Ten Immediate Benefits of HCR Bill

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]borrek wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]borrek wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]borrek wrote:

…you know if I had a foot in the door with insurance I bet I could make a killing by selling the grand-daddy of all grandfathered minimum coverage policies, by passing out fliers at tea-party rallies for coverage with $5000 deductibles, zero preventative care, zero mental-health or behavioral care, zero maternity care. Good for nothing but cancer, heart attacks, and diabetes. I’d be rich.[/quote]

The right and the opportunity for you to do that has now been taken away.

BTW, what would be “wrong” about the availability of the health plan you mentioned above?

I don’t want or need anything less than a $5,000 deductible. I can pay for preventative care out of pocket. I may want a plan that excludes mental and behavioral care. I don’t need maternity care.

Why would you want to force me into a plan I don’t want and/or need? Why?

Oh wait, I get it. YOU DO need maternity care and you insist that I help you with it. At the risk of jail time and/or fines you will impose on me what you want from me.

Don’t you see that that wouldn’t be the “right” thing to do?[/quote]

First, I don’t need maternity care, but even though it goes against the grain here I’ll choose not to semantically split hairs because I get your point.

I have no problems with a package with the above coverages. I think that the federal essential coverages are not ideal in any sense of the word, even though they aren’t much different from insurance received from large businesses where you choose package A or package B that have been tailored to cover as many needs of as many employees as possible.

I will however submit to the minor inconvenience of an “essential benefits” list if it passes a health bill that removes lifetime and annual coverage maxes, and prohibits canceling coverage of people who get critically ill. I’ve known people who declared bankruptcy because they blew through lifetime maxes in a year battling major illness, and have personally been told that I have passed my annual allotment of rehab for a torn shoulder and would have to start paying $100 for 15 minutes of electro-therapy and $40 for a bag of ice if I want to stay in the rehab system that allows me to have time off work to recoup. That’s what sits with me as not right.

[/quote]

um… so who pays for that? You are demanding that I pay for your shoulder? Because legally forcing insurance to is the same thing because my premium goes up too.[/quote]

So your dollar is more important than my health even though I pay my premiums without fail? You’re going to try to tell me that had I gone for 3 more months of therapy, your premium would have gone up more than if I had gone for the astronomically more expensive arhtroscopic surgery (followed by another 3 months of rehab, covered this time because my diagnosis is surgery rehab and not preventative rehab) That doesn’t add up and you know it.
[/quote]

okay, so your right to shoulder therapy forgoes my right to property? If I refuse to pay are you going to pull a gun on me?[/quote]

So you choose going dramatic over addressing the obvious point that coverage limits are broken and not a simple matter of premium reduction?

182

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

okay, so your right to shoulder therapy forgoes my right to property? If I refuse to pay are you going to pull a gun on me?[/quote]

My post above this one is directly pertinent.

The right to property is archaic. A new dawn is upon us.[/quote]

How is it unfair to pay for ones own treatment but fair to make someone else do it?

185

[quote]borrek wrote:

So you choose going dramatic over addressing the obvious point that coverage limits are broken and not a simple matter of premium reduction?
[/quote]

Good call, especially sense you started the subject you are now labeling dramatic.

“So your dollar is more important than my health”

Forgive me, but did you sign up for a plan with those coverage limits? Were you given the information detailing them? How is that unfair? Wouldn’t it be unfair to change the contract after its signed?

So, if it is unfair for you to pay for your own treatment, how is it fair to make a company that explicitly said they wouldn’t on a contract you signed or to make individuals who don’t know you pay?

187

[quote]pushharder wrote:
This alone would have solved more problems than this ridiculous bill. One of the most important things it would do is eliminate the connection between losing/changing jobs and losing health coverage.
[/quote]

I agree with this 100%…[/quote]

How can you? You’re floppin’ around all over the place.[/quote]

There is no flopping at all. Being glad that health care passed, and thinking it has more positives than negatives does not preclude also thinking that separating health insurance’s connection to employers would have been a better option. That option wasn’t a bill and there was no voting on it, so that opportunity is dead and gone.

