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.
When more insurance coverage is mandated than one needs, of course it's bloated and the prices are higher. Are you daft?
How do you know how much you need, though?
Not arguing, just asking. Here are some recent examples of people I know who were very healthy, as far as they knew:
-- a guy in his 40s gets bitten by a poisonous snake in his backyard. $165,000 for the antivenom, another $22,000 for related doctor and hospital costs.
-- a guy in his 50s has shortness of breath and chest pain, doctor says he needs immediate bypass surgery to remove blockages. $275,000 in doctor and hospital costs thus far.
-- a woman in her 30s is diagnosed with breast cancer. Costs were about $140,000.
Not arguing, just asking. Here are some recent examples of people I know who were very healthy, as far as they knew:
-- a guy in his 40s gets bitten by a poisonous snake in his backyard. $165,000 for the antivenom, another $22,000 for related doctor and hospital costs.
-- a guy in his 50s has shortness of breath and chest pain, doctor says he needs immediate bypass surgery to remove blockages. $275,000 in doctor and hospital costs thus far.
-- a woman in her 30s is diagnosed with breast cancer. Costs were about $140,000.
Thtas what catastrophic insurance was for.
You needed insurance to kick in at the point you couldnt afford it.
Had $100K in the bank, then you needed $100K catastrophic care..
Not arguing, just asking. Here are some recent examples of people I know who were very healthy, as far as they knew:
-- a guy in his 40s gets bitten by a poisonous snake in his backyard. $165,000 for the antivenom, another $22,000 for related doctor and hospital costs.
-- a guy in his 50s has shortness of breath and chest pain, doctor says he needs immediate bypass surgery to remove blockages. $275,000 in doctor and hospital costs thus far.
-- a woman in her 30s is diagnosed with breast cancer. Costs were about $140,000.
Yup. Catastrophic health insurance covers all those situations.
People don't realize (and I have been on the indidivual insurance market for 15 plus years). But one of things that kept premiums low for most on the individual market was the ability to pick and choose what coverage they needed. There was more flexibility.
Remember the ACA essentials weren't even included in the bill. The law gave HHS way too much power. The "essentials" of what each plan needed wasn't even finalized until 2012 almost 2 years after the law was passed. And HHS determines what's "essential" and should be covered without the deductible (aka "free" colon screenings, "free tubal locations" "free birth control". HHS also decided men shouldn't have "free vasectomies". It's Obama's and whoever he chooses in HHS call what they decide is "free".
Anyways back to "essentials". When we were on the individual market. There was always an option to choose a maternity rider. The liberal media made it like women couldn't get maternity coverage. Considering most women are young and healthy. It was hardly unlikely women were denied maternity coverage. They claimed women were denied maternity AFTER THE FACT they got pregnant. Duh. Why should insurance cover a pre existing pregnancy. That's liberal media bias for you.
My wife and I were "responsible". We paid the $240/month rider for just maternity (in addition to regular premiums) with a 12 month exclusion for pregnancy.
So my wife planned the pregnancy. It's not that hard folks. Read the fine print. Birth control is dirt cheap. Cheaper per month than what most 20-30 year old blow on alcohol each weekend.
So while I was responsible and paid extra for maternity coverage. When we were done with having kids. We dropped the maternity rider.
Pretty simple.
Except now Obama requires maternity coverage which adds to the cost of insurance along with other stuff like Pediatric dental care etc. remove a lot of those unneeded stuff. People can save a lot of money. Insurance companies are making $$$$ knowing a lot of these unneeded maternity coverage for 60 years old.
Imagine if the Feds forced all people with car insurance to carry car rental riders. Meaning if you get in accidental than you get coverage for car rental. That sounds good and All. Except I got a spare car and don't need the car rental coverage. That's the govt for you. TELLING YOU WHATS GOOD FOR YOU. Even though you don't need it. Health insurance compAnies know the stats. They are making money on the ACA.
Look at all health insurance stocks. They are all way up. Invest in them.
Yup. Catastrophic health insurance covers all those situations.
People don't realize (and I have been on the indidivual insurance market for 15 plus years). But one of things that kept premiums low for most on the individual market was the ability to pick and choose what coverage they needed. There was more flexibility.
Remember the ACA essentials weren't even included in the bill. The law gave HHS way too much power. The "essentials" of what each plan needed wasn't even finalized until 2012 almost 2 years after the law was passed. And HHS determines what's "essential" and should be covered without the deductible (aka "free" colon screenings, "free tubal locations" "free birth control". HHS also decided men shouldn't have "free vasectomies". It's Obama's and whoever he chooses in HHS call what they decide is "free".
Anyways back to "essentials". When we were on the individual market. There was always an option to choose a maternity rider. The liberal media made it like women couldn't get maternity coverage. Considering most women are young and healthy. It was hardly unlikely women were denied maternity coverage. They claimed women were denied maternity AFTER THE FACT they got pregnant. Duh. Why should insurance cover a pre existing pregnancy. That's liberal media bias for you.
