• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Voters Overwhelmingly Reject Health Insurance Mandate

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
65,620
Reaction score
33,492
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
:) This Is Not Going Away As An Issue.

Missouri voters on Tuesday overwhelmingly rejected a key provision of President Barack Obama's health care law, sending a clear message of discontent to Washington and Democrats less than 100 days before the midterm elections.

About 71 percent of Missouri voters backed a ballot measure, Proposition C, that would prohibit the government from requiring people to have health insurance or from penalizing them for not having it.

The Missouri law conflicts with a federal requirement that most people have health insurance or face penalties starting in 2014.

Tuesday's vote was seen as largely symbolic because federal law generally trumps state law. But it was also seen as a sign of growing voter disillusionment with federal policies and a show of strength by conservatives and the tea party movement.

"To us, it symbolized everything," said Annette Read, a tea party participant from suburban St. Louis who quit her online retail job to lead a yearlong campaign for the Missouri ballot measure. "The entire frustration in the country ... how our government has misspent, how they haven't listened to the people, this measure in general encompassed all of that."

Missouri's ballot also featured primaries for U.S. Senate, Congress and numerous state legislative seats. But at many polling places, voters said they were most passionate about the health insurance referendum.

"I believe that the general public has been duped about the benefits of the health care proposal," said Mike Sampson of Jefferson City, an independent emergency management contractor, who voted for the proposition. "My guess is federal law will in fact supersede state law, but we need to send a message to the folks in Washington, D.C., that people in the hinterlands are not happy."...

The health care referendum was helped by a high Republican turnout. In Missouri's open primaries, voters do not have to register their party affiliation. But far more people picked Republican ballots than Democratic ones Tuesday.

Republican lawmakers originally wanted to place the measure on Missouri's November ballot in the form of a state constitutional amendment. But to avoid a Democratic filibuster in the state Senate, they agreed to scale it back to a proposed law and place it on the primary ballot.

Legislatures in Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana and Virginia have passed similar statutes without referring them to the ballot, and voters in Arizona and Oklahoma will vote on such measures as state constitutional amendments in November. Missouri was the first state to challenge aspects of the federal law in a referendum.

The intent of the federal requirement is to broaden the pool of healthy people covered by insurers, thus holding down premiums that otherwise would rise because of separate provisions prohibiting insurers from denying coverage to people with poor health or pre-existing conditions.

But the insurance requirement has been one of the most contentious parts of the new federal law. Public officials in well over a dozen states, including Missouri, have filed lawsuits claiming Congress overstepped its constitutional authority by requiring citizens to buy health insurance.

Federal courts are expected to weigh in well before the insurance requirement takes effect about whether the federal health care overhaul is constitutional.
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,661
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
:) This Is Not Going Away As An Issue.

Missouri voters on Tuesday overwhelmingly rejected a key provision of President Barack Obama's health care law, sending a clear message of discontent to Washington and Democrats less than 100 days before the midterm elections.

About 71 percent of Missouri voters backed a ballot measure, Proposition C, that would prohibit the government from requiring people to have health insurance or from penalizing them for not having it.

The Missouri law conflicts with a federal requirement that most people have health insurance or face penalties starting in 2014.

Tuesday's vote was seen as largely symbolic because federal law generally trumps state law. But it was also seen as a sign of growing voter disillusionment with federal policies and a show of strength by conservatives and the tea party movement.

"To us, it symbolized everything," said Annette Read, a tea party participant from suburban St. Louis who quit her online retail job to lead a yearlong campaign for the Missouri ballot measure. "The entire frustration in the country ... how our government has misspent, how they haven't listened to the people, this measure in general encompassed all of that."

Missouri's ballot also featured primaries for U.S. Senate, Congress and numerous state legislative seats. But at many polling places, voters said they were most passionate about the health insurance referendum.

"I believe that the general public has been duped about the benefits of the health care proposal," said Mike Sampson of Jefferson City, an independent emergency management contractor, who voted for the proposition. "My guess is federal law will in fact supersede state law, but we need to send a message to the folks in Washington, D.C., that people in the hinterlands are not happy."...

The health care referendum was helped by a high Republican turnout. In Missouri's open primaries, voters do not have to register their party affiliation. But far more people picked Republican ballots than Democratic ones Tuesday.

