Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Romney's Sick Joke
The New York Times ^ | 10/4/2012 | Paul Krugman

Posted on 10/05/2012 1:18:09 PM PDT by pgyanke

“No. 1,” declared Mitt Romney in Wednesday’s debate, “pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan.” No, they aren’t — as Mr. Romney’s own advisers have conceded in the past, and did again after the debate.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: preexisting; presidentialdebate; romney; romneylies
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-114 next last
To: pgyanke

Krugman is an inveterate liar and the Times has become a cesspool of the worst bias in liberal media.

Krugman’s problem is that he is a very smart Keynesian who believes in a lot of socialist rot, and to make his ‘case’ he is not above lying, misusing statistics, and creating strawman arguments (a favorite of Obama btw, who is so much for strawman arguments he literally decalred the ‘real Romney’ wasnt at the debate; um,nope, the real one was there, the guy who WASNT there was the strawman Romney that Obama has been running against.)

You could get lost in a thicket fighting every false premise, cherry-picked data point and bogus argument of Krugmans. Best you can do is point to some critiques of Krugman:
http://krugman-in-wonderland.blogspot.com/

An open mind might realize that Krugman is blowing smoke, as he often does. He is just cheerleading for Obama’s phony strawman arguments, and defending Obama on a basis of hope not reality. A closed mind ... well, why bother with a closed mind.

You can pass this along and see what he/she says. Latest blog post critiques Krugman’s latest.


51 posted on 10/05/2012 8:12:57 PM PDT by WOSG (REPEAL AND REPLACE OBAMA. He stole America’s promise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RaisingCain

I distinctly remember Romney highlighting differences in his plan as well. Also, from another post here it seems that “pre-existing conditions” had a different scope in the two plans. Romneycare requiring continuance of coverage between employers for those who got a condition while insured, and Obamacare forcing insurance carriers to sell to people who had no insurance and then bought after they got a condition. Which is of course why Obamacare includes a penalty (tax) on people who don’t have insurance in an effort to stop the most obvious abuse.


52 posted on 10/05/2012 11:16:27 PM PDT by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Marie
I think your concern is legitimate, and it's disturbingly telling that the only responses you've received are of precisely the variety of glib ostrich-head-in-the-sand ones that brought us ObamaCare.

Not everybody can afford "continuous coverage" for a long stint - esp. in Obama's economy.

53 posted on 10/05/2012 11:25:36 PM PDT by Lexinom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

You’re a sick, pathetic scumbag, Krugman. You’re the # that held Palin responsible for the Tucson massacre. You’re #ing POS.


54 posted on 10/05/2012 11:32:27 PM PDT by Gene Eric (Demoralization is a weapon of the enemy. Don't get it, don't spread it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear

“I distinctly remember Romney highlighting differences in his plan as well. Also, from another post here it seems that “pre-existing conditions” had a different scope in the two plans. Romneycare requiring continuance of coverage between employers for those who got a condition while insured, and Obamacare forcing insurance carriers to sell to people who had no insurance and then bought after they got a condition. Which is of course why Obamacare includes a penalty (tax) on people who don’t have insurance in an effort to stop the most obvious abuse.”


It depends on what time of day you catch Romney on this. In the debate, Romney presented it as being the same thing as Obama’s plan. There was no mention of continuous coverage. In other interviews, Romney has not mentioned it being dependent on continuous coverage, but has presented it as being identical to Obama’s plan. To be honest, it is impossible for me to really believe anything Romney says. Even on taxes, he was arguing throughout the primaries that he was going to bring down taxes for ALL. In fact, one of my weapons against him back then was that Romney was gimmicky, and that there were hints and suggestions that Mitt would just raise taxes through cutting alleged “deductions” and “loopholes” instead of going after spending.

Now, what was once a great secret, is apparently his mainstream opinion, and no one actually notices it. I’ve lost my respect and faith in Republicans and many so called “conservatives.” They are lemmings, nothing more, who now and then rebel against the GOPe, but always come crawling back at the expense of morality and principles.


55 posted on 10/05/2012 11:49:02 PM PDT by RaisingCain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: RaisingCain

You do sound like you have lost faith. I don’t put all that faith in men, and see all of us as flawed.


56 posted on 10/06/2012 12:14:56 AM PDT by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Berlin_Freeper

Neither are post-existing ones...

Are there NO tents that the gov’t camel won’t stick his nose into?


57 posted on 10/06/2012 4:25:35 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke
The real problem is not insurance, it is cost. Needing insurance for something you should be able to pay for out of pocket drives up cost, thanks to the invisible sugar-daddy middle-man, “insurance.” I am not talking about catastrophic health care, but basic things.

And a non-related point: who the hell thinks mandating coverage of kids through age 26 was a good idea? Mandate an expansion of coverage, express shock and moral outrage when rates go up. One was designed to cause the other and force people into a single-payer plan.

58 posted on 10/06/2012 4:36:37 AM PDT by Puddleglum (http://www.facebook.com/paulhawkinsauthoradventurerexplorer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke

Ask him if the Constitution means anything to him, especially the tenth Amendment. Or national debt?


59 posted on 10/06/2012 4:40:25 AM PDT by Loud Mime (arguetheconstitution.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: levon

Outstanding answer.

