Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Insurers Might Delay Covering Pre-Existing Conditions


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Insurers Might Delay Covering Pre-Existing Conditions Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Insurers Might Delay Covering Pre-Existing Conditions - 3/29/2010 12:15:37 PM   
Brain


Posts: 3792
Joined: 2/14/2007
Status: offline
This shows medical insurance companies at their worst.  Profit is more important than healthcare, greed is above need. This is what’s wrong with the American healthcare system,  profits interfere with healthcare delivery. Typical goals of such companies are to enhance shareholder value and patients are just customers.

Even after the welcome reforms the Obama administration enacted it still doesn't rid the system of the profit priority.

Insurers Might Delay Covering Pre-Existing Conditions

Despite the new health law, some insurers say they do not have to cover some children with pre-existing conditions yet.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/29/health/policy/29health.html?hp
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Insurers Might Delay Covering Pre-Existing Conditions - 3/29/2010 12:24:06 PM   
pahunkboy


Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline
what did you expect?

(in reply to Brain)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Insurers Might Delay Covering Pre-Existing Conditions - 3/29/2010 12:50:50 PM   
Arpig


Posts: 9930
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: Increasingly further from reality
Status: offline
Opens wallet and reaffirms his Health Card is there...smiles happily.

_____________________________

Big man! Pig Man!
Ha Ha...Charade you are!


Why do they leave out the letter b on "Garage Sale" signs?

CM's #1 All-Time Also-Ran


(in reply to pahunkboy)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Insurers Might Delay Covering Pre-Existing Conditions - 3/29/2010 12:53:01 PM   
ThatDamnedPanda


Posts: 6060
Joined: 1/26/2009
Status: offline
(Patiently waiting for one of the conservative posters to come along and bloviate about how important it is to the free market for insurance companies to maximize their profits....)




_____________________________

Panda, panda, burning bright
In the forest of the night
What immortal hand or eye
Made you all black and white and roly-poly like that?


(in reply to Arpig)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Insurers Might Delay Covering Pre-Existing Conditions - 3/29/2010 12:56:44 PM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline
The smart ones wont:)

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to ThatDamnedPanda)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Insurers Might Delay Covering Pre-Existing Conditions - 3/29/2010 1:01:11 PM   
Fellow


Posts: 1486
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline
According to the new rules the health insurance industry can charge people who do not meet their wellness guidelines double what they charge others. And, if you are older, they can charge triple.
So, many can not afford it despite not being denied.
Actually, the the health insurance providers can not afford to honor the pre-existing condition rule anyway without going broke unless the medical services providers will take part of the losses as salaries/
profit cut. It may be politically incorrect to go after doctors income (doctors are sacred?). Still, why are they making (as a median) about 40% more compared to other industrialized countries? So, the system needs to be reformed as a whole. Obamacare fixes too little. Insurance providers have been shown guilty of abuse but it is just one part of the whole picture. Funny how US Democrats fanatics are talking about "universal health care" law being passed as the major event.

(in reply to pahunkboy)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Insurers Might Delay Covering Pre-Existing Conditions - 3/29/2010 1:13:24 PM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

(Patiently waiting for one of the conservative posters to come along and bloviate about how important it is to the free market for insurance companies to maximize their profits....)


You are joking right?

This "Law" was representing as one thing by the "vote first and read later" group and turns out to be something else entirely.

As previously reported: The President must have been following that sage advice when he made these proclamations: Obama's public statements have conveyed the impression that the new protections for kids were more sweeping and straightforward.

"This is a patient's bill of rights on steroids," the president said Friday at George Mason University in Virginia. "Starting this year, thousands of uninsured Americans with pre-existing conditions will be able to purchase health insurance, some for the very first time. Starting this year, insurance companies will be banned forever from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions."

And Saturday, addressing House Democrats as they approached a make-or-break vote on the bill, Obama said, "This year ... parents who are worried about getting coverage for their children with pre-existing conditions now are assured that insurance companies have to give them coverage -- this year."

Now you want to put the blame on the out of power and out of ability to change the result - Republicans? For what - convincing the Democratic leadership to "vote and not read"? To not go to Easter recess and make sure this mistake didn't occur? Who made those decisions?


