"Must accept Pre-existing Conditions" isn't insurance.

[Renae]

The new law that will force Insurance Companies to take customers that have pre-existing conditions isn't healthcare reform, and will not lead to lower costs for anyone.

What is insurance? It's there as a buffer between yourself and high cost healthcare should you suffer a life changing event. Like a Car Accident, or need surgery.

Insurance Companies insure people based on the simple fact most people won't EVER need costly care. That's why say smokers pay higher premiums, the chance of the insurance company paying out the limit is much higher.

Business 101.

Now, with Pre-existing conditions mandated Companies are going to be forced to say, take a customer that has terminal cancer, or a long term illness.

It might FEEL good knowing that the kid with brain cancer will get treatment, however who is really paying for this? Yeah, you the customer.

These guaranteed expenses will push premiums UP, not down. This is in effect, not Healthcare Insurance, but mandated subsidizing of individuals by private companies by law. It's patently dishonest to claim it is otherwise.

 

[Geo Patric]

subsidizing of individuals by private companies

not quite.... it is subsidizing individuals by individuals... the private companies are merely the vehicle (that skims some off the top).

Insurance is simply a version of 'redistribution of wealth' that capitalists find acceptable, because, after all, it allows them to skim some off the top.

you pay to make OTHER sick people well, not yourself. Insurance companies could not work otherwise.

geo.

 

[winston53660]

not quite.... it is subsidizing individuals by individuals... the private companies are merely the vehicle (that skims some off the top).

Insurance is simply a version of 'redistribution of wealth' that capitalists find acceptable, because, after all, it allows them to skim some off the top.

you pay to make OTHER sick people well, not yourself. Insurance companies could not work otherwise.

geo.

Also insurance companies take the premiums and invest them in things like real estate, bonds, etc. Premiums are not their only source of income.

 

[bennyhill]

HC is about life and death, that why its different from auto insuracne.

MrVicchio
your either a kid or a rich Republican millionaire. How would you feel if you had cancer and nobody would insure you? And his family? Threads like this make me feel american politicians are more reasonalbe than there voters. Thats why you only get the chance to open your mouth once every 4 years. Thank god.

 

[Geo Patric]

that's true, Winston.

they take the money you pay to get medical treatment and make money from it by not giving medical treatment to you, keep some of what they make by not giving medical treatment to you and give some of it to others who do not give medical treatment to you.

thanks for the clarification.

geo.

 

[Renae]

HC is about life and death, that why its different from auto insuracne.

MrVicchio
your either a kid or a rich Republican millionaire. How would you feel if you had cancer and nobody would insure you? And his family? Threads like this make me feel american politicians are more reasonalbe than there voters. Thats why you only get the chance to open your mouth once every 4 years. Thank god.

I am poor as ****, I take home $565 a month. A MONTH after all is said and done.

Helps to know what you are talking about before opening your mouth.

 

[Deuce]

Hence the addition of millions of healthy customers to their base via the mandate. Healthy customers to offset the unhealthy ones.

 

[bennyhill]

MrVicchio
does this mean when you get denied HC, youll just grin and bear it, because your a Rep? Your voting agains your own interest, that sounds like the fat lady who wants to eat until she burst!

 

[mike2810]

Hence the addition of millions of healthy customers to their base via the mandate. Healthy customers to offset the unhealthy ones.

So are you saying rates are not going to go up faster than inflation because of the additional policy holders? I expect when this all kicks in and people sign up, rates are going to go up a great deal.

Question: Lets say a 80-90 year old signs up with Parkison. It is expected they will live another 1-2 years. They need a hip replacement. Should they get the hip replacement paid for by the insurance? What if the person is 50 years old?

Or how about a 80-90 year old with terminal cancer. Should they be treated or just manage the pain and let nature take its course. Or if they were 50?

Difficult decision that doctors and insurance companies have to make. Quality of life versus expense of treatment and rehabilitation time.

 

[Renae]

Hence the addition of millions of healthy customers to their base via the mandate. Healthy customers to offset the unhealthy ones.

So another ponzi scheme. You guys love those.

 

[bennyhill]

They have to pay, thats why you pay insurance payments every month. They take your money year after year and when you have cancer they say your not covered? Thats robbery. Why do you have more sympathy for them as for yourself?

 

[mike2810]

They have to pay, thats why you pay insurance payments every month. They take your money year after year and when you have cancer they say your not covered? Thats robbery. Why do you have more sympathy for them as for yourself?

Are you saying that in every case the HC insurance companies do this? I personally know 3 people who have had cancer treatments paid by the HC provider. While I don't doubt some people have been denied coverage, it would interesting to see the percentages.

If a person who has a preexisting condition just signs up, they have not paid in for years and years. IMO, it will be interesting what happens to rates when this HC kicks in.

 

[Boo Radley]

The new law that will force Insurance Companies to take customers that have pre-existing conditions isn't healthcare reform, and will not lead to lower costs for anyone.

What is insurance? It's there as a buffer between yourself and high cost healthcare should you suffer a life changing event. Like a Car Accident, or need surgery.

Insurance Companies insure people based on the simple fact most people won't EVER need costly care. That's why say smokers pay higher premiums, the chance of the insurance company paying out the limit is much higher.

Business 101.

Now, with Pre-existing conditions mandated Companies are going to be forced to say, take a customer that has terminal cancer, or a long term illness.

It might FEEL good knowing that the kid with brain cancer will get treatment, however who is really paying for this? Yeah, you the customer.

These guaranteed expenses will push premiums UP, not down. This is in effect, not Healthcare Insurance, but mandated subsidizing of individuals by private companies by law. It's patently dishonest to claim it is otherwise.