:D


60 posted on 10/06/2012 4:43:31 AM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network (America doesn't need any new laws. America needs freedom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke
Insurance is to protect you from unlikely events; mandating that insurance plans must accept people with pre-existing conditions takes them out of the business of insurance.

Why not mandate that hospitals provide treatment of all “pre-existing conditions” for a flat rate of, say, $20 an hour, all drugs and tests included?

If you mandated the latter, hospitals would go out of business because their business would no longer be profitable, and you would have no place to go to get your condition treated.

Maybe Obama can mandate that gasoline be sold for no more than $1.50 a gallon. That will solve gas prices in the same way Obamacare is solving our medical costs mess. Everyone has a right to $1.50 gas but no one can actually find any.

61 posted on 10/06/2012 4:44:04 AM PDT by Puddleglum (http://www.facebook.com/paulhawkinsauthoradventurerexplorer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke
What's the difference between preexisting condition coverage and rationing and/or death panels...except age.

I don't want to trade my healthCARE for somebody else's health insurance and that is what ObamaCare amounts to, IMO.

62 posted on 10/06/2012 4:46:16 AM PDT by lonestar (It takes a village of idiots to elect a village idiot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lexinom

This is why bleeding heart liberals say that conservatives have to heart.

I am NOT saying that another government mandate is the answer. But I’m saying that we can’t ignore the problem.


63 posted on 10/06/2012 5:47:19 AM PDT by Marie ("The last time Democrats gloated this hard after a health care victory, they lost 60 House seats.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Puddleglum

What about a child diagnosed with diabetes or one who ran a bout with cancer at five years old? What about a girl with a heart condition from a birth defect that requires a stint?

All of these people (now grown) are not ‘disabled’ in the traditional sense. The grow up, try to go to school or work, but can’t get insured because of things that were inflicted on them as children.

If there’s a gap in my son’s insurance, the great state of Texas said that he could join the state insurance while he looked for work...

if he paid $3000 a MONTH.

Not a year. A MONTH. I called twice and made sure that I heard them correctly.

A healthy 19 year old would have to pay $3000 a MONTH to keep continuous coverage. Without a job.

Because he has a ‘preexisting condition’. A condition that wasn’t anybody’s fault. It’s not caused by smoking or eating wrong. It’s an autoimmune disease.

Trust me, diagnosed at 9 years old, he wasn’t waiting to get sick to get health insurance.

He’s not sick enough to get disability, but if he doesn’t get a shot every four hours, he dies.

He’s the most optimistic human being that I’ve ever met. The ONLY thing that I’ve seen him get depressed enough to blow his brains out over is the impossible task of maintaining health insurance.

Obamacare isn’t the answer, but we can’t keep ignoring the problem. We can’t assume that it’s a simple matter of ‘get a job’.

This forum is the most pro-life forum out there, but once my partially disabled son hits 18, y’all want to throw him to the wolves. Tell him to go figure out a puzzle that’s impossible to figure out. The deck is stacked in such a way that kids with lifetime problems and the working poor have no hope.

The preexisting issue is a REAL problem.

I’m voting for Romney and repeal of Obamacare - even though I’m terrified for my son. I’m doing it because I truly believe that my son’s best hope is a thriving economy. I believe that Obamacare is MUCH worse for everyone - including my son.

I’m libertarian enough to want the gov’t out of the problem-solving business, but we’ve got a LOT of people who wouldn’t have survived childhood illnesses just 60 years ago that keep on ticking.

The natural order has been disrupted by modern medicine and our economy has not caught up.


64 posted on 10/06/2012 5:48:05 AM PDT by Marie ("The last time Democrats gloated this hard after a health care victory, they lost 60 House seats.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel; Roklok; Berlin_Freeper; 1rudeboy; Cronos; rfp1234; tanknetter; Aria; Marie; Wurlitzer; ..
Thank you for your input. I understand insurance... I'm in the business. What I wasn't sure about was Gov Romney's plan vs his debate answer. Here is my response to the email:

-----------

The first thing to note is that Paul Krugman (and others of a like mind) lack an understanding of the definition of insurance. The first rule of insurance is that the risk of loss must be aleatory (that's a Latin term which means there must be an element of chance). If there is no element of chance to the risk of loss, it isn't insurance. It's simply a transfer payment.

For an example, let's take a look at home-owner's insurance. When we buy home-owner's insurance, we are trying to cover ourselves against the risk of loss of our home due to unforeseen circumstances (fire, wind, fallen trees, et al). If we didn't have to already have insurance before the covered event occurred, we could simply buy insurance when our house catches on fire to make the insurance company pay for our loss instead of us. Clearly, that is a business model that makes no sense for the insurance company. Their whole ability to pay claims comes from the premiums paid by their customers and the diversified risk of loss among them. If the chance of loss is 100% among the risk pool... let's just say they won't be able to meet their obligations and will stop providing coverage.