The fact that the insurance companies HAVE read the Law and are reacting accordingly is not a problem with the insurance companies - it's a problem with those who didn't read, or like the President apparently, didn't appreciate the timetable of the Law's implementation.

I must say - nice spin by 'Pravda' (aka NY Times) but Obamism policies, like 'CHANGE', closing Gitmo, "transparency", 5-Day Bill Reading before signature, open bureaucratic appointments and vetting; point to a track record of never delivering what's expected.

This has nothing to do with the "free market" it has everything to do with a law more pointed to creating, temporally or long term, another industry, Health Care, getting government welfare supported by a naive and ill informed public. Why should the insurance companies offer what is not required? Or if they do, why not offer it at any rate they determine through the resulting underwriting actuarial calculations? You want to see "free market" - watch the increased rates coming out after considering the 'no maximum' provisions of the law.

This is my favorite quote from the NY Times: "The authors of the law say they meant to ban all forms of discrimination..." Yeah - I "meant" to have hair on my head - it just didn't work out that way~! I guess the choice in November will be to vote them out for being too stupid to deliver a Law that they didn't mean to or one they didn't read.

Someone is surprised?

You must be kidding! Right?

(in reply to ThatDamnedPanda)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Insurers Might Delay Covering Pre-Existing Conditions - 3/29/2010 1:15:55 PM   
Moonhead


Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fellow
Still, why are they making (as a median) about 40% more compared to other industrialized countries?

Because your country finds it cheaper to do that and import doctors from elsewhere than it is train them domestically.

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to Fellow)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Insurers Might Delay Covering Pre-Existing Conditions - 3/29/2010 1:43:25 PM   
Fellow


Posts: 1486
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline
quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fellow
Still, why are they making (as a median) about 40% more compared to other industrialized countries?

Moonhead:
Because your country finds it cheaper to do that and import doctors from elsewhere than it is train them domestically.


I do not see the point. Are you suggesting the current medical doctor's salary is a minimum wage US citizen would agree to work as a doctor? 

(in reply to Moonhead)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Insurers Might Delay Covering Pre-Existing Conditions - 3/29/2010 2:02:50 PM   
Moonhead


Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline
No, I'm saying it's a more than they could make working as a Doctor somewhere else. Medical staff are like sheetrock or cars: you're not producing enough domestically and have to import them from elsewhere, dig?

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to Fellow)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: Insurers Might Delay Covering Pre-Existing Conditions - 3/29/2010 3:38:39 PM   
ThatDamnedPanda


Posts: 6060
Joined: 1/26/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

(Patiently waiting for one of the conservative posters to come along and bloviate about how important it is to the free market for insurance companies to maximize their profits....)


You are joking right?

This "Law" was representing as one thing by the "vote first and read later" group and turns out to be something else entirely....

Someone is surprised?

You must be kidding! Right?


Well... I'm being facetious. But I have no idea what you think I was saying. I can't find a single word in your post that has anything at all to do with what I said.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about here, Merc. Not everything necessarily fits into the "Obama bad, democrats liars, voters dumb" box, man.


_____________________________

Panda, panda, burning bright
In the forest of the night
What immortal hand or eye
Made you all black and white and roly-poly like that?


(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: Insurers Might Delay Covering Pre-Existing Conditions - 3/29/2010 4:14:14 PM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda
(Patiently waiting for one of the conservative posters to come along and bloviate about how important it is to the free market for insurance companies to maximize their profits....)


You are joking right?

This "Law" was representing as one thing by the "vote first and read later" group and turns out to be something else entirely....
Someone is surprised?
You must be kidding! Right?

Well... I'm being facetious. But I have no idea what you think I was saying. I can't find a single word in your post that has anything at all to do with what I said.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about here, Merc. Not everything necessarily fits into the "Obama bad, democrats liars, voters dumb" box, man.


My error Panda, I thought your response pointed to a "free market" and Insurance Company profits on this topic was your suspected reasoning behind Insurance Companies delaying inclusion of pre-existing conditions. If it wasn't then I don't understand, or at minimum, don't appreciate the facetiousness of your comment. My response was to point out that neither "free market" or "profits" has anything to do with it. The pre-existing exclusion does not become law immediately as the President and Congress realized - after the fact.

