Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 6
Health Insurance That Doesn’t Cover the Bills Has Flooded the Market Under Trump
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-09-17/under-tru...

<snip>


Thank you Mr. President!

intercst
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Republicans believe that anyone who isn't healthy, wealthy, and/or have a job w/very good benefits doesn't deserve good health insurance.

If they're an embryo or fetus, it doesn't matter how poor or disabled they may be--life at all costs. But still no health insurance!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
But how can that be?? We're being told that Trump was "far left" of the Republican Party, and wasn't going to gut the social safety net!! I detect an inconsistency!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
A Republican friend of mine went looking for insurance last year for his mother. He said they were to expensive and they kept trying to sell him plans that didn't meet his needs. I asked him if he was going through the state Obamacare exchange. He told me yes he was. I told him I didn't think he was. I said you only have to ask them one question to find out if you are on the Obamacare exchange. Do you cover pre-existing conditions.

He went back and asked them and when they told him no he knew he was duped.

Andy
Saving Republicans one person at a time
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<< Do you cover pre-existing conditions.>>


That's not the issue.


The issue is whether insurance companies are entitled to screen applicants for insurance to determine IF they have pre existing conditions which would make them very expensive to insure.

So you gave your friend poor information about purchasing insurance, and it's clear that you don;t understand the issue you were advising him about.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
The issue is whether insurance companies are entitled to screen applicants for insurance to determine IF they have pre existing conditions which would make them very expensive to insure.

Which is not the issue, which you carefully ignored. If a particular condition needs to be covered at the choice of the buyer, then the seller is required to truthfully tell the buyer if it is covered--or not covered. Price of coverage (premium to be paid) is a totally different matter, which you also totally ignored.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Andy
Saving Republicans one person at a time


My best of luck with that!

This situation sort of reminds me of the complaint about Obama - you know the one: "if you like your insurance, you can keep it." Implicit with this remark was that the insurance that you keep was up to snuff, that it covered the basic health needs that ACA did as in covering pre-existing conditions and keeping adult children on your plan until a certain age, etc.

People screamed when they couldn't retain their subpar plans, but also scream when they're not covered for an injury or illness.

Back to the OP's innumeracy observation.

Pete
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
SP writes

<< Do you cover pre-existing conditions.>>


That's not the issue.

The issue is whether insurance companies are entitled to screen applicants for insurance to determine IF they have pre existing conditions which would make them very expensive to insure.

</snip>


Sure. The Republicans will cover pre-existing conditions. But your premium might be $80,000/year if you had cancer or heart disease.

intercst
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<< If a particular condition needs to be covered at the choice of the buyer, then the seller is required to truthfully tell the buyer if it is covered--or not covered>>


I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.


Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
<<The issue is whether insurance companies are entitled to screen applicants for insurance to determine IF they have pre existing conditions which would make them very expensive to insure.

</snip>

Sure. The Republicans will cover pre-existing conditions. But your premium might be $80,000/year if you had cancer or heart disease.

intercst>>



And vastly cheaper if you have a history of being healthy.


Why would that surprise anyone?


You think the drunk with a history of DWIs and collisions should have the same insurance premium as those with excellent driving records?


Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

Congratulations !!

You just publicly documented you, and people like you (i.e. clueless about insurance), are the ultimate target of ALL the insurance companies and their scammers.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
SeattlePioneer asks,

<<Sure. The Republicans will cover pre-existing conditions. But your premium might be $80,000/year if you had cancer or heart disease.

intercst>>



And vastly cheaper if you have a history of being healthy.

Why would that surprise anyone?

You think the drunk with a history of DWIs and collisions should have the same insurance premium as those with excellent driving records?

</snip>


No. But presumably the drunk can take the public bus to work, or move closer to his job if he's prohibited from driving.

Not so if the person is denied health insurance or offered a policy well beyond what's affordable.

A lot of people get cancer and heart disease through no fault of their own. We're now rolling back air pollution and water quality regulations to allow "job creators" to pump more carcinogens into the environment. And for decades the mother effing Republicans have been subsidizing corn and soybeans rather than the fruits and vegetables that would reduce heart disease.

One bright spot is that white people are now recognizing opioid addiction as a sickness and health problem rather than a moral failing. Too bad working white racists, bigots and ignoramuses didn't come to that enlightenment when we were throwing all those black people in jail during the 1980's crack cocaine epidemic.

intercst
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<< If a particular condition needs to be covered at the choice of the buyer, then the seller is required to truthfully tell the buyer if it is covered--or not covered>>




<<I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

Congratulations !!

You just publicly documented you, and people like you (i.e. clueless about insurance), are the ultimate target of ALL the insurance companies and their scammers.>>




Ahh. So apparently you can't explain what you meant by the comment above either.

You know, sometimes people make comments that aren't clear. When that happens, the right thing to do is to rephrase your comment to make it easier to understand.



Perhaps someone else would like to explain the first comment posted above?

Seattle Pioneer
>
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I think you all misunderstood what I was saying. The people that were selling insurance off the Obama exchange would not support pre-existing conditions. So if you were born with diabetes, that would be excluded. That is how you tell if you are on the Obama exchange or not. Of course some people will go with the drunk with a dui record to show why people with pre-existing conditions shouldn't get insurance without a higher premium. They are just projecting their own life experiences onto everyone else.