Republican lawmakers originally wanted to place the measure on Missouri's November ballot in the form of a state constitutional amendment. But to avoid a Democratic filibuster in the state Senate, they agreed to scale it back to a proposed law and place it on the primary ballot.

Legislatures in Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana and Virginia have passed similar statutes without referring them to the ballot, and voters in Arizona and Oklahoma will vote on such measures as state constitutional amendments in November. Missouri was the first state to challenge aspects of the federal law in a referendum.

The intent of the federal requirement is to broaden the pool of healthy people covered by insurers, thus holding down premiums that otherwise would rise because of separate provisions prohibiting insurers from denying coverage to people with poor health or pre-existing conditions.

But the insurance requirement has been one of the most contentious parts of the new federal law. Public officials in well over a dozen states, including Missouri, have filed lawsuits claiming Congress overstepped its constitutional authority by requiring citizens to buy health insurance.

Federal courts are expected to weigh in well before the insurance requirement takes effect about whether the federal health care overhaul is constitutional.

Yes, it would be largely symbolic. Without the requirement to purchase health insurance, nothing works. Guess it's up to SCOTUS on the entire program. Since it IS that, seems like a bunch of politicians are just trying to make some hay. Huh! What a surprise!!
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
77,013
Reaction score
34,029
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Apparently the majority of voters want to eat their cake and have it too. Getting rid of the pre-existing conditions exclusion is also favored by an overwhelming majority, but you can't do that without the mandate.
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Apparently the majority of voters want to eat their cake and have it too. Getting rid of the pre-existing conditions exclusion is also favored by an overwhelming majority, but you can't do that without the mandate.
How so Deuce? You know, considering that pre-existing conditions have nothing to do with being forced to buy insurance. I'll clue you in, the mandate will inflate price, not deflate it because the Baucus bill contains zero cost effective or cost controlling language.
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,661
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
How so Deuce? You know, considering that pre-existing conditions have nothing to do with being forced to buy insurance. I'll clue you in, the mandate will inflate price, not deflate it because the Baucus bill contains zero cost effective or cost controlling language.

From your mouth to God's ears. Yes? If people are not required to buy health insurance, what will have changed? Congress might as well have done nothing at all. If the healthy are not helping to pay the health insurance costs of the sick, where on earth is the money supposed to come from?
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
From your mouth to God's ears. Yes? If people are not required to buy health insurance, what will have changed? Congress might as well have done nothing at all. If the healthy are not helping to pay the health insurance costs of the sick, where on earth is the money supposed to come from?
Preexisting conditions end up being a net drain on insurance provider mandated cash holdings. Because they are typically expensive and constant costs they don't pass the underwriting/actuarial test as they would skew costs past what healthy people can or will pay. Adding people to the pool does not address anything because it will actually add risk which will increase premiums instead of decreasing them, as well the new 80/20 mandatory minimum will increase costs to insurers upon insureds as well as the new compliance nightmare that is this bill. Requiring people to buy will not address the root costs inherent in the overregulated market rather it will add to them.

You asked if congress should just do nothing and the answer is "sort of". This congress is full of some of the dumbest human beings to ever exist in this world and as well they don't have a clue as to how the real world works, nor should they care as they exempt themselves and their cronies from the ill effects of their stupidity. This is coming from an agent BTW and I constantly am reviewing how my business works.

What I am addressing to Deuce is the idea that the two completely opposite ends of the spectrum do not relate to each other and have little in common. However the guy is not a professional and has never used anything more than probamacare talking points to back up the polished turd that is "health reform". Keep in mind this isn't reform, it's restructuring of the regulatory powers concerning healthcare and actually fixes nothing, it adds to what is wrong with american healthcare. But everyone is about to see, I'm predicting a massive American oh **** moment in 2014.
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
They both have a lot to do with adverse selection, one adds to the problem, the other pretty much takes it away.
They have NOTHING to do with each other. Adverse selection is a symptom of the root cost problem which came from overregulating every aspect of the health care market. PECs would be relatively affordable minus staggering health costs and would be covered in a more natural market, the mandate is not going to bring costs down and in fact will add to them because the risk pool will skew more towards adverse. Deuce is not correct here and not even in the right general area.
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,661
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Preexisting conditions end up being a net drain on insurance provider mandated cash holdings. Because they are typically expensive and constant costs they don't pass the underwriting/actuarial test as they would skew costs past what healthy people can or will pay. Adding people to the pool does not address anything because it will actually add risk which will increase premiums instead of decreasing them, as well the new 80/20 mandatory minimum will increase costs to insurers upon insureds as well as the new compliance nightmare that is this bill. Requiring people to buy will not address the root costs inherent in the overregulated market rather it will add to them.