While the President and Congress can't represent accurately the requirement under the law - why should the insurance companies interpret in a way detrimental to themselves? Whether the inability to know what is in the Law speaks to "Obama bad, Democrats liars..."; it would seem the result, or in the case of pre-existing conditions lack of resulting change, speak to that point. "Good or bad" is a qualitative judgment. However the facts regarding the law being in contradiction to the direct quotes from the President are not in question. Obama made his speech representing the Bill after it was passed. Which Obama image do you want; the one that didn't know what was in the Bill he signed, or the one where he straight out lied about the immediate impact? Is there another option?

Regarding the other point - In your opinion how much longer do you think it will take before 'faith based' voting, party or individual, would be considered "dumb"? Personally, and confirmed by many examples of such on CM, we passed the 'dumb voter' benchmark about a generation ago.

(in reply to ThatDamnedPanda)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: Insurers Might Delay Covering Pre-Existing Conditions - 3/29/2010 8:34:46 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
You are moving to Italy, right?

You do realize Italy has national health care?

As far as health care is concerned, Italy ranks No. 2 on the World Health Organization's list of top countries for quality health care services (by contrast, the U.S. only holds 37th place, despite being the highest spender). However, although medical facilities are considered to be adequate for any emergencies, many public hospitals are overcrowded and underfunded.

Italy has a national health plan ( servizio sanitario nazionale), which provides for hospital and medical benefits. U.S. and Canadian citizens who are legally resident in Italy can apply to join the plan. Eligibility for the plan depends on certain criteria (e.g., your nationality, work permit).

If you are a resident of Italy and covered by the national health plan, hospital services will be provided to you and your dependents free of charge. Visitors, or persons not enrolled under such a plan, are expected to pay full hospital charges and then claim a reimbursement from their insurance provider. In case of an emergency, head for the nearest hospital. Most general and regional hospitals have emergency rooms ( pronto soccorso ), which are open 24 hours a day. To call an ambulance, dial 118 (toll free) from any telephone in Italy. Help can also be sought through the police, by dialing 113, which is equivalent to 911 in the U.S.


http://www.internationalliving.com/Countries/Italy/Health-Care

I found this all rather interesting.

< Message edited by tazzygirl -- 3/29/2010 9:14:40 PM >


_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: Insurers Might Delay Covering Pre-Existing Conditions - 3/30/2010 7:25:25 AM   
housesub4you


Posts: 1879
Joined: 4/2/2008
Status: offline
Well they also claim they have to raise rates now because of the new law and the taxes they have to pay.  They fail to mention that the new taxes do not start until 2014 and they will be phased in.  http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/29/ron-williams-premiums/


Nor do they point out what the new taxes really are, take AT&T and the other 4 big business whining, the other day they where all over TV about having to take 1 Billion in cash down because of the new laws. 

What they failed to mention is that for every single dollar they spent on medicaid prescriptions (the reason for the cash thing) they received every single dollar back in a tax break, and in 2003 through today they also got a subsidy of 28 cents for every single dollar they spent.  So in reality they got 128% of their money back in a tax break and cash.

The new "tax" takes away the 28 cents subsidy  Do you get to claim 128% of your prescriptions on your taxes? Or even get to claim 100% of them?

plus they made it sound like it was taking effect today when in fact it takes effect in 2014 and they have 30 years to take the cash paydown

(in reply to Brain)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: Insurers Might Delay Covering Pre-Existing Conditions - 3/30/2010 8:14:28 AM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
quote:

You are moving to Italy, right?

You do realize Italy has national health care?
What's the matter - the facts I presented can't be argued so you want to bring in something irrelevant by way of distraction? Start a new topic if you like to focus on Italy and my pending relocation.

The issue here is the passage of Bill that wasn't read by those who voted upon it and was rushed though so they didn't have to address it with the people they allegedly represent.

Based on this thread, the people don't understand it, its impact, or the timing of key aspects. However, they share that perspective with the President who either was lying to his audience about when the pre-existing exclusion would apply or had no idea of the timing in the Bill he signed.