In the healthcare insurance debate, the first thing the Democrats have successfully done is to equate insurance with healthcare. People lacking insurance are not automatically lacking healthcare. In fact, one significant reason healthcare costs in this country are so high is because our hospitals may not turn away someone in need. If that person is unable to pay, the expense often gets written off and those who do pay make up the difference to allow the hospital to keep functioning. Relative to care, our system is the envy of the world. That isn't the case on the side of cost but you and I have already talked extensively on the many factors (many of them government-driven) which have made our healthcare system so expensive.

Obamacare introduced the idea of "no pre-existing conditions may be excluded" into the healthcare insurance debate. However, as even my liberal Congressman was forced to admit in a conversation with me, that approach makes absolutely no sense from an insurance standpoint. The insurance companies can't survive the scenario laid before them. If you read the law, you find that citizens will be fined for not having health insurance coverage. The cost of the fine is initially set below the cost of insurance. Rational people will simply pay the fine and get the "insurance" when they need it. That tips the risk pool for the insurance company toward a certainty in regards to claims-paying. They will simply go out of business and we will be left with the government for our insurance needs. This is known as "single-payer" coverage when the government is the sole source. It is the purpose of Obamacare and the reason these provisions begin next year... so they occur after this election. It is an absolute lie that we will be able to keep our current insurance plan. This one provision of Obamacare will decimate the industry by itself.

Although I am not in favor of the government's deep involvement in healthcare, it is involved already. The question now is between one plan or another. Gov Romney's plan is at least more sensible in regards to pre-existing conditions. You may not be denied coverage as long as you keep your insurance in force. If your family had health insurance as you were growing up and you kept coverage as you matured, you will maintain coverage... even if you have a terrible disease. The argument against this approach by Krugman is that you must first have had coverage and have been able to keep up with the premiums. It's a fair question to ask whether he or President Obama have read the Obamacare bill. Their approach is to mandate all citizens buy insurance or be fined by the government. It's the same approach as Gov Romney--but without the liberty to decline. If they are so concerned about the premium-paying ability of their constituents, they picked a funny way to show it. The fine is initially set lower than the cost of insurance but it rises over the years to be very significant... when the government is the sole insurer. If the criticism of Gov Romney's plan is that you must maintain continuous coverage... how does Obamacare escape such criticism?

Gov Romney's approach is more sensible, allows citizens their liberty in participation, and is in keeping with a true definition of insurance. Again, he is a businessman at heart and understands the insurance industry better than those who are forcing it to function outside of its business model.

65 posted on 10/06/2012 6:08:03 AM PDT by pgyanke (Republicans get in trouble when not living up to their principles. Democrats... when they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Marie
This is a great post, Marie. I hope many read it and ponder within themselves.

There are no easy, pat solutions, but the solution is out there and I'm pretty sure it doesn't involve the gub'mint.

66 posted on 10/06/2012 6:09:38 AM PDT by Lexinom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: WOSG; Lexinom; Gene Eric; Elsie; Loud Mime; Cringing Negativism Network; Puddleglum; lonestar
Please see post #65 for my response.
67 posted on 10/06/2012 6:14:35 AM PDT by pgyanke (Republicans get in trouble when not living up to their principles. Democrats... when they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Marie

Marie,

I sympathize with your issue. As you stated, Obamacare isn’t the answer... but we do need a solution. Personally, I would rather each state set up a direct healthcare-welfare program where their 5-10% chronically-ill uninsured could simply be taken care of by the government paying into a high-risk pool than see what has been done to us under Obamacare. It would be much more efficient in terms of stream-lining the system and much more targeted in getting care for those who truly need it and can’t afford it. In the end, it would save money over the bureaucratic approach we take to every government solution today.

May God bless you and your family.


68 posted on 10/06/2012 6:19:15 AM PDT by pgyanke (Republicans get in trouble when not living up to their principles. Democrats... when they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Lexinom
I'm not sure that any solution other than charity is out there, and that is not a bad solution. The trouble is, people have been taught not to be charitable because that is government's job. Just ask Joe Biden or look at his tax returns. Be like Joe? I think there is a better way - charity.
69 posted on 10/06/2012 6:23:40 AM PDT by Puddleglum (http://www.facebook.com/paulhawkinsauthoradventurerexplorer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke; Marie
I appreciate the wonkish detail - you clearly have a strong grasp of your industry. I am not seeing how this applies to Marie's situation.

You see, her son will die if he does not get his shot every four hours. He's TRYING to find a job but in Obama's economy that can be rather tough. The State of Texas wants to rip him off to the tune of $3,000 a month.

We all agree that ObamaCare is an unmitigated disaster; send it to /dev/null posthaste!

Might I suggest tort reform as one way to get costs down? (whatever happened on that front under President Bush?) And might I suggest insurance across state lines?

Should the government be setting the cost of bandaids?

Also, charities... charities devoted to helping with this type of situation. Are there any?

This is more your league than mine. I'm just throwing out ideas.

70 posted on 10/06/2012 6:24:13 AM PDT by Lexinom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Puddleglum
A strange, strange paradox, that... A socialist society that vaunts the virtue of charity is populated inevitably by uncharitable people... In a conservative society whose denizens are lambasted for their purported lack of charity the latter flourishes.

Is there not a parallel also with giving patterns of politicians broken by party?