I'm a pretty savvy gal when it comes to health insurance as I've done my homework. And I've done my homework because I've been a buyer of individual health policies my whole adult life in that I've always been an entrepreneur. I finally had to go into my state's ICHIP program when my individual policy reached $850/month for a $5K deductible. Pre-existing conditions precluded my ability to move to a less expensive plan. I don't understand the paragraph I quoted here. It's Greek. You simply must find a more clear way to communicate whatever it is you're trying to say if a lay person is to understand it. ;-)

My first comment about your post is that group policies work this exact way. Pre-existing conditions allowed. Are insurance companies losing money on group insurance sales? I would venture the answer is a pretty safe "no." Where is that premise in your explanation?

Further, insurance companies, when selling individual policies, have consistently formed their own "internal groups" -- and then they close the plan to new enrollees. They start out with perfectly healthy people (they only way one can buy an individual policy. When they close the plan (after a magic number underwriters determine), "new healthy people" are not allowed to enroll. The people in the plan begin to get sick; they begin adjusting premiums to reflect that experience. And eventually, down the road a piece, all the healthy people in that plan move to other policies because they can, and that "internal group" begins to experience high payouts -- because only the people with pre-existing conditions remain. 'Cause they have no place to go. Eventually, as happened to me, that "internal group" is charging such an outrageous premium that people just simply have to walk away from health coverage.

If insurance companies didn't created these "faux groups" and allowed new enrollees (healthy people) to enroll, insurance would be doing EGZAKLY what insurance is supposed to do: The more fortunate help the less fortunate. But then, of course, we wouldn't have insurance companies like Aetna with a market cap of $12.3 billion.
 
Last edited:

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I'm a pretty savvy gal when it comes to health insurance as I've done my homework. And I've done my homework because I've been a buyer of individual health policies my whole adult life in that I've always been an entrepreneur. I finally had to go into my state's ICHIP program when my individual policy reached $850/month for a $5K deductible. Pre-existing conditions precluded my ability to move to a less expensive plan. I don't understand the paragraph I quoted here. It's Greek. You simply must find a more clear way to communicate whatever it is you're trying to say if a lay person is to understand it. ;-)

My first comment about your post is that group policies work this exact way. Pre-existing conditions allowed. Are insurance companies losing money on group insurance sales? I would venture the answer is a pretty safe "no." Where is that premise in your explanation?
Actually, group policies are complicated to write compared to individual and have more compliance issues but companies adjust for that. The people who lose on group are those that are healthy and basically subsidize the worst cases in the group and of course the employer if the company is paying the bulk of the costs. Other than that I would need specific concerns to be able to further address group benefit issues.

Further, insurance companies, when selling individual policies, have consistently formed their own "internal groups" -- and then they close the plan to new enrollees. They start out with perfectly healthy people (they only way one can buy an individual policy. When they close the plan (after a magic number underwriters determine), "new healthy people" are not allowed to enroll. The people in the plan begin to get sick; they begin adjusting premiums to reflect that experience. And eventually, down the road a piece, all the healthy people in that plan move to other policies because they can, and that "internal group" begins to experience high payouts -- because only the people with pre-existing conditions remain. 'Cause they have no place to go. Eventually, as happened to me, that "internal group" is charging such an outrageous premium that people just simply have to walk away from health coverage.

If insurance companies didn't created these "faux groups" and allowed new enrollees (healthy people) to enroll, insurance would be doing EGZAKLY what insurance is supposed to do: The more fortunate help the less fortunate. But then, of course, we wouldn't have insurance companies like Aetna with a market cap of $12.3 billion.
Couple of things. Aetna is horrible.....to address the easiest first, I will not ever sell their product as I have absolutely no faith in them and the headaches aren't worth the commission.

Next, every type of recurring payout insurance model has different risk classes including auto, property, health, disability, LTC, etc. etc. and the unfortunate reality is that premiums are ever increasing. The turnover rate in HI is high so many agents including myself sell it sparingly. Next, the "drops" in coverage are clearly stated in contract and I usually tell people that any policy that has conditions to drop coverage are to be avoided in lieu of something with a 5-7 million dollar lifetime maximum(most people will never cap out). Can't be stated enough though that this concern of yours is a symptom of the root problem. Trust me, insurance companies don't exclude customers for profit, rather they do it for survival. As an agent I hate that but understand the necessity.