Maybe he should have listened to his own advice and kept at least one campaign promise that he was going to wait 5 days before signing any Bill into law so that all its provisions, especially key ones like the pre existing exemption, would become Law. However even that criticism seems to be too harsh for his apologists, who try, as in the case of this thread, blame the industry expected to facilitate the application of 2000+ page Law. Maybe if some of the pork and special backroom deals weren't needed as bribes for votes the Law could have been four lines long; No pre-existing exclusion for coverage - No policy Maximum - Employers MUST provide coverage for all full and part time workers - Unemployed will be covered by Medicare. But no - special interest and corporate welfare had to be considered and this Law is the result. it is a bad law. It is not a first step, or even a path for achieving what Italy and many other countries have in place. I don't understand why because of the political party represented by this President that it, and he, are being given credit and see this as an accomplishment. More government money going to an industry, less incentive for businesses to expand and hire workers, current tax revenue sources being further compromised, and another unfunded entitlement program established.

I'm glad you are so concerned about how the local Health care will impact me after I relocate. Of course I am aware of Italy's health care situation. I'm also VERY aware of the Italian legal system, education system, political system, and bureaucracy. It's different, some better, some worse; however getting closer to the move, I ran my taxes within the Italian system and you want to know what else Italy offers me - lower taxes. Also after 2010, they have a major advantage regarding the inheritance tax. Their rate is inconsequential compared to the US. I won't be penalized for succeeding in being able to save money and pass it on to my family after I die. Feel free to pass on more so I can check up on the work I and my accountant have already completed. I'm heading back at the end of May, so try and have it completed by then.

None of this has to do with this new Health Care Law, the poor manner it which it was put together, the way it does not address the fundamental issues, or how this Administration misrepresented it to the public.

< Message edited by Mercnbeth -- 3/30/2010 8:16:08 AM >

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: Insurers Might Delay Covering Pre-Existing Conditions - 3/30/2010 8:15:51 AM   
pahunkboy


Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline
I got a robo call today asking me to thank my rep for his vote.

I find that peculiar.

(in reply to housesub4you)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: Insurers Might Delay Covering Pre-Existing Conditions - 3/30/2010 1:05:36 PM   
ThatDamnedPanda


Posts: 6060
Joined: 1/26/2009
Status: offline


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
Regarding the other point - In your opinion how much longer do you think it will take before 'faith based' voting, party or individual, would be considered "dumb"? Personally, and confirmed by many examples of such on CM, we passed the 'dumb voter' benchmark about a generation ago.


Oh, we are definitely way past that point. A generation sounds about right, depending on how you define the term. I'd say roughly around the early 80s was about the time elections began to be primarily about ideology rather than issues. Sometime around the first term of Reagan was where the road first began to fork, and the change in course was unmistakable by the early 90s.

This polarization is one of the reasons I have no hope that this country will ever reverse the course we're on. As an electorate, we have lost the ability to evaluate issues on the basis of their individual merits, or candidates outside the narrow context of their party affiliation. It doesn't matter anymore how carefully a candidate explains their position or breaks down the details of any particular issue, because too many people just don't know how to hear that anymore. So candidates don't bother, because it's actually reached a point where you're probably going to lose the election if you do. Too many people want to hear how bad/stupid/evil the other candidate is, and that's pretty much all they're listening for. If you don't speak to that, they don't hear you.

It's natural and predictable that on any list of 10 given issues, most liberals are probably going to break mostly in one direction on most of them, and most conservatives are going to break mostly the other way on most of the issues. That's because people on different sides of the fence really do think differently in some key ways, and prioritize things differently. That's a good thing, because a healthy political system depends on the balance between these different prioritizations and ways of thinking.

It's understandable, for example, that liberals who study the issue are more likely to (in general terms) support national health care, because that fits with the way that liberals tend to prioritize things. As they analyze it and evaluate it, they're looking for things to like about it, and if they find enough things that meet their priorities, they're probably going to wind up favoring the proposal. But if you reach the point where a majority of liberals support a national health care plan simply because they're liberals, and they don't even care what it says, that's where the balance no longer works. Or even exists. It's understandable that most conservatives are going to support strong military action against Iraq, because that fits their belief in a strong defense. But when you reach a point where a majority of conservatives support military action in Iraq simply because we've got to do something to someone somewhere, and they don't even listen to any of the arguments against that action or in favor of a different course of action, the balance is not working.

And that's where our country is now. The majority of people on both sides seem to have lost the ability to judge issues on their own merits, and depend almost exclusively on their ideology to tell them what to do. I understand that this trait has always been present to some degree in American politics, but this is the first time in my life that it is the overwhelmingly dominant - even defining - characteristic. I don't see a way out, because as far as the politicians are concerned, this is working just fine. It makes their jobs much easier, and they're going to keep working it as long as it works. Until someone can give me some reason to believe there's a way to make it not work anymore (I mean, beyond vague assurances that some day we'll all get tired enough of it that we'll stand up and demand change, or whatever), I'm going to keep believing that this country has already driven over the edge of the cliff, and the only thing left to be resolved is where we land and when.


_____________________________

Panda, panda, burning bright
In the forest of the night
What immortal hand or eye
Made you all black and white and roly-poly like that?


(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: Insurers Might Delay Covering Pre-Existing Conditions - 3/30/2010 1:19:09 PM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline
quote:

Oh, we are definitely way past that point. A generation sounds about right...

...I'm going to keep believing that this country has already driven over the edge of the cliff, and the only thing left to be resolved is where we land and when.


Panda -

I can't find even a misplaced comma in what you wrote to argue. (I HATE it when that happens!) Thanks for taking the time to clarify - take care!

PS - You coming back to CA for vacation again this year? I thought I remember you saying that you were considering relocating? If so, bring money - CA needs it!

(in reply to ThatDamnedPanda)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: Insurers Might Delay Covering Pre-Existing Conditions - 3/30/2010 1:25:44 PM   
brainiacsub


Posts: 1209
Joined: 11/11/2007
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline
I pretty much agree with this...all of it.

Next stop...dictatorship. Historically, most democracies only last a few hundred years anyway, and we are no exception. When the people can vote themselves more and more services and/or vote to exclude more and more people to the point of total economic and/or societal collapse, then it will take something drastic to right the ship. That usually takes the form of a dictatorship model.

I give us 100 more years...tops.

< Message edited by brainiacsub -- 3/30/2010 1:27:08 PM >

(in reply to ThatDamnedPanda)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: Insurers Might Delay Covering Pre-Existing Conditions - 3/30/2010 1:28:56 PM   
ThatDamnedPanda


Posts: 6060
Joined: 1/26/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

Oh, we are definitely way past that point. A generation sounds about right...

...I'm going to keep believing that this country has already driven over the edge of the cliff, and the only thing left to be resolved is where we land and when.


Panda -

I can't find even a misplaced comma in what you wrote to argue. (I HATE it when that happens!) Thanks for taking the time to clarify - take care!


Oh, that's OK. I'm sure someone else will come along and pick it apart!



quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
PS - You coming back to CA for vacation again this year? I thought I remember you saying that you were considering relocating? If so, bring money - CA needs it!


Well, I'm in a state of flux. As of October last, I was planning another 3 week trip this month, and a move to CA no later than May. But my knee blew out in December, and I've been in limbo waiting to see if i need an immediate  replacement. It looks as though I may have dodged that bullet for the time being, but I don't know for sure yet, and the whole thing has created a lot of insurance-related difficulties. It looks as though the safe thing to do is stay in Minnesota and get my insurance stabilized, because now this is a pre-existing condition.

Looks like the move will have to wait a year, and I don't know about vacations because I'm doing physical therapy pretty much constantly in order to avoid having the replacement surgery. I don't want to come all the way out there if I can't walk more than a few blocks.  I've got no firm plans, but hope to get out there for at least one more vacation this year if the opportunity presents itself and I'm in a position to react quickly. I've got my fingers crossed for Folsom!


_____________________________

Panda, panda, burning bright
In the forest of the night
What immortal hand or eye
Made you all black and white and roly-poly like that?


(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Insurers Might Delay Covering Pre-Existing Conditions Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109