71 posted on 10/06/2012 6:27:35 AM PDT by Lexinom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Lexinom

My reply in 67 was for the email this thread referenced. My reply to Marie is in 68 and references her particular situation. Again, states could provide this coverage for those who can’t afford it free of charge more cheaply than the bureaucratic systems they currently have in place.


72 posted on 10/06/2012 6:35:58 AM PDT by pgyanke (Republicans get in trouble when not living up to their principles. Democrats... when they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Wurlitzer
Don’t carry homeowners insurance until your house burns down then call Allstate to insure it and expect to get paid. What do you think the agent will say?

Go to Lloyds of London.

Don’t carry car insurance and crash your car into another causing injuries and then call State Farm to insure it and cover your loss. What do you think the agent will say.

Fogetaboudid! And go to the high risk pool if you plan to continue driving.

>>As an uninsured, develop pre-existing conditions and call Blue Cross and ask them to cover it. What do you think the agent will say.<<

Go the the high risk pool for immediate coverage, wait six-months and if you're OK, reapply for regular health insurance coverage.

73 posted on 10/06/2012 6:56:57 AM PDT by ROCKLOBSTER (Celebrate "Republicans Freed the Slaves" Month)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke
Personally, I would rather each state set up a direct healthcare-welfare program where their 5-10% chronically-ill uninsured could simply be taken care of by the government paying into a high-risk pool than see what has been done to us under Obamacare.

I would agree with this. I also thing that EVERY PATIENT must pay something for each doctor's visit and test. Even if it's only $10-20. This would cut down on abuse of the system, but be low enough that family or charities could help out.

And yes. I believe that this includes Medicaid, Medicare and TriCare. FREE medical care is a disaster.

74 posted on 10/06/2012 7:01:25 AM PDT by Marie ("The last time Democrats gloated this hard after a health care victory, they lost 60 House seats.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: All

These vary from state to state...BUT:

Insurance carriers often honor each other’s preX when an insured party changes companies.

A preX usually imposes a waiting period...like six months, NOT an outright denial of coverage.


75 posted on 10/06/2012 7:03:11 AM PDT by ROCKLOBSTER (Celebrate "Republicans Freed the Slaves" Month)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke
Beyond the existing protection offered by HIPAA for folks with pre-existing conditions, Gov. Romney has EXPLICITLY laid out his solution for folks with pre-existing conditions whose circumstances aren't covered by HIPAA.

I live in liberal Maryland, and the state of Maryland runs a high-risk pool for the otherwise uninsurable. It provides excellent insurance coverage at a competitive rate for those who otherwise couldn't get insurance at affordable prices. It subsidizes the premiums for low-income folks (the premiums are competitive, but they still run many hundreds, or even over a thousand dollars per month - might not be affordable for someone making $25K per year) so that anyone who wishes to have insurance can have it. All without forcing folks to buy what they don't want!

And Gov. Romney actually explicitly lays this out as part of his solution.

Here is a quote from Gov. Romney's website:


Restore State Leadership and Flexibility

Mitt will begin by returning states to their proper place in charge of regulating local insurance markets and caring for the poor, uninsured, and chronically ill. States will have both the incentive and the flexibility to experiment, learn from one another, and craft the approaches best suited to their own citizens.

- Block grant Medicaid and other payments to states

- Limit federal standards and requirements on both private insurance and Medicaid coverage

- Ensure flexibility to help the uninsured, including public-private partnerships, exchanges, and subsidies

- Ensure flexibility to help the chronically ill, including high-risk pools, reinsurance, and risk adjustment

- Offer innovation grants to explore non-litigation alternatives to dispute resolution

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care


To say that Gov. Romney hasn't spelled out a plan to cover individuals with pre-existing conditions is a lie. A plain, indecent lie. Those telling the lie are evil.

76 posted on 10/06/2012 7:07:31 AM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER
Dear ROCKLOBSTER,

Actually, federal law already requires that those with continuous coverage cannot be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions when they change insurers. For those with continuous coverage, no waiting period.


sitetest

77 posted on 10/06/2012 7:23:05 AM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Lexinom

And THIS is what I’m asking for.

We have more people surviving medical conditions that would’ve been fatal than we’ve ever had in human history. This is a blessing, but it’s also a curse.

Both of my children have primary immunodeficiency syndrome. (Another preexisting condition) They’ve survived countless rounds of bacterial and fungal infections. They are going to continue to get sick - curable illnesses that just lay them up for a time - and they are going to need help. This will never get better. This will never end.

These illnesses make it very difficult for them to always have steady work.

Hell, in the modern economic situation, it’s unusual for ANYONE to have steady work.

My grandfather got a job at a car manufacturing plant when he was a young man. Steady pay, blue cross, retirement. He worked there for 40 years.

This is so abnormal now. Even before Obama, the fluidity of the job market was incredible. The only place you can find that kind of job security is in gov’t jobs and it’s been that way for almost 20 years. Outsourcing, companies rising and falling and restructuring on a regular basis, new companies coming out of nowhere. We’re in a very strange situation. Again, the old rules don’t account for that.

To say, ‘you’ll be fine as long as you don’t have a gap in your coverage’ is insane. With the Obama economy, it’s a thousand times worse.