189

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]borrek wrote:

So you choose going dramatic over addressing the obvious point that coverage limits are broken and not a simple matter of premium reduction?
[/quote]

Good call, especially sense you started the subject you are now labeling dramatic.

“So your dollar is more important than my health”

Forgive me, but did you sign up for a plan with those coverage limits? Were you given the information detailing them? How is that unfair? Wouldn’t it be unfair to change the contract after its signed?

So, if it is unfair for you to pay for your own treatment, how is it fair to make a company that explicitly said they wouldn’t on a contract you signed or to make individuals who don’t know you pay?

[/quote]

No one tried to change the terms of any coverage.

You still haven’t explained how 4 months of rehab would raise premiums, when 6 months of the same rehab plus an arthroscopic surgey would not. Coverage limits was a broken system, and I’m glad it’s gone.

190

[quote]pushharder wrote:
So what in your opinion are the negatives?[/quote]

I don’t like the blanket essential coverages

I don’t like an extra tax if people choose the highest tier packages

I would like a more sophisticated determination of pre-existing conditions.

There are lots of other parts that I’m on the fence about and could either turn out to be a disaster, or could have no discernible impact at all. Time will tell, and I’m willing to give it that time.

191

[quote]borrek wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]borrek wrote:

So you choose going dramatic over addressing the obvious point that coverage limits are broken and not a simple matter of premium reduction?
[/quote]

Good call, especially sense you started the subject you are now labeling dramatic.

“So your dollar is more important than my health”

Forgive me, but did you sign up for a plan with those coverage limits? Were you given the information detailing them? How is that unfair? Wouldn’t it be unfair to change the contract after its signed?

So, if it is unfair for you to pay for your own treatment, how is it fair to make a company that explicitly said they wouldn’t on a contract you signed or to make individuals who don’t know you pay?

[/quote]

No one tried to change the terms of any coverage.

You still haven’t explained how 4 months of rehab would raise premiums, when 6 months of the same rehab plus an arthroscopic surgey would not. Coverage limits was a broken system, and I’m glad it’s gone.[/quote]

If limits where in your contract, you are wanting to change the terms.

Explain to me why you get to make that call with my money.

194

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]borrek wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]borrek wrote:

So you choose going dramatic over addressing the obvious point that coverage limits are broken and not a simple matter of premium reduction?
[/quote]

Good call, especially sense you started the subject you are now labeling dramatic.

“So your dollar is more important than my health”

Forgive me, but did you sign up for a plan with those coverage limits? Were you given the information detailing them? How is that unfair? Wouldn’t it be unfair to change the contract after its signed?

So, if it is unfair for you to pay for your own treatment, how is it fair to make a company that explicitly said they wouldn’t on a contract you signed or to make individuals who don’t know you pay?

[/quote]

No one tried to change the terms of any coverage.

You still haven’t explained how 4 months of rehab would raise premiums, when 6 months of the same rehab plus an arthroscopic surgey would not. Coverage limits was a broken system, and I’m glad it’s gone.[/quote]

If limits where in your contract, you are wanting to change the terms.

Explain to me why you get to make that call with my money.[/quote]

Try again. The question is about broken coverage limits.

And for your information, when I was told I had reached my annual limit, I handled the rehab on my own. There were no letters or calls trying to change anything. You’re not going to get the answer you’re fishing for from me, so just go ahead and address the original issue.

195

[quote]pushharder wrote:
No philosophical concerns whatsoever about socialism, huh? The ends justify the means with you?[/quote]

I do not agree with you that this law spells a government takeover of private business.

197

[quote]borrek wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
No philosophical concerns whatsoever about socialism, huh? The ends justify the means with you?[/quote]

I do not agree with you that this law spells a government takeover of private business.[/quote]

A reduction to the absurd follows.