As for PECs, sorry to hear that you are experiencing that for more reasons than just the headache of coverage, as those are usually conditions that lend to suffering or worse. There are high risk companies that will handle cases involving pre-existing conditions and some are very reasonable, others are not. The trick is to contact a brokerage that specializes in individual health and find some of those companies, it may not sound true but they do exist.
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,661
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Actually, group policies are complicated to write compared to individual and have more compliance issues but companies adjust for that. The people who lose on group are those that are healthy and basically subsidize the worst cases in the group and of course the employer if the company is paying the bulk of the costs. Other than that I would need specific concerns to be able to further address group benefit issues.
That's exactly my point and why healthy people need to be enrolled if the government's plan is to work. These states don't have a prayer of dropping out. Otherwise, scrap the whole thing. That's what insurance started as -- farmers starting co-ops in case one of their barns burned down.

Couple of things. Aetna is horrible.....to address the easiest first, I will not ever sell their product as I have absolutely no faith in them and the headaches aren't worth the commission.

Actually, I chose Aetna as an illustration only. My particular insurance, where I learned these hard lessons, was American Family.

Next, every type of recurring payout insurance model has different risk classes including auto, property, health, disability, LTC, etc. etc. and the unfortunate reality is that premiums are ever increasing. The turnover rate in HI is high so many agents including myself sell it sparingly. Next, the "drops" in coverage are clearly stated in contract and I usually tell people that any policy that has conditions to drop coverage are to be avoided in lieu of something with a 5-7 million dollar lifetime maximum(most people will never cap out). Can't be stated enough though that this concern of yours is a symptom of the root problem. Trust me, insurance companies don't exclude customers for profit, rather they do it for survival. As an agent I hate that but understand the necessity.
Yeah, any agent that sells a policy that allows a company to drop them for ANY reason is not working in the best interest of his clients -- unless he very clearly explains that and (probably) advises against it.

Here's another little trick I learned that I'm quite sure YOU know about, but MOST people don't. Yes, insurance companies underwrite you from your formal Application. However, if a large claim comes on, they're going to re-underwrite you. If they find something material that has been omitted from the application, either by accident or on purpose, they can deny payment on the claim and cancel your policy. I've never been involved in anything like that myself. This can, of course, lead to abuse by over-eager agents who say, "Oh, just leave that out...it was so long ago."

As for PECs, sorry to hear that you are experiencing that for more reasons than just the headache of coverage, as those are usually conditions that lend to suffering or worse. There are high risk companies that will handle cases involving pre-existing conditions and some are very reasonable, others are not. The trick is to contact a brokerage that specializes in individual health and find some of those companies, it may not sound true but they do exist.

Right now I'm enrolled, as I said, in Illinois' ICHIP program. It costs about $617/month. It's set up to accept people who have exhausted their COBRA and have pre-existing conditions AND (the part that helps me) for people whose insurance premiums are more expensive than ICHIP's. It's been a Godsend. (Sorry, you prolly know all about CHIP plans.)
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
That's exactly my point and why healthy people need to be enrolled if the government's plan is to work. These states don't have a prayer of dropping out. Otherwise, scrap the whole thing. That's what insurance started as -- farmers starting co-ops in case one of their barns burned down.
The point though is that more healthy people aren't going to counter I'm afraid. Most people still want to carry their own insurance or self insure to have the most possible control of their plans. Under the mandate there won't be a benefit because companies will see more enrollment but individually, it really won't help as it will be spread out so the highest risk individuals will still pull premiums up. As well, and miniscule benefits will be negated by many of the mandatory minimum coverages.

Actually, I chose Aetna as an illustration only. My particular insurance, where I learned these hard lessons, was American Family.
Not familiar with AF, probably not a Louisiana approved product, Aetna is especially horrid though. Health coverage is still a buyer beware market, I can't defend that.


Yeah, any agent that sells a policy that allows a company to drop them for ANY reason is not working in the best interest of his clients -- unless he very clearly explains that and (probably) advises against it.