We need to work for solutions or the desperate will grab onto any lifeline they can get a hold of. This is how socialism and communism gets their foothold.

For decades, the republicans controlled Congress and they ignored these worsening problems. It did reach a crisis mode. The dems offered a solution.

Even though most of the public is against Obamacare, the vast majority is FOR extending coverage to young adults on their parents’ plan and for the preexisting condition clause.

If the price were affordable, I’d PAY my son’s premiums to keep him on our insurance. I’m not looking for a freebie. But young people need time to get their lives in order. The old days where an 18 year old man was able to step out into the world and provide for himself and his family are long-gone. (That’s a whole ‘nuther subject.)

If we repeal Obamacare and do not have answers to these issues, we’re setting ourselves up for another desperate takeover.

Again, you’re doing the right thing. You’re recognizing that this is a problem that we must face. As a group, conservatives cannot continue to bury our heads in the sand on these issues.

A thriving economy with tons of energy production and lots of opportunity is the best start. But we can’t ignore our ‘walking sick’.


78 posted on 10/06/2012 7:31:37 AM PDT by Marie ("The last time Democrats gloated this hard after a health care victory, they lost 60 House seats.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: sitetest
Under HIPAA, a new employer’s plan must give individuals credit for the length of time they had prior continuous health coverage, without a break in coverage of 63 days or more, thereby reducing or eliminating the 12-month exclusion period (18 months for late enrollees).

Actually you can have a gap in coverage under HIPAA but it can't be for more than 63 days.

79 posted on 10/06/2012 7:33:07 AM PDT by MD Expat in PA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: sitetest

Thank YOU!!! THIS is what I needed to see!

Saying that Romney doesn’t have a good, detailed plan is not being dishonest. We can’t find the information! It’s buried under so much background noise that it’s hard to even tell fact from fiction.


80 posted on 10/06/2012 7:34:49 AM PDT by Marie ("The last time Democrats gloated this hard after a health care victory, they lost 60 House seats.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Marie
Dear Marie,

In Maryland, the state has established high risk pools for folks with chronic illness who are otherwise difficult to insure.

If I sold my business, I'd no longer have group health insurance. But because my son had a brain tumor when he was 10, it would be very difficult to get individual insurance for my family. However, through Maryland's high risk pool coverage, I could get insurance for about $1,000 per month, with a $1,200 annual deductible, modest co-pays, use-any-doctor-or-provider, good prescription coverage.

I do okay, income-wise, so I wouldn't be eligible for premium assistance, but for lower-income families, the state will also pay part of the premium.

Gov. Romney's plan explicitly includes state-run high risk pools as part of his plan.

And no one is forced by law to buy insurance they don't want.


sitetest

81 posted on 10/06/2012 7:40:35 AM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: MD Expat in PA
Dear MD Expat in PA,

You're right. I elided that in my answer as I'm prone to providing more detail than most folks really want to know.

The idea of HIPAA is, “You play by the rules (keep pretty much continuous coverage), you don't get screwed.”


sitetest

82 posted on 10/06/2012 7:43:07 AM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: sitetest

Alright. So help me understand why FR hates RomneyCare. Could you direct me to a website where I can get realistic information?


83 posted on 10/06/2012 7:46:32 AM PDT by Marie ("The last time Democrats gloated this hard after a health care victory, they lost 60 House seats.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Marie
Dear Marie,

“Saying that Romney doesn’t have a good, detailed plan is not being dishonest.”

Yes it is. It is an absolute LIE to say that Gov. Romney doesn't have a good, detailed plan.

I've heard both Gov. Romney and Rep. Ryan talk about state-run high risk pools. It's RIGHT ON THEIR WEBSITE. It took me TWO, count ‘em, TWO clicks to find the information.

Do they dwell on it when speaking publicly? Of course not. It's wonkishness, and most folks’ eyes glaze over when candidates get wonkish. Most folks wouldn't even understand it if they mentioned it. Or the other parts of their solutions, including reinsurance and risk adjustment.

Unfortunately, most voters just won't listen to explanations of what they view as technical subjects.

So, Gov. Romney says, “We have a plan to take care of pre-existing conditions.” Occasionally, the words “high-risk pool” will escape his mouth.

If you want to know more, go to the website.

“We can’t find the information! It’s buried under so much background noise that it’s hard to even tell fact from fiction.”

Bullshit.

It's two clicks into his website.

Anyone who wanted to know but didn't know is either stupid or lazy.

But the average voter has an excuse: the average voter IS stupid or lazy. Or both.

The folks who have no excuse are the folks like the Kenyan anti-Christ regime and campaign. Or Paul Krugman. Or all the other talking heads who tell this lie. They actually get PAID to click twice on a website to see what the candidates are saying.


sitetest

84 posted on 10/06/2012 7:51:14 AM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Marie
Dear Marie,

What does RomneyCare have to with state-run high risk pools?

I'm not aware that Massachusetts has a high risk pool.

I already gave you a link to the information that I presented. It's a page on Gov. Romney's campaign website.

It's not a terribly-difficult website to navigate. If you'd like information on his policies and programs, just browse it.


sitetest

85 posted on 10/06/2012 7:54:42 AM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: sitetest
In Maryland, the state has established high risk pools for folks with chronic illness who are otherwise difficult to insure.