Well, right now we're paying for folks all the time. Often they get some treatment and the cost is passed on to us. Remember, a bandaid costs $16.04 and this helps make insurance companies raise their premiums. We pay, right now.

And if you do have cancer or any other such illness, only the extremely rich will ever be able to afford treatment, treatment that often would save a life and allow for an excellent quality of life.

As for pushing premiums up, have you looked at them over the years? They go up all the time, and all while providing less coverage. If it leads to bringing the cost of a bandaid, for example, down to something less than five dollars, it really could lead to lower premiums. I think it is too early to say it will, but it could. And one thing is for sure, there's no chance at all that they will stop going up without reform.

 

[Deuce]

So are you saying rates are not going to go up faster than inflation because of the additional policy holders? I expect when this all kicks in and people sign up, rates are going to go up a great deal.

Question: Lets say a 80-90 year old signs up with Parkison. It is expected they will live another 1-2 years. They need a hip replacement. Should they get the hip replacement paid for by the insurance? What if the person is 50 years old?

Or how about a 80-90 year old with terminal cancer. Should they be treated or just manage the pain and let nature take its course. Or if they were 50?

Difficult decision that doctors and insurance companies have to make. Quality of life versus expense of treatment and rehabilitation time.

Health care does not work that way. In fact, a larger insurance pool usually results in better negotiated rates with hospitals, which lowers costs. Standard supply and demand models don't really work here.

So another ponzi scheme. You guys love those.

No, this is not at all like a ponzi scheme. The two aren't remotely comparable, but that's pretty standard republican tactics.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Are you saying that in every case the HC insurance companies do this? I personally know 3 people who have had cancer treatments paid by the HC provider. While I don't doubt some people have been denied coverage, it would interesting to see the percentages.

If a person who has a preexisting condition just signs up, they have not paid in for years and years. IMO, it will be interesting what happens to rates when this HC kicks in.

The answer to those questions is OH NO! DEATH PANELS! HEALTH CARE RATIONING!!

 

[Deuce]

The answer to those questions is OH NO! DEATH PANELS! HEALTH CARE RATIONING!!

If only there were some way to make sure people already had insurance instead of waiting until they get sick. Some sort of way to make sure they pay at least some fair share of the costs!

If only something like that were in this bill.

:rofl

 

[mike2810]

The answer to those questions is OH NO! DEATH PANELS! HEALTH CARE RATIONING!!

Was this our answer to these?

Question: Lets say a 80-90 year old signs up with Parkison. It is expected they will live another 1-2 years. They need a hip replacement. Should they get the hip replacement paid for by the insurance? What if the person is 50 years old?

Or how about a 80-90 year old with terminal cancer. Should they be treated or just manage the pain and let nature take its course. Or if they were 50?

I don't consider either of these situation to be death panel or rationing situations. What it amounts to is looking at the quality of life a person would have with or without the treatment. There is more to life than just breathing.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Was this our answer to these?

Question: Lets say a 80-90 year old signs up with Parkison. It is expected they will live another 1-2 years. They need a hip replacement. Should they get the hip replacement paid for by the insurance? What if the person is 50 years old?

Or how about a 80-90 year old with terminal cancer. Should they be treated or just manage the pain and let nature take its course. Or if they were 50?

I don't consider either of these situation to be death panel or rationing situations. What it amounts to is looking at the quality of life a person would have with or without the treatment. There is more to life than just breathing.

I know. They are very real and very hard decisions. However, for many people, any denial of treatment will be seen as proof of rationing or whatever. It is a sad thing, but those kinds of situations rarely have a right answer that will make everyone happy.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

I am poor as ****, I take home $565 a month. A MONTH after all is said and done.

Helps to know what you are talking about before opening your mouth.

When you say you take home $565 a month

Is that you monthly income or how much money you have after expense's (ie the amount you could invest or save if you so choose)

 

[Renae]

When you say you take home $565 a month

Is that you monthly income or how much money you have after expense's (ie the amount you could invest or save if you so choose)

Taxes, Child-Support (55% of AFTER TAX income), Insurance that covers ONLY my wife and I.

565 isn't enough to pay RENT. Thank goodness my wife (remarried) takes home enough to just barely cover the rest. If I don't get OT during the month, I get little spending money.

 

[Deuce]

Taxes, Child-Support (55% of AFTER TAX income), Insurance that covers ONLY my wife and I.

565 isn't enough to pay RENT. Thank goodness my wife (remarried) takes home enough to just barely cover the rest. If I don't get OT during the month, I get little spending money.

The really weird part is how people in this financial situation vote for the party that works hard to shift wealth upwards.

 

[bennyhill]

MrViccio, why are you leeching off your wife! Cant you work 100+ hours a week like every other republican hypocrite?

 

[Christopher]

The really weird part is how people in this financial situation vote for the party that works hard to shift wealth upwards.

The really weird part is how people in this financial situation vote for the party that works hard to shift wealth upwards.

This kind of comment really bothers me. I'm personally in favor of a public option, but the fact that there are so many people with this kind of mindset makes me hesitant of giving the government that kind of power.

I'm surprised that the OP has not stuck to his main point, which was that once you force insurance companies to accept pre-existing conditions, it is no longer insurance in the traditional sense. If I am reading his post correctly, he made no indication that this was an inherently bad thing. Rather, he stated that it was dishonest to distort the situation into anything else. It looks like many of you took his bait and started making wild accusations about his character.

 

[Renae]

The really weird part is how people in this financial situation vote for the party that works hard to shift wealth upwards.

What's funny is that people like you think people like me WANT Gov't to hand me money stolen from hard working people and given to me. I don't want hand outs.

 

[Gipper]

All this is why I'm not insured. At work there is an a-la-carte system that gives me a little bit extra every week by not taking their insurance.

I'm perfectly healthy and don't exist to support another's frailty.