Here's another little trick I learned that I'm quite sure YOU know about, but MOST people don't. Yes, insurance companies underwrite you from your formal Application. However, if a large claim comes on, they're going to re-underwrite you. If they find something material that has been omitted from the application, either by accident or on purpose, they can deny payment on the claim and cancel your policy. I've never been involved in anything like that myself. This can, of course, lead to abuse by over-eager agents who say, "Oh, just leave that out...it was so long ago."
Agents are ethically responsible to get a contract exactly right, but some agents do "forget" to fill something in on behalf of the client(actually to ensure underwriting) and it's a stupid idea since the underwriting dept. has access to the M.I.B. and laws allow for contracts to be changed if a fraudulent condition occurred such as a client or agent lying about conditions, the best practice is to get a physician's waiver to clear the coverage, basically meaning they've tested the client for the condition and it won't be a risk to the company. But yeah, I do know about coverage changes(A good agent knows how to beat that though.)


Right now I'm enrolled, as I said, in Illinois' ICHIP program. It costs about $617/month. It's set up to accept people who have exhausted their COBRA and have pre-existing conditions AND (the part that helps me) for people whose insurance premiums are more expensive than ICHIP's. It's been a Godsend. (Sorry, you prolly know all about CHIP plans.)
I'm somewhat familiar with the CHIP program, it's LaChip here but basically runs in the same manner I would assume. Your premiums seem a little high to me, but then again you are in a different area so that could well be decent for your area versus my regional experience.
 
Last edited:

drz-400

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
2,357
Reaction score
551
Location
North Dakota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
They have NOTHING to do with each other. Adverse selection is a symptom of the root cost problem which came from overregulating every aspect of the health care market. PECs would be relatively affordable minus staggering health costs and would be covered in a more natural market, the mandate is not going to bring costs down and in fact will add to them because the risk pool will skew more towards adverse. Deuce is not correct here and not even in the right general area.

I am not talking about PEC's, health care, I am talking about health insurance.

How would mandating health insurance make more risk? It diversifies the insurance market (assuming it is effective at getting people to purchase it).

Exluding insurance companies from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions will make adverse selection a greater problem, because it will allow higher risk individuals to buy more insurance (without the mandate of course).
 
Last edited:

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,661
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
The point though is that more healthy people aren't going to counter I'm afraid. Most people still want to carry their own insurance or self insure to have the most possible control of their plans. Under the mandate there won't be a benefit because companies will see more enrollment but individually, it really won't help as it will be spread out so the highest risk individuals will still pull premiums up. As well, and miniscule benefits will be negated by many of the mandatory minimum coverages.

Most people don't even understand their health insurance. They only understand deductibles and co-pays -- especially if they're in a grou plan. I agree, premiums WILL be higher if higher risk people are in an insurance plan. But that's the whole idea -- spread the risk.

Not familiar with AF, probably not a Louisiana approved product, Aetna is especially horrid though. Health coverage is still a buyer beware market, I can't defend that.

Yeah, it may not be. I actually found them to be a great company. I have no complaints against the company -- only the business model in general.

Agents are ethically responsible to get a contract exactly right, but some agents do "forget" to fill something in on behalf of the client(actually to ensure underwriting) and it's a stupid idea since the underwriting dept. has access to the M.I.B. and laws allow for contracts to be changed if a fraudulent condition occurred such as a client or agent lying about conditions, the best practice is to get a physician's waiver to clear the coverage, basically meaning they've tested the client for the condition and it won't be a risk to the company. But yeah, I do know about coverage changes(A good agent knows how to beat that though.)

I remember being denied coverage through American Family because I had a bladder infection in the year prior to applying for the insurance. A bladder infection. My agent let me talk directly to the underwriter, a very rare occurrence I'm sure you'll agree, and he changed his mind. Needed a letter from the doc, but you get the idea. That's how strict the underwriting was at the time for individual policies. It may STILL be that strict. I just don't know.


I'm somewhat familiar with the CHIP program, it's LaChip here but basically runs in the same manner I would assume. Your premiums seem a little high to me, but then again you are in a different area so that could well be decent for your area versus my regional experience.

I'll bet you're right. Louisiana, compared to Chicago area, probably much more expensive. Good point.

At any rate, LA, you sound like a very knowledgeable and good intentioned agent. I know you'd prolly agree with me that that's not always the case. While I hate government interference (I'm a staunch Conservative), I am "for" universal healthcare simply because of my own subjective experience. It's really tough for people to afford individual policies. I know most people couldn't afford to pay the premium I pay for my own. And if one has a home, a 401K, other assets, one can lose it all because they simply can't afford to pay what it costs -- or they've actually been locked out of getting any coverage at all.