My wife and I were "responsible". We paid the $240/month rider for just maternity (in addition to regular premiums) with a 12 month exclusion for pregnancy.
So my wife planned the pregnancy. It's not that hard folks. Read the fine print. Birth control is dirt cheap. Cheaper per month than what most 20-30 year old blow on alcohol each weekend.
So while I was responsible and paid extra for maternity coverage. When we were done with having kids. We dropped the maternity rider.
Pretty simple.
Except now Obama requires maternity coverage which adds to the cost of insurance along with other stuff like Pediatric dental care etc. remove a lot of those unneeded stuff. People can save a lot of money. Insurance companies are making $$$$ knowing a lot of these unneeded maternity coverage for 60 years old.
Imagine if the Feds forced all people with car insurance to carry car rental riders. Meaning if you get in accidental than you get coverage for car rental. That sounds good and All. Except I got a spare car and don't need the car rental coverage. That's the govt for you. TELLING YOU WHATS GOOD FOR YOU. Even though you don't need it. Health insurance compAnies know the stats. They are making money on the ACA.
Look at all health insurance stocks. They are all way up. Invest in them.
I have had insurance for the past 30 years and maternity was covered for all of those years. Its kind of like paying for school even though your last child left school 20 years ago . Heck I am paying for schools now going past 40 years and my last kid left school 18 years ago. My wife had a separate policy and there was no maternity rider for her either. We had one child completely covered and then paid the coverage for the next 35 years. So both of us husband and wife paid for maternity coverage..thats the way it was and that's the way it is. By the way we still pay for the local kids with school taxes and maternity benefits for someone else. Someone did that for us a long time ago and now we are paying back.
Not arguing, just asking. Here are some recent examples of people I know who were very healthy, as far as they knew:
-- a guy in his 40s gets bitten by a poisonous snake in his backyard. $165,000 for the antivenom, another $22,000 for related doctor and hospital costs.
-- a guy in his 50s has shortness of breath and chest pain, doctor says he needs immediate bypass surgery to remove blockages. $275,000 in doctor and hospital costs thus far.
-- a woman in her 30s is diagnosed with breast cancer. Costs were about $140,000.
All of those are covered by inexpensive catastrophic policies, not the bloated policies the ACA forces people to buy.
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments today in King v. Burwell, the most serious challenge to the Affordable Care Act since the justices upheld it as constitutional almost three years ago.
The lawsuit hinges on four words in the law regarding the government subsidies : "established by the state."
"The IRS said that in the context of the entire law, that applied to exchanges in the state set up by the federal government. But challengers say that language means subsidies don’t apply to those exchanges set up by the federal government."
Roughly eight million Americans who purchased their health insurance through the federal exchange in the 34 states that did not set up their own exchanges are at risk of losing their health insurance should the SC rule for the plaintiffs.
Here is a summary of the impact a ruling for the plaintiffs would have.
Typical liberal nonsense. Let's rule on the case based on the impact of the decision, and not on the merits of the case. Let's use emotions to make legal decisions instead of actually using the law to make legal decisions.
Quote:
It's interesting to note that the highest percentage of people who would lose their insurance are likely to be predominantly white, Southern and employed full-time.
Why is that interesting? I don't see it as having any relevance whatsoever. Of what possible legitimate objective relevance can the race of the people who have insurance from the federal exchange be to whether or not the federal exchange was legally able to sell that insurance?
The aspect that stands out to me is that when SCOTUS upheld the individual mandate an such, all you got here was posts from liberals with "IT'S THE LAW" in the title. Now, any thought that this even COULD be shot down is met with "the law does not matter, we need it"
No Cruz has proposed a bill that he touts as an ACA replacement (something the liberal community has challenged the GOP to do), but in what I consider a dumb move on his part, he just posted a PDF fole of the actual bill he wrote on the appropriate form, it's 31 pages. A summary in regular man on the street language would be nice.
I have had insurance for the past 30 years and maternity was covered for all of those years. Its kind of like paying for school even though your last child left school 20 years ago . Heck I am paying for schools now going past 40 years and my last kid left school 18 years ago. My wife had a separate policy and there was no maternity rider for her either. We had one child completely covered and then paid the coverage for the next 35 years. So both of us husband and wife paid for maternity coverage..thats the way it was and that's the way it is. By the way we still pay for the local kids with school taxes and maternity benefits for someone else. Someone did that for us a long time ago and now we are paying back.
The real question is of those 30 years you had maternity coverage. How many of those years were you on the individual insurance market. That's the million dollar question. If you policy that had maternity coverage was through employer, your whole statement becomes mute since you aren't talking about individual market.
One of ways to keep health insurance costs down on the individual market was to leave stuff out people don't need (like maternity coverage) if one doesn't want it. It was available was rider for the vast majority of policies.
And don't people find it ironic liberals claim women shouldn't be discriminated against by having to pay higher premiums just because they are women?
Yet I do not hear the liberal cry why men get charged more for auto insurance policies than women? Why is that? Because they are more likely to get into car accidents? and more likely to "use" their insurance policy?
So women are more likely to "use" their health policies as well.
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.