If I sold my business, I'd no longer have group health insurance. But because my son had a brain tumor when he was 10, it would be very difficult to get individual insurance for my family. However, through Maryland's high risk pool coverage, I could get insurance for about $1,000 per month, with a $1,200 annual deductible, modest co-pays, use-any-doctor-or-provider, good prescription coverage.

I do okay, income-wise, so I wouldn't be eligible for premium assistance, but for lower-income families, the state will also pay part of the premium.

MHIP? I used to work in COBRA administration in Maryland. I used to get calls from folks who’s 18 months of COBRA coverage was about to run out. Some of these people had serious on-going health problems, were still unemployed through no fault of their own and could not afford a traditional individual policy and some of the stories were heartbreaking (I’m thinking of the call I got from the mother with a four year old child who had leukemia and the widow who was about 12 months from being eligible for Medicare), I would refer such people to the MHIP program. While a “state” program, subsidized by state and federal funds, I believe the coverage is actually provided through CareFirst BCBS.

86 posted on 10/06/2012 7:59:43 AM PDT by MD Expat in PA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: sitetest

I misunderstood your point. I honestly asked for clarification - I was listening to you - and you do nothing more than insult and swear at me.

You are a bad human being and I am done with you.

BTW, I WENT to the RR website for my mom last week to address this very issue and all I could find was the ‘continuous coverage’ point.


87 posted on 10/06/2012 8:00:38 AM PDT by Marie ("The last time Democrats gloated this hard after a health care victory, they lost 60 House seats.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: MD Expat in PA
Dear MD Expat in PA,

Yes, coverage is through CareFirst, which is a pretty decent insurance company, as insurance companies go.

Ironically, if I were to drop my group insurance, I'd be eligible for MHIP, my premiums would be LOWER, and my benefits BETTER.

It's often tempting.


sitetest

88 posted on 10/06/2012 8:02:52 AM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: MD Expat in PA

It was the Texas COBRA program that said that my son would have to pay $3000 a month for the program - even if he were completely broke and unemployed. No word of state subsidies or help of any kind.


89 posted on 10/06/2012 8:03:08 AM PDT by Marie ("The last time Democrats gloated this hard after a health care victory, they lost 60 House seats.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Marie
Dear Marie,

“I misunderstood your point.”

I'm not sure which point you misunderstood.

“I honestly asked for clarification - I was listening to you - and you do nothing more than insult and swear at me.”

Sorry. It can't be helped. When I see nonsense like this, I'm gonna say what I think:

“Saying that Romney doesn’t have a good, detailed plan is not being dishonest.”

Yes, it's being dishonest. It's a blatant lie. Folks will either know it's not true, or have constructive knowledge that it's not true. That makes it always and everywhere a lie.

“You are a bad human being...”

Could be. ;-)

“BTW, I WENT to the RR website for my mom last week to address this very issue and all I could find was the ‘continuous coverage’ point.”

I've been hearing Gov. Romney talk about this stuff for a while. It's on his website. It took two clicks to find it. I can imagine that if you didn't go to the right link right away, it might have taken four clicks. Or five clicks.

But it's not a very complicated website. If you couldn't find it, well...


sitetest

90 posted on 10/06/2012 8:08:00 AM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: sitetest; Marie

Interestingly, if one didn’t want to work through two or four or five clicks on his website, if one googles on “romney health care,” the page on the governor’s website that describes his policy position comes up as the seventh result, and the URL listed by google is:

www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care

Which is kinda obvious.


91 posted on 10/06/2012 8:13:13 AM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke

thanks!


92 posted on 10/06/2012 8:17:22 AM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: sitetest

You know what’s really strange? Insulting someone and swearing at them really makes it hard for them to hear anything else you have to say. Sharing further information with the addition of another insult really doesn’t help the situation.

In addition, you never address MD Expat in PA’s point about this not being an effective system for the situations being described on this thread.

It was the state high-risk pool that quoted my 19 year old, single, childless son $3000 a month. No subsidies. No help to manage that amount. Just pay it or you lose ‘continuous coverage’.

I will see what updates are at the RR website, but if this is his solution, it’s not a feasible one.


93 posted on 10/06/2012 8:33:59 AM PDT by Marie ("The last time Democrats gloated this hard after a health care victory, they lost 60 House seats.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Marie
It was the Texas COBRA program that said that my son would have to pay $3000 a month for the program - even if he were completely broke and unemployed. No word of state subsidies or help of any kind.

I think you are misunderstanding what COBRA is. COBRA is not a premium reduction plan or a “program” to provide subsidized insurance to people who cannot otherwise afford coverage. COBRA simply allows for former employees and dependents of formerly insured employees who lose coverage because they are not longer employed, to continue on their employer’s group health plan, an employer with 20 or more employees, to elect to continue that very same coverage on the group plan for a limited time – 18 months and in the case of loss of coverage due to divorce or loss of dependent status for 36 months (some other rules apply but I won’t get into all that minutia).