Andy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
SP asks,

<< If a particular condition needs to be covered at the choice of the buyer, then the seller is required to truthfully tell the buyer if it is covered--or not covered>>

You know, sometimes people make comments that aren't clear. When that happens, the right thing to do is to rephrase your comment to make it easier to understand.

Perhaps someone else would like to explain the first comment posted above?

</snip>


Back during the Chickenhawk Years of Bush/Cheney, health insurers had the "privilege of rescission" on insurance contracts.

Obviously, they didn't want to spend the money required to thoroughly vet every health insurance application that came through the door. So they only closely examined applications "after the fact" when the customer filed a claim.

You could be paying premiums for ten years, and then when they discovered you had melanoma and it cost $150,000 to treat it. The insurer would go back over your medical records and say "you failed to disclose that blistering sunburn you got as a teenager" so we're clawing back your health insurance coverage.

The Chickenhawk Years were even a more profitable time to be in the health insurance business than the tripling of health insurance stocks since Obamacare was enacted.

https://www.axios.com/aca-health-care-industry-insurance-hos...

intercst
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<<No. of Recommendations: 0
I think you all misunderstood what I was saying. The people that were selling insurance off the Obama exchange would not support pre-existing conditions. So if you were born with diabetes, that would be excluded. That is how you tell if you are on the Obama exchange or not. Of course some people will go with the drunk with a dui record to show why people with pre-existing conditions shouldn't get insurance without a higher premium. They are just projecting their own life experiences onto everyone else.

Andy>>



As I understand it, this is the deal with insurance-----


In many cases, you apply for insurance --- say life insurance.


You fill out an application disclosing your medical history, and perhaps are given an exam by a doctor.


Based on the application and exam, the insurance company decide whether to issue you a policy and at what price. If they don't want to accept your application, they don't have to.


Under the Kennedy-Kassebaum Health Care portability act, when an employee was covered by employer health insurance and left their job, the employee had a right to continue that health insurance for a couple of years, more or less, at about the same price.

The insurance company could drop that person regardless of their health risks.

Under Obamacare, people have limited rights to get health insurance regardless of pre existing conditions. However, if they don't pay their insurance premiums and get dropped from coverage, they can be screened for good health and refused insurance if the insurance company doesn't like the risk.

The idea is to give people an incentive to keep paying for health insurance rather than applying for health insurance after they get sick.


Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<Perhaps someone else would like to explain the first comment posted above?

</snip>

Back during the Chickenhawk Years of Bush/Cheney, health insurers had the "privilege of rescission" on insurance contracts.

Obviously, they didn't want to spend the money required to thoroughly vet every health insurance application that came through the door. So they only closely examined applications "after the fact" when the customer filed a claim.

You could be paying premiums for ten years, and then when they discovered you had melanoma and it cost $150,000 to treat it. The insurer would go back over your medical records and say "you failed to disclose that blistering sunburn you got as a teenager" so we're clawing back your health insurance coverage.
>>


Heh, heh! Often I enjoy intercst's colorful phrasing!

I'll agree that kind of thing can be abused, but also point out that such decisions could typically be litigated for reasonableness. Of course that's a burdensome procedure to go through ton get insurance coverage you have paid for. If I'm recalling correctly, Washington State required that insurers who refused to pay claims and lost in court had to pay three times the damages as a penalty. That's something, anyway.

I'm guessing insurance companies didn't include arbitration as the norm in settling such disputes?


Anyway, thank you intercst, for your explanation.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
I think you all misunderstood what I was saying.

Nope. I understood it fully.

The people that were selling insurance off the Obama exchange would not support pre-existing conditions.

Correct. I could never get private health insurance for that reason. It was a minor medical condition easy controlled with a small tablet taken daily. Born with it, so nothing could be done to prevent it. Yet whenever I applied, they said "rejected" and returned my premium payment. The really fun part is I had no significant medical claims for over 25 years <VEG>. Which means the insurance industry cost themselves those unpaid premiums because they relied on statistics, not facts. They left those funds for ME to spend. Oh, those poor babies <LOL !!>. Leaving money like THAT "on the table".

What is funny about the discussion is simple. If we had universal health care, then health care *costs* could be actively controlled and managed. Currently, health care costs each *individual* in the US about $11k per year (so, family of four pays $44k). That would fall about 50% under a universal health care system. Most of those costs are NOT paid directly, but indirectly (buried in the cost of things such as good and services bought, taxes, fees, and more). How much is that? In a simple figure, the cost of health care in the US *adds* 6% to ALL costs (i.e. GDP is artificially inflated by 6% due to health care costs)--including exports, thus making the US even less competitive in the world market. What could be done with 6% cost reductions in ALL prices? Hmmmmm...think about it. Of course, there would be no pay reductions--because health care benefits are a 100% "cash paid out" tax deductible expense for business--but it is NOT counted as income for the individual/family taxpayer. The rest of the argument is so simple it is understood by almost everyone with a brain (so guess who won't have a clue...).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
And vastly cheaper if you have a history of being healthy.

That's not how insurance works.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
but also point out that such decisions could typically be litigated for reasonableness.

Well that sounds exactly like something I would want to do while undergoing Chemo and going bankrupt.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
You think the drunk with a history of DWIs and collisions should have the same insurance premium as those with excellent driving records?

I resent the implication that people with health issues necessarily caused them. The hubster and I did not cause our rare conditions.
Print the post Back To Top