Do you support the part of health care reform ...

[Tilted]

that will prohibit insurers from denying new coverage to people in the individual market on the basis of pre-existing conditions?

It's a bit of an odd question prompted by the following passage from this article: Half a Million Americans Denied Health Coverage

But one of the most universally popular provisions – which will not take effect until 2014 – makes it illegal for insurance groups to deny an individual coverage based on a person’s health status or pre-existing condition.

I find it hard to believe that provision is at all 'universally popular', or even one of the most 'universally popular' provisions of the bill. Am I wrong, do Americans by and large support these kinds of laws? From a practical standpoint, you can't support this without supporting the individual mandate - if you do, you're being completely unrealistic.

 

[vraiblonde]

Americans, by and large, are stupid and don't think past the next episode of their favorite TV show. They like all sorts of touchy feely nanny laws, gimmes and regulations, but fail to take the consequences or price tag into consideration.

If insurance companies can set their own rate, based on whatever criteria they choose, then I'm for the pre-existing condition provision. Then they can charge an outrageous premium for dumbbells who weren't paying into the system, but now want to jump in because they need it (just like that guy who didn't want fire service, then freaked about it after he burnt his house down).

Otherwise, ALL of our premiums will go up because someone has to pay for these people. But try to explain that to the feel-good nose-pickers out there....they think money just magically appears and have no concept of where it really comes from.

 

[PsyOps]

I want to be allowed to buy car insurance AFTER I get into an accident.

 

[thurley42]

What happens if you, or your covered spouse, have a condition or are being treated for something and you have to switch companies due to change in employment?

Just curious, not trying to make a point....

 

[SamSpade]

Am I wrong, do Americans by and large support these kinds of laws? From a practical standpoint, you can't support this without supporting the individual mandate - if you do, you're being completely unrealistic.

I've noticed it often has a lot to do with how it is phrased.

If you say it in a way that basically says - should Americans be able to freeload off of their fellow citizens by not paying for coverage for years but be able to buy it after they have a problem?

It's so often phrased in such a way that evokes sympathy that the reality is overlooked - everybody can afford health insurance, but they choose not to, because they CAN choose not to. They can afford a car and to heat their home, because the consequences are immediate. They can save for college but don't because the consequences of not doing so are NOT immediate (BTW - heard a guy on a talk show who DID pay for his college - all of it - and was free and clear of debt when he graduated, and he was a kid - because he DID save).

We also live in a world where too many people believe the government has its own cash flow, and it's extremely deep - because they can't do the math and realize that when it spends a few million here and there, it's chump change compared to billions collected in tax dollars nationwide. They don't realize that when Uncle Sam gives you money in your right hand, it's pretty much because he took it out of your back pocket.

And we live in a society where large corporations are portrayed as corrupt, inherently evil entities determined to prey on the populace and restrained only by government - because that's how they're portrayed in movies and TV.

I don't think it's because people are stupid. I think it's because they're mentally lazy and apathetic. Give them bread and circuses and they're fat dumb and happy.

 

[ylexot]

What happens if you, or your covered spouse, have a condition or are being treated for something and you have to switch companies due to change in employment?

Just curious, not trying to make a point....

Yet another reason to do away with third-party payment for health insurance.

 

[Aerogal]

I voted No. I believe that if the free market is allowed t operate without infringement by the federal OR state governments, and if enough consumers are willing to push the issue, and there is enough competition, they will start to offer it as an option (I'm still way into the 'ala carte' method of options within health care ins).

 

[awpitt]

What happens if you, or your covered spouse, have a condition or are being treated for something and you have to switch companies due to change in employment?

Just curious, not trying to make a point....

Currently, in this situation, you're covered as long as there's not more than a two month break in periods of coverage. The HIPAA Act covers this.

 

[thurley42]

Currently, in this situation, you're covered as long as there's not more than a two month break in periods of coverage. The HIPAA Act covers this.

Thanks!