Under COBRA, the COBRA participant pays the full monthly premium and often a 2% administrative fee as allowed by law, – the very same premium BTW that the employer pays for that very same coverage and coverage level and not what the employee’s share is or the employer’s share is, but what the insurance company bills to the employer for that coverage. I found a lot of people signing up for COBRA were shocked by the monthly premium as they were expecting to pay the same as what was deducted from their paycheck. But what they didn’t consider was that the employer was paying a good portion of that monthly premium, 70, 80 or 90 percent in most cases.

COBRA coverage is often cheaper, as it is a group plan with lower rates because of a larger risk pool, but is not always necessarily cheaper than obtaining individual coverage; it all depends on the size and rates the employer gets from the insurance company.

Also COBRA coverage is contingent on the employer maintaining the group health plan. If an employer’s plan is cancelled due to non-payment or they go out of business and terminate the group health plan, COBRA participants lose their coverage even if they have been paying their COBRA premiums. Also if the employer makes changes to their group health insurance, drops or adds plans, gets a rate increase, increases deductibles, etc. at renewal, COBRA participants are subject to those same changes just as active employee’s are – COBRA participants also have the right to make changes to coverage at open enrollment – add, drop dependents, switch from an PPO to an HMO if offered, just as can active employees.

94 posted on 10/06/2012 9:19:38 AM PDT by MD Expat in PA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Marie; MD Expat in PA
Dear Marie,

“You know what’s really strange? Insulting someone and swearing at them really makes it hard for them to hear anything else you have to say.”

Could be. But sometimes, the truth must be told.

It is a blatant lie to say that Gov. Romney hasn't spelled out an answer to this question.

“In addition, you never address MD Expat in PA’s point about this not being an effective system for the situations being described on this thread.”

I didn't notice such a point being made by MD Expat in PA.

“It was the state high-risk pool that quoted my 19 year old, single, childless son $3000 a month. No subsidies. No help to manage that amount. Just pay it or you lose ‘continuous coverage’.”

I'm not crazy about dealing with posters’ specific “circumstances,” since I'm never assured of getting the actual facts. Your posts about your son seem a little fuzzy.

First you say:

“If there’s a gap in my son’s insurance, the great state of Texas said that he could join the state insurance while he looked for work...

“if he paid $3000 a MONTH.”

That's interesting. I looked at Texas’ high risk pool website, and found that the maximum premium for a 19 year-old male was something over $700 per month. With an annual deductible of $1,000. For a smoker. I then looked at the rate with a $5,000 annual deductible (roughly the deductible we have on my own insurance for myself and my employees). That was $400 per month.

I'm not sure to what you're actually referring. Which might make sense, because then you respond to another post by saying:

“It was the Texas COBRA program that said that my son would have to pay $3000 a month for the program...”

COBRA is different from state-run high risk pools. I can readily believe that a COBRA policy may have run $3,000 per month. But that's not a high risk pool policy, that's an extension of a group policy after one leaves one’s job.

I've never personally seen a rate that high, but I've seen 'em at $2K or so per month. But that rate applies to everyone who uses the COBRA option, not just to folks who have pre-existing conditions. I know that the COBRA rate on my own company's policy would be nearly $2,000 per month. But that would apply to everyone who left my employ. If I opted for COBRA coverage. Which I don't.

As well, I looked at the Texas high risk pool website, and it was quite explicit that a 50% discount is offered to folks under 200% of the poverty level, and a 30% discount to folks under 300% of the poverty level.

Again, from what you posted, I'm thinking that maybe you weren't dealing with Texas’ high risk pool insurance but rather with COBRA. Which is a whole different ball of wax.

Like I said, I dislike getting into folks’ specific situations, in part because it's tough to ascertain the actual facts of their circumstances, and I have no independent knowledge by which to check what folks report.

“I will see what updates are at the RR website, but if this is his solution, it’s not a feasible one.”

If you'd have read the page, or heck, if you'd have just read what I actually POSTED on this thread, you'd note that his proposals include assistance for the uninsured, including subsidies:

“- Ensure flexibility to help the uninsured, including public-private partnerships, exchanges, and subsidies”

Finally, I'm pretty familiar with Maryland's high risk pool. Why? I live in Maryland, I work in Maryland, I own a business in Maryland. All the info I'm getting about Texas, I'm getting off the web, without any consultation with anyone who really knows the ins and outs of Texas' program. If Texas' program has inadequacies, if folks think that Texas' program doesn't do enough, then, guess what? That's a TEXAS problem, and should be addressed by the TEXAS legislature, not the federal government.

That is part of Gov. Romney's views, too, that each state should craft the solutions acceptable to the citizens of that state, that the federal government shouldn't impose a one-size-fits-all solution on the whole country.

That's called "federalism." I'd think any conservative would be in favor of that.


sitetest

95 posted on 10/06/2012 9:21:15 AM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: MD Expat in PA
Dear MD Expat in PA,

I'd have to go look at my paperwork, but I thought that the rates folks would be offered under COBRA if they left my employ were actually higher than the premiums I'm paying. And the benefits were less generous.

I wonder whether our high-deductible HSA plan complicates the matter.


sitetest

96 posted on 10/06/2012 9:27:29 AM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: sitetest

You do realize that everything you’re citing now is after many of the changes that ObamaCare has brought in?

That only NOW are pre-existing conditions covered that were acquired before the person turned 19?

