Skip to comments.
HHS releases rules requiring pre-existing conditions coverage
The Hill ^
| 11/20/12
| Sam Baker
Posted on 11/20/2012 11:36:54 AM PST by Nachum
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-112 next last
To: montag813
I had a discussion with my coworkers today about the “free” coverage. They thought that as more people got coverage the cost would go down. I busted their bubble by pointing out to them that more people would be covered but the same amount of working folks would be footing their bill.
They were quiet after that.
21
posted on
11/20/2012 1:09:06 PM PST
by
USAF80
To: montag813
I had a discussion with my coworkers today about the “free” coverage. They thought that as more people got coverage the cost would go down. I busted their bubble by pointing out to them that more people would be covered but the same amount of working folks would be footing their bill.
They were quiet after that.
22
posted on
11/20/2012 1:10:29 PM PST
by
USAF80
To: Nachum
So now, a man who is not ever going to encounter pregnancy costs is paying for women’s costs for pregnancy. That is the main difference between male and female insurance costs. I know from buying insurance for employees in the past. At one point, we had five men and one woman, and hers cost more than the rest of us combined.
This isn’t insurance any more. It is just cost distribution...and there is no personal accountability on costs...each person gets services, and the whole population is going to split the costs equally. All costs will go up and scarcity will soon ensue, creating less supply, longer waits and even higher costs. Brilliant.
23
posted on
11/20/2012 1:19:54 PM PST
by
ilgipper
(Obama supporters are comprised of the uninformed & the ill-informed)
To: USAF80
I busted their bubble by pointing out to them that more people would be covered but the same amount of working folks would be footing their bill. They were quiet after that.
I am surprised at least one didn't argue until blue in the face that it wasn't true. Too many have completely abandoned logic and common sense in our society.
24
posted on
11/20/2012 1:22:44 PM PST
by
ilgipper
(Obama supporters are comprised of the uninformed & the ill-informed)
To: Nachum
“HHS said it will allow plans to charge a higher deductible in order to meet the technical standards for a low-cost policy...’Otherwise, the math doesnt work,’ Cohen said.”
The math still doesn’t work, buddy.
*
What I’m wondering now is this: in cases where someone is paying premiums that exceed the cost of the Obamacare penalty, wouldn’t it make a certain sense to just drop your health coverage? Since pre-existing conditions can no longer be refused coverage, wouldn’t it make more sense to pay the penalty and then enroll in a plan if and when you get seriously ill?
25
posted on
11/20/2012 1:23:21 PM PST
by
DemforBush
(100% Ex-Democrat.)
To: Nachum
"require insurance companies to cover people with preexisting conditions" The term 'insurance' is not relevant to FORCED, nationalized health care. Call them 'coverage' companies.
To: Nachum
Requiring companies to cover people for things that happened last year. Brilliant.
To: Nachum
The reason they want pre-existing condition coverage is to eventually complain about the cost of them. Some day these people will be referred to the death panels. The death panel will determine that your newly discovered stage 3 or 4 cancer doesn’t meet the cost/benefit analysis, and you will be prescribed pain killers.
28
posted on
11/20/2012 1:37:52 PM PST
by
xzins
(Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
To: Nachum
The reason they want pre-existing condition coverage is to eventually complain about the cost of them. Some day these people will be referred to the death panels. The death panel will determine that your newly discovered stage 3 or 4 cancer doesn’t meet the cost/benefit analysis, and you will be prescribed pain killers.
And, they’ll use the same argument. Compassion. Out of compassion we need to cover these poor souls.
Future: out of compassion we need to ease their suffering out of this world.
29
posted on
11/20/2012 1:39:18 PM PST
by
xzins
(Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
To: USAF80
I had a discussion with my coworkers today about the free coverage. They thought that as more people got coverage the cost would go down. I busted their bubble by pointing out to them that more people would be covered but the same amount of working folks would be footing their bill. They were quiet after that. Why can't Republican politicians be as good as you at making a point on an issue?
30
posted on
11/20/2012 1:41:20 PM PST
by
Moonman62
(The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
To: Nachum
They have just changed their business model, they have thrown all actuarial responsibility out the window and exposed them to a moral hazard.
This will collapse the insurers which is their goal...
31
posted on
11/20/2012 1:43:14 PM PST
by
taildragger
(( Tighten the 5 point harness and brace for Impact Freepers, ya know it's coming..... ))
To: Uncle Miltie
I want pre-existing collision coverage required when I sign up for Car Insurance.
32
posted on
11/20/2012 1:50:44 PM PST
by
reg45
(Barack 0bama: Implementing class warfare by having no class.)
To: Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America
"require insurance companies to cover people with preexisting conditions" I thought the 1996 HPPA law did that already...
33
posted on
11/20/2012 1:55:46 PM PST
by
TurboZamboni
(Looting the future to bribe the present)
To: Nachum
“Covering people with preexisting conditions is expensive, and the law seeks to bring younger, healthier people into the system to offset the additional costs of covering sick people”
There's your tax “younger, healthier people”. To all the fools that voted for Obama, look in the mirror and say “dumb ass”.
34
posted on
11/20/2012 2:01:32 PM PST
by
tobyhill
To: Nachum
this was withheld until after the election, of course. no one called them on it.
and the obamites couldn’t stop talking about mittens’ “hidden” tax returns. the only thing “hidden” from us was what he was planning on doing to our health care as soon as he was safely reelected.
35
posted on
11/20/2012 2:02:11 PM PST
by
JohnBrowdie
(http://forum.stink-eye.net)
To: Nachum
So do these rules not apply in states that have refused to set up Obama’s exchanges?
36
posted on
11/20/2012 2:21:04 PM PST
by
Jedidah
To: Nachum
I feel bad for all the youth, and people after, who will never have known the joy of living in a country that was free, wasn’t completely broke and had a ton of cutting edge industries that served the population brilliantly.
37
posted on
11/20/2012 2:27:26 PM PST
by
Psycho_Bunny
(Thought Puzzle: Describe Islam without using the phrase "mental disorder" more than four times.)
To: willowdean
are you kidding? They will force it through.
38
posted on
11/20/2012 2:31:39 PM PST
by
PghBaldy
(Pete Hoekstra RE: Petraeus "There's more here than meets the eye.")
To: Nachum
"Regulations released Tuesday will prohibit insurers from"
considering reality in the determination of prices.
But this isn't reality any more. This is...
To: Nachum
Communal Communist Obamanation Revenge File.
40
posted on
11/20/2012 2:35:16 PM PST
by
Graewoulf
((Traitor John Roberts' Obama"care" violates Sherman Anti-Trust Law, AND the U.S. Constitution.))
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-112 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson