- 2,908
Any Change's Not Till 2013???
- Thread starter Crapgame44
- Start date
- 990
A coverage mandate is the only proposal put forth so far that makes any sense.
But "Yoda" or Atlanta or …, that in and of itself won't get it.
Also, try and understand the risk / financial dynamic? We can debate that "95%" claim but, a 20 something costs any where from 60 – 100 per month to insure. A healthy older person or a family is more like 400 - $800 per month, (double that if there is pre ex.) so is forcing a few kids to pony up really relevant?
Sure, those that can, should, but, alone that won't do it.
Seal the borders, get the tort reform reasonable along with said mandate and you might have something.
Again, instead of addressing these issues one at a time and actually trying to "reform" or help the situation, they are just trying to ram through an open ended 1000 page bill in an attempt to have the control to do whatever they please when the current private system implodes due to lack of "reform." Your current govt. is not trying to help this country as a whole, they are trying to take over, that's all. The current private system needs reformation, not obliteration and replacement. If that happens then people like you will really have something to wail about. I can hear it now. "Damn greedy for profit insurance companies ... they ruined everything ... it wasn't so bad before ..."
Last edited:
There are 2 problems with the mandate argument.... (actually more, but we'll stick with 2)
- For the 20 something, who was paying $0 previously for health insurance and not using any health care, they are now paying a LOT more. Yes, in fact, their rates went up. If they did use health care without insurance, they were sent the bill.
- The numbers don't add up. Adding a mandate, requiring everyone to have health insurance, and having guaranteed issue has been shown that it will INCREASE utilization of healthcare, causing an increase in rates. Don't take my word for it, start reading the CBO reports among many others.
Beyond this, there are the problems of the 20 somethings being the ones who will be on the subsidies, and instead of paying into the system, will actually drain the system. There are also issues of whether states rights should prevail, or if its even constitutional for a mandate.
There are many changes needed, no doubt. The problem is, congress is trying to solve medicares insolvency, passing it off as health care reform, then saying it's the insurers fault. If they focused on the problem they are trying to solve, it would be easier.
Dan
- For the 20 something, who was paying $0 previously for health insurance and not using any health care, they are now paying a LOT more. Yes, in fact, their rates went up. If they did use health care without insurance, they were sent the bill.
- The numbers don't add up. Adding a mandate, requiring everyone to have health insurance, and having guaranteed issue has been shown that it will INCREASE utilization of healthcare, causing an increase in rates. Don't take my word for it, start reading the CBO reports among many others.
Beyond this, there are the problems of the 20 somethings being the ones who will be on the subsidies, and instead of paying into the system, will actually drain the system. There are also issues of whether states rights should prevail, or if its even constitutional for a mandate.
There are many changes needed, no doubt. The problem is, congress is trying to solve medicares insolvency, passing it off as health care reform, then saying it's the insurers fault. If they focused on the problem they are trying to solve, it would be easier.
Dan
- 3,863
Considering my average annual premium is not much higher than that, some policies might be FREE! LOL. Pipe dream.
Look anyone who thinks a $250 or even $750 penalty for not having insurance is going to offset Guaranteed Issue with NO waiting periods is nuts.
The bottom line unless they put a 6 or 12 month pre ex for gaps in coverage, people will once again simply not buy insurance because the penalty is so cheap. Need we compare this to auto insurance?
Pre ex waiting periods are completely 100% off the table with this administration. All current proposals state you buy insurance you get covered, from day one, no wait, no problem - sounds great, but it is not going to work.
You're living in a fantasy world....
- 3,863
Work a few thousand leads with me and see if you still have this opinion.
- 990
- 291
There has got to be statistical analysis studies on the categories of insured/uninsured, besides the 47 M that's being thrown around. We have the uninsured who can afford it and decide not to have it, those that are uninsurable and have to buy crap indemnity policies (anything is better than nothing I suppose), and the young, who with a minimal amount monthly < $100/mo can at least get catastrophic coverage.
IMO it's clear that all rates would have to increase. The risk pool will take in the preferreds and the uninsurables, but medical costs from one uninsurable could potentially wipe out the savings from 4-5 (you pick the number) of preferreds. So in order for that equation to work, you would need to have 10 preferreds (again you pick the #) for every uninsurable with a pre-ex. This may not be the exact ratio, but just to illustrate my point.
Then there is the rising costs from medical facilities and practitioners, and let's not forget the legal/tort portion, which is not even being addressed as far as I know. New advances in science come at a price. New medications that come to market require years of research testing, which have to be paid by the pharmaceutical and biologic private entities that need to recoup that investment. Yes, it increases life and quality of life, but someone has to got to pay for it. Ideally, I would like to see everyone get medical care, but realistically with the current system's annual rate increases averaging 15%-17% or more, where would this GI program lead us? Again, no scientific hard facts, but generally bandied about figures. How much higher will initial rates have to be increased, and what kind of annual increases will we see in the future?
That's the reason many people are up in arms over this issue. Costs are going to go higher, much higher if the Gov'mt gets into this, and medical care services are going to decrease. If you still want to argue the opposite, then GOD bless you brother, but let's talk about it now before we go over this cliff. This problem will not be solved in this forum...or maybe it will...but I'm willing to bet Congress can't do it, but it sure as hell won't keep them from trying. That's what they do best outside of lunch and dinner.
Take this punch bowl away...please.
Alph-red-o
IMO it's clear that all rates would have to increase. The risk pool will take in the preferreds and the uninsurables, but medical costs from one uninsurable could potentially wipe out the savings from 4-5 (you pick the number) of preferreds. So in order for that equation to work, you would need to have 10 preferreds (again you pick the #) for every uninsurable with a pre-ex. This may not be the exact ratio, but just to illustrate my point.
Then there is the rising costs from medical facilities and practitioners, and let's not forget the legal/tort portion, which is not even being addressed as far as I know. New advances in science come at a price. New medications that come to market require years of research testing, which have to be paid by the pharmaceutical and biologic private entities that need to recoup that investment. Yes, it increases life and quality of life, but someone has to got to pay for it. Ideally, I would like to see everyone get medical care, but realistically with the current system's annual rate increases averaging 15%-17% or more, where would this GI program lead us? Again, no scientific hard facts, but generally bandied about figures. How much higher will initial rates have to be increased, and what kind of annual increases will we see in the future?
That's the reason many people are up in arms over this issue. Costs are going to go higher, much higher if the Gov'mt gets into this, and medical care services are going to decrease. If you still want to argue the opposite, then GOD bless you brother, but let's talk about it now before we go over this cliff. This problem will not be solved in this forum...or maybe it will...but I'm willing to bet Congress can't do it, but it sure as hell won't keep them from trying. That's what they do best outside of lunch and dinner.
Take this punch bowl away...please.
Alph-red-o
Similar threads
