If Obama Does Not Get Office Again?

[somarco]

It was a choice for her father to drop the policy but did she have a voice in that decision? And I'm sorry but it is indeed exactly why we needed change.

Then we will have to disagree.

The father OPTED out of COBRA.

At that point, either the father or the daughter could have picked up an inexpensive plan on the daughter BEFORE the accident.

Obamacrap will not change this and was not intended to make up for a judgement lapse.

 

[Crabcake Johnny]

.....you mean unless her father (my brother in law) is an alcoholic who doesn't stay in touch with his daughter so she didn't know she didn't have coverage?

Your turn. I warned there was some really personal info here.

 

[somarco]

Please sections out the part of Obamacrap that improve personal judgement and responsibility, cure alcoholism, eliminate divorce, create jobs (except for the IRS), put more money in the pockets of the general population and lowers health insurance premiums.

 

[Ann H]

Okay, Healthagent, you're a hard person to argue with. The last time we argued, I said, "you're right", which made your day! Remember?

However, I think your viewpoint of this example is too personal for you to see clearly. In your first post you said your niece was 24, and your brother-in-law lost his job with insurance 2 years ago. That means she was 22 when she lost insurance and 23 when she had an uninsured injury. Obamacare wasn't enacted at that time, so there's no way her coverage would have gone to age 26. Unless she was in college full-time, she was probably not eligible for very long anyway. You said that she worked for a restaurant without benefits, so it appears that she might not have been in college anyway (not sure about that, though). My point is that she knew, or maybe should have known that she didn't have coverage. Her mom probably knew, or should have suspected. If the insurance company had her current address, they probably sent a COBRA notification letter to your niece, in addition to one to her dad.

Here's my point (although I'm sure you'll trash my point, and be quite successful at it to boot!). The taxpayer isn't here to bail out every 24 year old child of an alcoholic who didn't know she had an exposure. It's a tragedy. I have no argument with that. No 24 year old should go through that. But why is a 24 year old relying on daddy to insure her? Why are we expecting the government to do it? I disagree that this is the "change" we need. Yes, we need change, but not taxpayer funding of irresponsibility.

In another thread entitled "Humana Won't Cover Maternity", you said, There's four of us and our father had a rule - out of high school = out of the house. Period. There was no discussion. Of course, this was a man who was married at 19 to my mom who was 18 at the time. Different day and age.

But, we had choices:
1) College and board
2) Job and apartment
3) Military

My oldest brother went to college and boarded. I went into the military and both of my sisters chose job and apartment. My dad would kick in to help on rent from time to time if money got tight but it was no option for them to stay at home. When my son gets out of high school he'll have those same choices. He will not be in the house. I'm not sure what a 20 year old learns by not learning to live in the world. "

 

[Crabcake Johnny]

I see the point but I think you're missing my broader point.

Years ago most people had jobs that provided coverage. Not only where they provided coverage but so where their dependents - and it was affordable.

All that factors that led up to where are are now are irrelevant, but those days are over.

With less people able to obtain group coverage there's more focus on the individual market. Responsible people would love to buy coverage but can't due to certain conditions.

Typically there are federal and local safety nets. In this case, depending on the state there were none. No group + condition = no coverage options - period.

So my larger point was the free market failed, states failed and it was left up to the feds.

It should have never got to this point - IMHO. I've only sold health since 2003 but have seen the "pump and dump" long enough - bring families in at $350 a month and 4 years later it's over $700 in a deliberate attempt to dump off the old block in favor of freshly underwritten business. If costs REALLY went up 15% per year then a new policy for a family for four could cost around $8,000 a month. Start at $300 a month, add 15% and do that for 30 years - tell me what you come up with to expose this blatant industry lie.

I'm not sure the carriers knew how long they were going to get away with that kind of bunk but it's coming to an end:

Maine High Court Affirms State's Rejection of Anthem Health Insurance Rate Hike; Consumers... -- WASHINGTON, April 26, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- - Anthem just tried to jack everyone 18.5% and the DOI said "prove it." Anthem couldn't so only 10% was approved. They appealed and lost. Good.

 

[aheff]

No...not change like we got. But the national pool? Yes. Remember, the free market had no solution and most states didn't offer a risk pool. The free market's solution for my mild (and mild doesn't even cover it. Super mild) case of acne rosacea was a rate up.

Really? A rate up? My treatment is soap. Yes...soap without perfumes. The UW asked about my treatment and I said "Dove." She DRILLED me about it for 10 solid minutes hoping and praying she could come up with something. Nodda. I use soap.

However, the kiss of death? What had all the UW's fainting? I tried Metrogel for a week 6 years ago which is a prescription and ditched it. HOLY SH*T? I used a $30 drug for a week 6 year ago? Well screw that - policy rated. Justifiable? No. But that's our free market answer.

So when the free market craps out and the states crap out then it's up to the government. However, why can't we simply stop at the risk pool. Seems to solve pretty much everything.

healthagent-
Concerning the acne, did you go to another carrier?

 

[Crabcake Johnny]

Another carrier would have excluded the condition but the other carrier was less expensive, even with the rate increase.

 

[somarco]

And Obamacrap is going to cover everyone for everything they have or want, do it for less money AND balance the budget.

This is a solution?

 

[Crabcake Johnny]

Again - the point was missed. Why do we need to go beyond the nat'l risk pool? Doesn't that solve pretty much everything? I think it does. We didn't need PPCA - only the national pool.

 

[HealthGuy]

Unfortunately John as you know with the Obamination health bill we got the national risk pool and a whole lot more Bs...Seriously folks how Fed up is this health bill?