That I’m talking about what we had BEFORE ObamaCare?

That COBRA and high-risk pools are now better federally subsidized AT THIS TIME?

Everything that I’ve been talking about is from the years of desperate research I’ve been doing to better prepare my son for his life as a chronically ill adult.

Long stretches of unemployment and loss of coverage because he’s too sick to work, but it’s not permanent enough to qualify him for disability. Health insurance that makes you wait months or even years before they’ll cover pre-existing conditions. Adults who can’t get insurance because of a birth defect that was corrected or an illness that they beat as a child.

These are the realities.

So you can do all the research you want, but you won’t be addressing the basic question: “Once we repeal ObamaCare, what are we going to do to address these very real problems? What do we put in it’s place?”

And I’m not even getting into the issue of the single adult man who loses his job, has a heart attack and can’t get coverage once he recovers and tries to get back on his feet.

Do NOT think that I’m arguing for ObamaCare. I think that it’s a horrible plan. But there were problems that have been addressed by it.


97 posted on 10/06/2012 9:50:42 AM PDT by Marie ("The last time Democrats gloated this hard after a health care victory, they lost 60 House seats.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: sitetest

To give you an idea of how bad it was in Texas, the Texas Health Insurance Risk Pool (for high-risk individuals) has only had 90,000 people enrolled since it’s inception in 1997.

More than 23,000 of those people were added to the rolls IN JUST THE LAST MONTH.


98 posted on 10/06/2012 10:01:31 AM PDT by Marie ("The last time Democrats gloated this hard after a health care victory, they lost 60 House seats.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: sitetest
I'd have to go look at my paperwork, but I thought that the rates folks would be offered under COBRA if they left my employ were actually higher than the premiums I'm paying. And the benefits were less generous.

I wonder whether our high-deductible HSA plan complicates the matter.

Under COBRA, someone electing COBRA coverage elects to continue with the group plan and exactly the same plan with the very same benefits, the same deductibles and co-pays, the same provider network, etc. as they had while employed and insured under the group plan. At the time they elect COBRA, they can drop dependents (i.e. if they have EE+spouse coverage, they could elect to take EE only coverage but then the spouse has individual COBRA election rights). Employers and insurers cannot reduce benefits to COBRA participants unless they make changes to the group plan as a whole at renewal and those changes effects all members covered under the group plan. Employers, if they self administer COBRA or third party COBRA administrators if the employer outsources, are allowed to charge a maximum of 2% of the monthly premium as an administrative fee but they cannot charge COBRA participants any more than that – premium + 2%.

For employers who are “self insured” the premium charged to the COBRA participant is the “COBRA equivalent rate” which could be higher than what the employer actually pays per month in admin fees and stop gap insurance but when factoring in claims history, it usually ends up pretty close to what one would pay for the same coverage under COBRA as with a fully insured plan.

Unlike an HRA (which is a whole other ball of wax), when an employee with an HSA terminates, there is no right to COBRA on the HSA. The money in the HSA fund at the time of termination however belongs to the employee. An employee with a HSA can pay COBRA premiums with their HSA funds but this has no bearing on the cost of premiums or on the employer.

99 posted on 10/06/2012 10:05:19 AM PDT by MD Expat in PA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Marie
Dear Marie,

“You do realize that everything you’re citing now is after many of the changes that ObamaCare has brought in?”

No, wrong. Texas’ high risk pool has been in business since the late 1990s. HIPAA (which started the ball rolling toward portability of coverage) was passed in 1996. HIPAA provided that anyone with continuous coverage (or with a break of 63 days or less) could not be excluded for pre-existing conditions, or subject to a waiting period.

“That COBRA and high-risk pools are now better federally subsidized AT THIS TIME?”

I don't think COBRA is federally-subsidized. State-run high risk pools have generally been subsidized, either by in-state insurance companies, or directly by the state government. That's part and parcel of the high risk pools. Part of the original concept.

I understand your difficulties and am sympathetic, but frankly, most of what you're posting just isn't true, or is badly distorted.

COBRA has been around for decades, HIPAA (which is first and foremost about health insurance policy portability - that's what the "P" in HIPAA stands for) for nearly 20 years, and subsidized high risk pools since at least the ‘90s.

Even WITH HIPAA, it's been tough for folks who aren't continuously employed, that's true.

However, if you would ACTUALLY READ Gov. Romney's website, greater insurance policy portability is ALSO addressed by Gov. Romney's proposals. He has a number of policy points that play into this issue, but two key ones are:

“- End tax discrimination against the individual purchase of insurance
“- Allow consumers to purchase insurance across state lines”

Sen. McCain also proposed these in 2008. The Kenyan anti-Christ badly, knowingly lied about the first point, and Sen. McCain didn't respond adequately to all the lies. But it is truly key in separating out employment from health insurance, and permitting true portability of health insurance.

Frankly, having had to follow this issue fairly closely for nearly 30 years, and having someone in my family who would generally be “uninsurable,” I'm fairly pleased Gov. Romney's health care proposals. As any conservative would be, who took the time to actually read his website’s page on the issue.


sitetest

100 posted on 10/06/2012 10:22:21 AM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-114 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson