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

Skip to comments.

Don't be fooled on pre-existing conditions here are the facts and how it will affect you
People In Charge of Change ^ | 5/6/2017 | Jason Wisneiwski

Posted on 05/07/2017 1:33:44 PM PDT by taildragger

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 next last
To: marktwain

Theoretically, this should induce inflation, but we are not seeing anything like what the theorists would have predicted.


Because it’s spread out throughout the world. When they see the U.S. print money, they print money and benefit their cronies as well. When you consider that, it can be predicted it will take longer.

If that is ever stopped purposefully, the economy will see a renaissance not seen in decades.


61 posted on 05/07/2017 8:02:13 PM PDT by TTFX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
I wouldn't have thought that establishing an expensive entitlement like a high-risk pool was a particularly Conservative act.

Well, it's not an "entitlement", that would be MediCaid, which is medical-welfare. But rather, a High Risk Pool Association is a insurance-like financial structure, that can be completely sustained by private funding once established by the state. HRP patients should be paying a premium just like anyone else.

Done properly, it's not even expensive, however, just like an insurer, a lot of money will flow through it.

The reality is, that there will be relatively few patients in the HRP at a time.

Actually it IS a "conservative act" in that it's in the best interest of the insured community AND the carriers, by keeping premiums/claims low, and enrollment high. Most of the HRP states were Red states.

Of course everything I said above could be all mucked up since it is now in the hands of Congress, but MS, NH and many other states managed to get it right.

62 posted on 05/07/2017 8:05:56 PM PDT by ROCKLOBSTER (The fear of stark justice sends hot urine down their thighs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: taildragger
In conclusion this bill stops robbing Peter to pay Paul. It is much more fair in its pricing laws and it ensures every American has access to health insurance without a heavy emphasis on redistributing wealth and rewarding bad behavior. This bill rewards responsible behavior while still protecting our most vulnerable.

Who has a problem with that?

63 posted on 05/07/2017 8:15:03 PM PDT by gogeo (When your life is based on a false premise...you are indeed insane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tac Double Tap

Pretty inflammatory statement. Care to explain?


64 posted on 05/07/2017 8:16:07 PM PDT by gogeo (When your life is based on a false premise...you are indeed insane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER
So who told you they would be unaffordable premiums....and why shouldn't you pay more....it's not insurance, and you're going to be making $100,000 plus claims every year. To qualify for health insurance, you have to have good health to insure in the first place.

If they can't write a small check and get a large one in return, it's 'unfair'...and 'greedy'...and 'not who we are.'

Or something.

65 posted on 05/07/2017 8:22:08 PM PDT by gogeo (When your life is based on a false premise...you are indeed insane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76
Personally, I think there should be an insurance option where you pay for your own routine medical care out of pocket and only file a claim for a major event, like a surgery, having a baby, or getting treated for a major issue like cancer or heart disease.

Back before insurance got "fixed" that was a high deductible plan with an ISA kicker.

66 posted on 05/07/2017 8:27:36 PM PDT by gogeo (When your life is based on a false premise...you are indeed insane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: sportutegrl

Great deal for you.


67 posted on 05/07/2017 8:34:18 PM PDT by gogeo (When your life is based on a false premise...you are indeed insane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: gogeo
'not who we are'...Or something.

Yeah....what you said.

68 posted on 05/07/2017 8:36:21 PM PDT by ROCKLOBSTER (The fear of stark justice sends hot urine down their thighs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER
I don't support mandatory insurance coverage.

Unless there is a compelling societal argument, I would agree. I can agree with compelling drivers to carry liability insurance. Medical insurance, I'm not so sure.

69 posted on 05/07/2017 9:10:21 PM PDT by CommerceComet (Hillary: A unique blend of incompetence and corruption.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: CommerceComet
I can agree with compelling drivers to carry liability insurance. Medical insurance, I'm not so sure.

Allow me to reiterate: I don't support mandatory medical insurance coverage.

70 posted on 05/07/2017 9:25:33 PM PDT by ROCKLOBSTER (The fear of stark justice sends hot urine down their thighs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: taildragger

Was this information passed out to our wonderful, honest and non-partisan Press so they could inform the Public?

Did the Republicans hold a News Conference sharing this information point by point to refute the Propaganda being spewed by the Democrat Party?

Just askin’...


71 posted on 05/07/2017 9:44:02 PM PDT by Kickass Conservative (The way Liberals carry on about Deportation, you would think "Mexico" was Spanish for "Auschwitz".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CommerceComet

Why? It was decided that for society as a whole, it is better for everyone to have to pay a little bit more for auto insurance than to have someone suffer a catastrophic loss due to an uninsured driver.


As a risk for an activity. But note that the insurance even in your example is liability insurance...not mandatory coverage on your own car, or even on you.


72 posted on 05/07/2017 10:29:46 PM PDT by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ican'tbelieveit

We know what actual catastrophic care insurance costs...$50-100/month.

Unfortunately, except for a few religious groups, those have been made illegal.