I've thoroughly enjoyed our discussions, LA. Thank you.
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I am not talking about PEC's, health care, I am talking about health insurance.
Fair enough, Deuce was making a comparison that didn't stack up. No biggie.

How would mandating health insurance make more risk? It diversifies the insurance market (assuming it is effective at getting people to purchase it).
Not exactly. The reason people with pre-existing conditions can better afford group policies is that they are partially contributory on the employer end, but the policy holder does pay more per employee because of the higher risk involved in the pool. Basically the bill in question turns the American healthcare market into a giant diversified group plan on the risk side, but unfortunately with the different companies providing it isn't the case that the numbers will line up towards affordability, in fact, with the current mechanisms that drive cost still present the costs will actually go up. It's kind of hard to explain and I have an early day tomorrow so will give it another go then.

Exluding insurance companies from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions will make adverse selection a greater problem, because it will allow higher risk individuals to buy more insurance (without the mandate of course).
In a more concise market that should be the case, not in the current one I'm afraid. There are definitely ways to make insurance available, eliminate the need for PECs, and change risk models back in favor of the consumer but that will require another thread. I may start one at a later time.
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Most people don't even understand their health insurance. They only understand deductibles and co-pays -- especially if they're in a grou plan. I agree, premiums WILL be higher if higher risk people are in an insurance plan. But that's the whole idea -- spread the risk.
I think with proper regulation and not the mess we have you'd be 100% right. Part of the complication with the legalese is all the regulations we have to deal with. I'll have to explain all that in a new thread soon.



Yeah, it may not be. I actually found them to be a great company. I have no complaints against the company -- only the business model in general.
The business model is key really, if they can't get that right the rest of the chain will suffer eventually.



I remember being denied coverage through American Family because I had a bladder infection in the year prior to applying for the insurance. A bladder infection. My agent let me talk directly to the underwriter, a very rare occurrence I'm sure you'll agree, and he changed his mind. Needed a letter from the doc, but you get the idea. That's how strict the underwriting was at the time for individual policies. It may STILL be that strict. I just don't know.
Talking directly to the underwriter is becoming more common, but I'll admit that was rare. A bladder infection shouldn't have been an issue, THAT is tough underwriting. Again though, I think agents need to do a better job at understanding the ins and outs of the underwriting process and exemptions to better serve clients, as well as the contractual end so that consumers of our products don't have to go through the headaches that make the blogs. Physician's waivers do wonders, as does a full explanation of procedures that raise flags. The benefits model though I think has actually made consumers less savvy in the health insurance market and I see those effects constantly. In today's market many people don't know that insurance isn't a discount or medical "free ride" it is to insure against catastophic loss.




I'll bet you're right. Louisiana, compared to Chicago area, probably much more expensive. Good point.

At any rate, LA, you sound like a very knowledgeable and good intentioned agent. I know you'd prolly agree with me that that's not always the case. While I hate government interference (I'm a staunch Conservative), I am "for" universal healthcare simply because of my own subjective experience. It's really tough for people to afford individual policies. I know most people couldn't afford to pay the premium I pay for my own. And if one has a home, a 401K, other assets, one can lose it all because they simply can't afford to pay what it costs -- or they've actually been locked out of getting any coverage at all.

I've thoroughly enjoyed our discussions, LA. Thank you.
I've enjoyed those discussions as well, a while back a few posters and myself did a detailed analysis of the current mess and how we got here. Captain Courtesy had one of the best policies on our system I have ever seen and after my last response to dz-400 I think it's about time to start a new one. I'm thinking within the next couple of days I'm going to have to invite him to a problem/solution thread.
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,661
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
I think with proper regulation and not the mess we have you'd be 100% right. Part of the complication with the legalese is all the regulations we have to deal with. I'll have to explain all that in a new thread soon.

The business model is key really, if they can't get that right the rest of the chain will suffer eventually.

Talking directly to the underwriter is becoming more common, but I'll admit that was rare. A bladder infection shouldn't have been an issue, THAT is tough underwriting. Again though, I think agents need to do a better job at understanding the ins and outs of the underwriting process and exemptions to better serve clients, as well as the contractual end so that consumers of our products don't have to go through the headaches that make the blogs. Physician's waivers do wonders, as does a full explanation of procedures that raise flags. The benefits model though I think has actually made consumers less savvy in the health insurance market and I see those effects constantly. In today's market many people don't know that insurance isn't a discount or medical "free ride" it is to insure against catastophic loss.