 

[bcp]

I voted no, but there are always exceptions.
examples would be birth defects, not something that you can really plan for.

In situations where you just wait to get insurance until you need it, I think being denied is perfectly ok.

You dont buy car insurance after the accident do you?

 

[RPMDAD]

I voted yes, too many people have lost jobs that had coverage, that had to accept jobs that have little to no coverage. When you are unemployed cobra only lasts so long. I agree with bcp's analogy of In situations where you just wait to get insurance until you need it, I think being denied is perfectly ok.

You dont buy car insurance after the accident do you?", but some hard working people do fall through the cracks. Let's not bring up the house burning down because you didn't pay your fire bill again,
if i was the guy with the house that burnt i would have paid the $75.00 to keep it from burning down. Can i buy health insurance for $75.00 a year. Some times bad things happen to good people...
"

 

[Gilligan]

But...are you also then going to be perfectly fine with the large premium increases that absolutely have to go hand in hand with eliminating the exclusions of pre-existing conditions?

As a general comment, its pretty darned clear now that many people thought (for reasons I will never fathom) that all this great new 'stuff' was not going to cost them anything extra. And shame on the Obama admin for encouraging people that can't think for themselves to believe that too..but still.

 

[This_person]

that will prohibit insurers from denying new coverage to people in the individual market on the basis of pre-existing conditions?

It's a bit of an odd question prompted by the following passage from this article: Half a Million Americans Denied Health Coverage

I have no problem supporting that someone must provide health insurance, and if you're in the business to provide that, saying you have to provide it to anyone looking for it (it's dumb, but no less dumb than many of our laws)

Now, if there is a fee cap, that would be wrong. Put the people who have pre-existing conditions into a category that fits their status, and charge them a fee based on that status. Now, it is up to the individual to choose to pay that fee or not.

I find it hard to believe that provision is at all 'universally popular', or even one of the most 'universally popular' provisions of the bill. Am I wrong, do Americans by and large support these kinds of laws? From a practical standpoint, you can't support this without supporting the individual mandate - if you do, you're being completely unrealistic.

Apples and oranges. No one forces an insurance company to be an insurance company. In my opinion, the insurance company should be allowed to charge what it sees fit to cover the people, and thus no one is being forced to pay for something they don't necessarily want.

Demanding a product be available to one and all is, in my opinion, wrong from a freedom point of view, but we lost that freedom long ago. Demanding that someone purchase a product is entirely different from providing a product if you choose to be in that business.

 

[RPMDAD]

But...are you also then going to be perfectly fine with the large premium increases that absolutely have to go hand in hand with eliminating the exclusions of pre-existing conditions?

As a general comment, its pretty darned clear now that many people thought (for reasons I will never fathom) that all this great new 'stuff' was not going to cost them anything extra. And shame on the Obama admin for encouraging people that can't think for themselves to believe that too..but still.

Gilligan i am not an Obamanition in any way shape or form. And for al the rah rah rah people who are in favor of Nationalizing medical care in our country who did not think there was going to be a large price to pay are idiots. All i was saying is that before this idiot came to power there were people that had good jobs that did have health benefits but after the great economy that we have now they no longer have benefits, or jobs and some do have preexisting conditions. Lets take it a step farther, you do have health insurance and are diagnosed with a devastating condition, lets see now spend the money to fix these people or lets make soylent green, definitely cheaper.

 

[Gilligan]

Demanding a product be available to one and all is, in my opinion, wrong from a freedom point of view, but we lost that freedom long ago. Demanding that someone purchase a product is entirely different from providing a product if you choose to be in that business.

So then you believe that it would be OK then for the government to demand that all cars sold in the US be equipped with two LCD screens and cruise control...but the car companies could charge the necessary extra for those features..of course.

Faulty premise aside, the current administration, and particularly as articulated by Sebelius of late, apparently belives that the insurance companies should not be charging anyone for what the new 'benefits' will cost to provide or comply with. Sebelius is even threatening those that do with exclusion from that grand new 'helath care provider pool' that is supposed to come in to being as part of this mess.

 

[Gilligan]

Gilligan i am not an Obamanition in any way shape or form. And for al the rah rah rah people who are in favor of Nationalizing medical care in our country who did not think there was going to be a large price to pay are idiots. All i was saying is that before this idiot came to power there were people that had good jobs that did have health benefits but after the great economy that we have now they no longer have benefits, or jobs and some do have preexisting conditions. Lets take it a step farther, you do have health insurance and are diagnosed with a devastating condition, lets see now spend the money to fix these people or lets make soylent green, definitely cheaper.

You failed to provide the short answer to the really simple part of my question: Where is the money to pay for any of that 'social largess' supposed to come from? My pocket?..yours? Me..I'm just tired of the idiots in DC telling me that all this 'great new stuff' is 'free' when I know damned well it is anything but free.

 

[This_person]

So then you believe that it would be OK then for the government to demand that all cars sold in the US be equipped with two LCD screens and cruise control...but the car companies could charge the necessary extra for those features..of course.

As I say, I think the government shouldn't have the ability, but it already does. To use your car example, how many cars don't have seat belts? How many car companies don't have to meet the minimum fuel efficiency average standards? Glass standards on windshields? Size of rear view mirrors? Etc., etc. So, to require a company to provide - at a reasonable reimbursement - a feature is nothing new. Wrong, in my opinion, but nothing new.

Faulty premise aside, the current administration, and particularly as articulated by Sebelius of late, apparently belives that the insurance companies should not be charging anyone for what the new 'benefits' will cost to provide or comply with. Sebelius is even threatening those that do with exclusion from that grand new 'helath care provider pool' that is supposed to come in to being as part of this mess.

This is where I believe the requirement is absolutely (instead of just mostly) wrong. By doing this, it mandates a financial loss to the insurance company (which won't happen), or mandates that others take up an undue cost of risk. Now, even that wouldn't be too bad if you could choose to go without insurance - but that concept is also out the window by the same policy. Therefore, you are forced to pay the risk of others unfairly.

 

[Gilligan]

This is where I believe the requirement is absolutely (instead of just mostly) wrong. By doing this, it mandates a financial loss to the insurance company (which won't happen), or mandates that others take up an undue cost of risk. Now, even that wouldn't be too bad if you could choose to go without insurance - but that concept is also out the window by the same policy. Therefore, you are forced to pay the risk of others unfairly.

This is indeed the part that gets more intersting as the actual ramifications and unintended consequences continue to become known over time.

I refuse to waste my money on health insurance (except catastrophic injury/ilness coverage that costs peanuts) because its makes zero sense from a fiscal standpoint. I will pay their silly fine instead and still be money ahead. I wasn't present the day the insurance industry brainwashed everyone in to thinking that paying 8 to 12 grand a year to receive 2 grand worth of health care services was a keen idea.

 

[This_person]

This is indeed the part that gets more intersting as the actual ramifications and unintended consequences continue to become known over time.

I refuse to waste my money on health insurance (except catastrophic injury/ilness coverage that costs peanuts) because its makes zero sense from a fiscal standpoint. I will pay their silly fine instead and still be money ahead. I wasn't present the day the insurance industry brainwashed everyone in to thinking that paying 8 to 12 grand a year to receive 2 grand worth of health care services was a keen idea.

For you, it's not a keen idea. For me, I pay less in insurance than the cost of my medical care. It takes both of us to make the system work (for me)

 

[Gilligan]

For you, it's not a keen idea. For me, I pay less in insurance than the cost of my medical care. It takes both of us to make the system work (for me)

Were I to be in your shoes and receiving a whopping amount of medical care every year (sorry for your troubles) ..my catastrophic coverage would have kicked in. No worries and still hundred(s) of thousands of dollars ahead in my lifetime. ;-)