73 posted on 05/07/2017 10:32:36 PM PDT by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: taildragger

Bookmark


74 posted on 05/07/2017 10:37:00 PM PDT by Chgogal (I will NOT submit, therefore, Jihadists hate me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kickass Conservative
Note this was an insurance guy from the private sector that obviously read the bill and correlated how it would effect his customers, aka something the "Stupid Party" is horrible and this is explaining cause and effect of what they do. That is a problem
75 posted on 05/08/2017 3:26:14 AM PDT by taildragger (Do you hear the people singing? The Song of Angry Men!....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER
Here was my understanding about pre-existing conditions:

Say you lose your job and your insurance and you continue coverage under COBRA and a year later, you get a new job that offers insurance. Because you have maintained coverage, the new ins. can't deny you because of a pre-existing condiition.

Say you lose your job and your insurance and you do not continue under COBRA. A year later, you get a new job and new insurance. Because you went a year without coverage, there was a penalty period of up to 6 months in which the new insurance would not cover the pre-existing condition. Once that period expired, the new insurance would then start covering the condition.

Depending on how long you were without insurance, the maximum penalty period was a year before the new insurance would start covering.

Am I wrong in the above?

76 posted on 05/08/2017 3:43:16 AM PDT by Hot Tabasco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER
Well, it's not an "entitlement", that would be MediCaid, which is medical-welfare. But rather, a High Risk Pool Association is a insurance-like financial structure, that can be completely sustained by private funding once established by the state. HRP patients should be paying a premium just like anyone else.

And just how is private funding going to sustain it? It didn't sustain the pools that existed before Obamacare, what will change now?

Done properly, it's not even expensive, however, just like an insurer, a lot of money will flow through it.

Please describe how a proper pool is done?

The reality is, that there will be relatively few patients in the HRP at a time.

But those that are there will cost a lot. Far more than can be funded by premiums alone.

77 posted on 05/08/2017 3:43:44 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: taildragger
In conclusion this bill stops robbing Peter to pay Paul.

First, this guy's a broker. He sells a PRODUCT and he has to MARKET his product. Using language like "robbing Peter to pay Paul" leads one to believe that by tossing anyone with a pre-existing condition out of the so-called "healthy" pools will dramatically reduce premiums for those healthy folks.

It won't.

I know two actuarial accountants and a number of health care administrators at Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Illinois and also HCSC (Health Care Services Corporation) the holding company for Blue Cross/Blue Shield.

Here's what they all tell me: Pre-Existing conditions aren't an issue for BC/BS.

Why?

Let's assume that the "4% of American's have pre-existing conditions" argument is true.

That means 96% of American's covered by private insurance are "suffering" some form of financial penalty for those that have a pre-existing condition today.

Also not true.

According to the folks I talk to who do the accounting for and manage healthcare plans pre-existing conditions affect premiums for everyone else by pennies to a few bucks per month per policy holder.

What really affects the cost of health care?

Uninsured. No surprise. Those who have no coverage and show up in emergency rooms - the most expensive place to receive health care.

Government regulation. Again, no surprise.

Defensive medicine. Really? Who'd have thunk it! Doctors who have to order every test under the sun to avoid a lawsuit.

Litigation. Here's a shocker, people sue for everything these days! (Article here on FR with a woman in Massachusetts suing Trump for loss of happiness...)

Malpractice Insurance. As a result of all the litigation, malpractice insurance experiences double-digit increases every year for almost every doctor in the country.

And then finally what no one seems to talk about: insurance write-downs which cause doctors, hospitals, etc.. to come back after you and I for the "uncovered" items healthcare insurance mysteriously doesn't pay for.

Are the "chronically ill" or those with pre-existing conditions really the ones driving up the premiums for the "healthy" folks?

Nope. They're not. And when those of you who are complaining the loudest don't see the YUUUUGE drops in your monthly premiums under TrumpCare you're being led to believe are there when everyone who has a pre-existing condition is kicked out of your insurance pool I have just three words for ya:

Told ya so.

Mark this post. It'll be true should TrumpCare ever come to pass.

78 posted on 05/08/2017 4:22:18 AM PDT by usconservative (When The Ballot Box No Longer Counts, The Ammunition Box Does. (What's In Your Ammo Box?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: taildragger
In conclusion this bill stops robbing Peter to pay Paul.

It's not hard to read the bill and understand it. It's not that long.

Having said that, he's a SALESMAN. He sells a product. He wants you to believe that the product he'll sell should Trumpcare ever come to pass will be the cheapest and best.

Typical salesman, IMO.

By the way he used talking points. I heard the exact same talking points repeatedly on talk radio here in the Chicago market over the weekend, notably on WGN and on WLS.

I doubt he actually "read" the bill, more than likely he based his write-up on the talking points. The same talking points Reince Priebus used on Fox News Sunday yesterday, BTW.

79 posted on 05/08/2017 4:27:34 AM PDT by usconservative (When The Ballot Box No Longer Counts, The Ammunition Box Does. (What's In Your Ammo Box?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76
Personally, I think there should be an insurance option where you pay for your own routine medical care out of pocket and only file a claim for a major event, like a surgery, having a baby, or getting treated for a major issue like cancer or heart disease.

I think they call that the Bronze plan. The cheapest Bronze plan in our community has ~$7K deductible.

80 posted on 05/08/2017 4:40:36 AM PDT by EVO X
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 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