The state of Michigan has 200 families: 100 Borrek families, all alike, and 100 Antiborrek families, all alike.

One by one, the Antiborreks sit at their abacuses, and figure out they can have more money for the year simply by paying a fine and then re-enrolling when one of them gets sick.
So the Michigan Insurance Company, the Blue Double-Cross, has had falling premium income, and suddenly rising expenses as the Antiborreks re-enroll. And employers figure out that the can end insurance, and pay out less than the difference in higher salaries. The Double-Crossing actuaries have no basis to predict this.

So MBDC orders a rate increase for the 100 Borrek families. Well, they figure-out this game, and drop out, and the spiral for insurance leads to de-capitalization. Or if there is a cap on premiums, the insurance company must leave the state. (And do not kid yourself, insurers have left a state rather than continue business in this fashion.)

Well, who will then manage the “insurance” business in the State of Michigan? Why, of course, our friend, the insurer-of last-resort, the Government.

I do not know if this scenario will play out, but the trip-wires are in place, set to snap at the next recession.

198

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]borrek wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
No philosophical concerns whatsoever about socialism, huh? The ends justify the means with you?[/quote]

I do not agree with you that this law spells a government takeover of private business.[/quote]

A reduction to the absurd follows.

The state of Michigan has 200 families: 100 Borrek families, all alike, and 100 Antiborrek families, all alike.

One by one, the Antiborreks sit at their abacuses, and figure out they can have more money for the year simply by paying a fine and then re-enrolling when one of them gets sick.
So the Michigan Insurance Company, the Blue Double-Cross, has had falling premium income, and suddenly rising expenses as the Antiborreks re-enroll. And employers figure out that the can end insurance, and pay out less than the difference in higher salaries. The Double-Crossing actuaries have no basis to predict this.

So MBDC orders a rate increase for the 100 Borrek families. Well, they figure-out this game, and drop out, and the spiral for insurance leads to de-capitalization. Or if there is a cap on premiums, the insurance company must leave the state. (And do not kid yourself, insurers have left a state rather than continue business in this fashion.)

Well, who will then manage the “insurance” business in the State of Michigan? Why, of course, our friend, the insurer-of last-resort, the Government.

I do not know if this scenario will play out, but the trip-wires are in place, set to snap at the next recession.[/quote]

Again, here we are with totally imaginary magnitudes. This is more fairy tale than parable…

Do you really genuinely believe that 50% of Americans will decide to go without insurance??

199

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
<<< I do not know if this scenario will play out, but the trip-wires are in place, set to snap at the next recession.[/quote]

Yes… you do know that this scenario will play out. That is the stated goal of every major power player in this game. Every big name Dem is on record saying that single payer is their preference and this was a compromise. Do you really believe that they will not be doing everything they can to push in that direction? Every new step makes the next one all the easier as more and more people become dependent and the insurance companies are increasingly portrayed as heartless greedy predators behind the credibility lent in proportion to the unavoidably rising rates.

If this is not stopped very quickly we are on the way to fully socialized medicine. Does anybody really believe that this will not explode just like every other federal program has? The difference is this one started out much further down the road to a full federal coup than the rest.

200

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]borrek wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
No philosophical concerns whatsoever about socialism, huh? The ends justify the means with you?[/quote]

I do not agree with you that this law spells a government takeover of private business.[/quote]

In your eyes what would constitute a government takeover?

And whatever your answer is tell me whether or not incrementalism would play a part in reaching YOUR designated threshhold.[/quote]

With the government dictating what the insurance companies have to offer as coverage, I can say that this bill is the closest to socialism as we’ve come, but I have faith that insurance companies will figure out how to compete even with their mandates. Banks emerged from the Great Depression with totally new rules, and they figured it out.

As it stands, we have no single payer, and we have no public option. A public option is the first step to socialization of the industry. It may come, but I think it only will if the insurance companies refuse to get their act together.