospital before delivery, or (ii) that transfer may pose a threat to the health or safety of the woman or the unborn child.
EMTALA definition of ‘stabilized’ To provide such medical treatment of the condition as may be necessary to assure, within reasonable medical probability, that no material deterioration of the condition is likely to result from or occur during the transfer of the individual from a facility, or, with respect to an emergency medical condition described in paragraph (1)(B) [a pregnant woman who is having contractions], to deliver (including the placenta).
Make sure you read the case law associated with EMTALA that even more narrowly defines the definition of "emergency medical condition."
An who exactly is "they"?
What drives up the cost of healthcare? Survey says....
1] Technology up to 65%
2] Consumer Demand up to 36%
3] Expanding Health Benefits or Insuring more people up to 13%
4] Healthcare Price Inflation up to 19% (caused by Consumer Demand and insuring more people)
5] Administrative Costs up to 13% (caused by Technology, Consumer Demand and Regulations)
6] Aging/Elderly up to 7%
Source: United States Government General Accounting Office GAO-13-281 PPACA and the Long-Term Fiscal Outlook, January 2013 pp 31-36
For those who have difficulty with the English language...."they" are not on the list, because "they" are not part of the problem.
Note that malpractice lawsuits and malpractice insurance aren't on the list either. Those who have issues with Reality™, might I recommend Thorazine or something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goinback2011
Who is benefitting from Obamacare?
The American Hospital Association.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ntwrkguy1
But there never has been -- nor likely will be -- a uniform definition of "substandard".
Quote:
Originally Posted by aneftp
Who determines"minimum levels of coverage?"
That should be left to the individual to decide under the aegis of the Free Market.
Logically....
Mircea
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.