I've enjoyed those discussions as well, a while back a few posters and myself did a detailed analysis of the current mess and how we got here. Captain Courtesy had one of the best policies on our system I have ever seen and after my last response to dz-400 I think it's about time to start a new one. I'm thinking within the next couple of days I'm going to have to invite him to a problem/solution thread.

Yeah, I think a thread like that would be great. As to how we "got here," I can't help but believe that the lack of meaningful deductible has blinded people to costs/benefits. If people had a $2,000 deductible, they wouldn't be going to the emergency room for nonemergencies. And I'm not sure that doctors would be able to charge $350 for an office visit. (I have one just like that I'm protesting right now. Chicago's tough.)
 
Last edited:

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Yeah, I think a thread like that would be great. As to how we "got here," I can't help but believe that the lack of meaningful deductible has blinded people to costs/benefits. If people had a $2,000 deductible, they wouldn't be going to the emergency room for nonemergencies. And I'm not sure that doctors would be able to charge $350 for an office visit. (I have one just like that I'm protesting right now. Chicago's tough.)
In another thread it was suggested that patients be afforded an itemized reciept for services rendered regardless of payment method. I'm on board for that as I think it would lead to better transparency for all phases of health related services. As well, I usually tell prospective clients to go as high as they can on the deductible and stay within budget because it lowers the premium, then they can use that savings to put into a fund they can tap into if they need to meet said deductible. In fact HSA programs do something close to that and people are falling in love with that model, the idea is to get recurring costs down and prepare for the back end(needed services).

How we got here is complicated, which is why it will take me some time to get the thoughts together for the new thread, but it should be worth the wait.
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
In another thread it was suggested that patients be afforded an itemized reciept for services rendered regardless of payment method. I'm on board for that as I think it would lead to better transparency for all phases of health related services. As well, I usually tell prospective clients to go as high as they can on the deductible and stay within budget because it lowers the premium, then they can use that savings to put into a fund they can tap into if they need to meet said deductible. In fact HSA programs do something close to that and people are falling in love with that model, the idea is to get recurring costs down and prepare for the back end(needed services).

How we got here is complicated, which is why it will take me some time to get the thoughts together for the new thread, but it should be worth the wait.
The bolded part. I make a little less commission for reducing people's premium but in the long run feel like people are better served for it, wanted to clarify that to be aboveboard.
 

b.larset

Banned
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
520
Reaction score
76
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
it isnt going to stand we will eventually change parts of it. The tea party is one aspect of the changes to american government another will be challenges to it by other governments as its power diminishes. it is happening fast.
 

Barbbtx

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
8,467
Reaction score
1,993
Location
W'Ford TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yes, it would be largely symbolic. Without the requirement to purchase health insurance, nothing works. Guess it's up to SCOTUS on the entire program. Since it IS that, seems like a bunch of politicians are just trying to make some hay. Huh! What a surprise!!

Could be politicians interested in finding out what the citizens want. They do work for us, ya know.
 

liblady

pirate lover
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
16,164
Reaction score
5,060
Location
St Thomas, VI
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Could be politicians interested in finding out what the citizens want. They do work for us, ya know.

barb, i'm betting you get some kind of gov't healthcare.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
77,013
Reaction score
34,029
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It's weird how somebody supposedly in the insurance industry doesn't see how forcing a company to take on sick customers might be problematic if you don't also push healthy people to buy insurance at the same time.

If adding more healthy customers to an insurance company increases risk, why do insurance companies exist at all?
 
Last edited:

liblady

pirate lover
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
16,164
Reaction score
5,060
Location
St Thomas, VI
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
It's weird how somebody supposedly in the insurance industry doesn't see how forcing a company to take on sick customers might be problematic if you don't also push healthy people to buy insurance at the same time.

wait...barb is in the insurance industry?
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
77,013
Reaction score
34,029
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
wait...barb is in the insurance industry?

LMR often cites his industry expertise in an attempt to end an argument.

If you force insurance companies to take on sick customers, those guaranteed to lose money at normal premiums, what will that do to premiums? Why would adding healthy customers at the same tame make it worse?
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom