Posted on 11/12/2016 4:19:09 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
After reiterating his promise to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, President-elect Donald Trump has indicated that he may keep two of the law’s most popular provisions. One is straightforward enough — children up to the age of 26 being allowed to stay on their parents’ plan. The other — preventing insurance companies from denying coverage because of preexisting conditions — offers a perfect illustration of why Trump and most of the other Republicans critics of Obamacare don’t understand the health insurance market.
Let’s say that in the beautiful new world of “repeal and replace,” insurers are required to sell you insurance despite the fact that your kid has a brain tumor. Insurance companies know what to do with that. Their actuaries can calculate that kids with brain tumors typically require (I’m making this number up) about $200,000 a year in medical care. So they’ll offer to sell you a policy at an annual premium of $240,000.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
They wouldn't be. Unless they were new applicants. Otherwise, they'd be considered "uninsurable". Most responsible people have health insurance. If they develop such conditions as you described, the insurers cover them. that's what insurance is for.
...forced into the high risk pool. If you leave it to the insurance companies, they will be.
WRONG!
It averages about 1% of the insured population, not "everybody". If all people with whatever condition are in the same general pool the risk is spread more evenly
Yes, and with unaffordable premiums, just like ObamaCare.
and efficiently.
With a "death spiral" of ever increasing premiums as healthy people drop out and sicker people jump in (adverse selection)
It's all been tested and proven. You're arguing for the RAT positions of guaranteed issue and community rating.
It's double dumb.
I am in great shape, exercise regularly, and plan to live to be 100. All I want is an inexpensive catastrophic insurance plan to cover me in the event of a disaster, and for nothing else. That is not available to me now, but it was not available to me prior to the ACA, either. I have mild, asymptomatic, non-life shortening or threatening atrial fib. It is a condition millions of people have; some are worse but many are like mine. Yet, insurance companies do not make such distinctions. Anyone with atrial fib is considered to have a pre-existing condition and was forced into a high-risk pool prior to the ACA. The insurance offered was very expensive. I know this from experience. I chose to go without insurance because I couldn’t afford what was offered. No I do not defend the ACA. It is even more expensive. But I fear that we will go back to high risk pools, which do not work. Been there, done that.
They're not cars either, but insurance is insurance.
I don’t think that is true. If, for example, you are interested in coverage by Blue Cross and you live in Georgia, you can’t apply for coverage from Blue Cross of North Carolina. And the terms, conditions, and premiums of the Blue Cross plans in the two states (or any two states) are state-specific.
My point is that high risk pools are a bad idea.
***********************************
Well, than you are not going to be happy with the new health care plan, because that is Trump’s idea too.
No I am not arguing for the RAT position. But I am speaking from experience. What I described as what happened to me prior to the ACA. I had insurance, lost my job through no fault of my own, my cobra ran out, and are applied for insurance immediately. It was denied by four different insurance companies and I was directed to seek insurance through a high risk state pool. When I did, I found that the premiums were incredibly high, much like those that we find with the ACA today. I do not defend the ACA, and I do not believe in single player. But I also do not believe in high risk pools. Been there, done that.
I can only speak from experience and say that he is wrong if that is, indeed, his position. We will have to wait and see.
The fix seems pretty simple: Provide a limited window for health insurance with no pre-existing condition exclusion. Get in before the deadline and all is well. Miss the deadline, take your chances, because pre-existing conditions need NOT be covered after that date.
If insurance is dressed in shorts, anyone should be able to buy it without being shoved arbitrarily into a high risk pool.
Unfortunately, it’s not that easy to repeal it and replace later. In the past most people got insurance thru their employer. Then with obamacare, employers found that if they cut everyone to 30 hours, their employees can get their insurance thru the marketplace. Many employers no longer offer health benefits. What happens then?
This monster called obamacare will be alot more difficult to rid ourselves.
You tried every one of them?
Did you apply for regular coverage with more than one company? Do you work? Can you participate in a group?
Uninsured?
If you think HRP premiums are high, just wait till you break a bone, get beat up by a BLM freak, or pay for a colonoscopy.
I can only speak from experience and say that he is wrong if that is, indeed, his position. We will have to wait and see.
*********************************
It is his position. He has said it multiple times. However, whether it becomes part of the new law will remain to be seen.
That is so clever and humorous that it makes me pee all over myself.
My solution is simpler: (1) allow anyone, no matter what their medical condition, to purchase inexpensive catastrophic insurance, which covers nothing except disaster: falling off a ladder, cancer, getting hit by a falling tree, etc. That is not possible under the ACA, nor was it possible just prior to the ACA, although it was possible many years ago.
Also, (2) all small businesses should be allowed to group together to form their own pools, thereby spreading risk, enabling them to offer group insurance. If that were the case, almost everybody would have access to insurance. Normally people with group insurance are not scrutinized too closely for pre-existing conditions.
I will despair if it does.
Ok, lets define the problem well.
1) We cannot provide 100% Health coverage for 100% of the population. But no one can say this.
2) Health coverage has always been, is and will always be rationed.
3) The question is who decides? The government, insurance companies, you and I? Others?
Discuss among your selves............................
Yes, your anecdotal evidence carries so much more value than that of millions of Americans in most states, and over decades of practice.
By the way, how much per month were your HRP premiums?
and say that he is wrong if that is, indeed, his position.
It is his position, and that is actually free market reform.
We will have to wait and see.
There's nothing wrong with unlimited underwriting and properly structured HRPs.
Yes I tried to every one of them, as there was only one state high risk pool. But was denied coverage by four companies for absolutely no good reason. I don’t I could not even buy catastrophic insurance. As for the cost, well, if you can’t afford it at $700 a month then you can’t afford it at $1000, so what’s the difference?
Your first comment is too smirky for me to bother replying. All I know is what I went through as an individual.
Therein lies the problem with pre-existing conditions. It was never a cost factor in health insurance, until, zerOcare made it a factor. Insurance has had to factor it in retroactively with accompanying cost increases. It was an ill-conceived idea that was never thought through. But, then zerOcare was a hodgepodge of liberal wet dreams.
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.