Horse Poop or Fertilizer
Submitted by Dr. JG Kaplan on Wed, 2010-01-27 10:13
With "the raw story" "Democrats consider dropping insurance ban on pre-existing conditions" we learn that kids under 19 years of age won't be denied coverage for preexisting conditions, but 'that's because everyone over 19 will be denied coverage.'
January 25, 20102:04:30 PM EST, Fredrick H (a triple doctor) comments:
This bill is such a pile of crap already, but proponents kept pointing to the ban on pre-existing conditions as a reason to pass it anyway.
Now, in another brilliant move, terrified Dems are considering dropping even that!
They just want to pass ANYTHING, whether it helps patients or not, just so long as it doesn't make them look like the losers they have become.
"Incremental change" is one thing - passing a worthless bill just so you can dust off your hands and go on to something else, only makes a dire situation worse and longer lasting.
This is not only a repudiation of an express campaign promise. It is an Outrage!"
On Jan 26, 2010 2:40 PM, a national HMO officer (Deep Throat) quips:
The pre-existing condition ban is actually quite complicated. It requires a mandate to enroll younger, healthier persons. Otherwise it will make the insurance prohibitively expensive. This will now require bipartisan cooperation, and this is in short supply now.
January 26, 2010 4:52:08 PM EST, Dr. Jeff Kaplan wrote:
Yes, "It requires a mandate to enroll younger, healthier persons" but isn't that because you need to shield the insurance company from extraordinary loses? (Note: I did not say to maximize profits.)
Deep Throat, January 26, 2010 4:59:52 PM EST:
I can assure you that if policies were sold now without excluding pre-existing conditions it would require premiums that would be truly prohibitive just to avoid actual loss on the business (forget profit). Younger, healthier persons would (and do now) avoid purchasing insurance - and for small group and individual we would have only higher risk. The cost of such a policy would more than triple overnight even without any margin. If mandated to offer, the product would lose enough to bankrupt all but the largest insurance companies. Even a large one would need to charge more to non-rated customers (large national accounts - and most of these are self funded anyhow) - making them uncompetitive for such customers.
What if the insurance industry profited most when it did the most to enhance effectiveness, efficiency and caring even while absorbing the cost of covering the entire population (pure community-rating)--akin to universal health care?
As published online 1/28/10 on my blog--"Reforming Healthcare & Managed Care" - HCPLive.com
If you are interested in
If you are interested in health care reform and want to hear it presented in a very compelling way, check out Ira Glass, "This American Life" (Chicago Public Radio)
Another side of the
Another side of the Preexisting Clause
Yes, that's why a ban on pre-existing condition clauses MUST be accompanied by universal coverage, so the premiums of the healthy cover the ill.
People object to having to pay money to insurance companies, and I sympathize with that, which is why I'd rather see coverage paid for out of general tax revenues, rather than being made salient by paying it separately.
Yes, taxes would have to increase, but that would be more than offset by a decrease in insurance premium payments, and would be more progressive.
I believe it is more accurate to put it another way:
“Yes, public taxes would have to increase, but that would be more than offset by a decrease in private taxes, such as insurance premium payments, co-payments, deductibles, and other uncovered out-of-pocket costs (over which we have even less control than public taxes) - and would be more progressive.”
I am a doctor and I avoided
I am a doctor and I avoided purchasing insurance until family members made me because it is such a poor value proposition. Paying $100 a month for one physical a year I could get for $200 tops and the illusion of protection from financial disaster if I were to get sick is not enough. This bill makes the picture even worse because young kids will never dig themselves out of a student loan hole with the mandatory insurance monkey on their back. Down with this round of health reform. Try us again with some real concessions to the people next time!
Here's a value equation--Do u
Here's a value equation--Do u agree with its elements and their relationships?
DOMESTIC
DOMESTIC TERRORISM--Simply get ALL Americans very inexpensive FULL coverage with no pre-existing condition exclusions. Get rid of the for profit insurance companies that pay their criminal CEO's hundreds of MILLIONS of dollars in obscene salaries and bonuses. They get this money through post claims underwriting and denial of justifiable services killing over 50,000 adults and 25,000 children EVERY YEAR in their need for greed. I almost lost my leg and died when Dr. Ed Lowenstein, medical director for Universal Health Care Inc of St Petersburg Florida denied payment of my claim AFTER APPROVING it 8 times in writing! I was in Thailand at the time and was approved for emergency service outside the country for $30K every year. This is why a single payer plan would work, it would eliminate BILLIONS of dollars in CEO salaries and bonuses which would then go to paying for the medical care we are now being denied. For story, Copy & Paste: domestic terrorism/Gary M Ruehle's blog
Post new comment