So I was debating with someone about the ACA. He says his premium went up because of the ACA. Its in the news that peoples insurance rates have gone up or their coverages have been reduced. Everyone places the blame on the ACA.
My question to them is: what was stopping insurance companies from increasing premiums and reducing coverage in the past?
The obvious answer is competition.
So now that the ACA is in place, wouldn't these insurance companies be competing against the ACA? Then why raise the premiums?
Let's keep this discussion civil without the name calling and party bashing.
The primary reason costs have gone up is that insurance companies are now required to cover people with preexisting conditions. These people cost more because they are more likely to need treatment, so this increases the cost of insurance for everyone.
There are likely other factors (such as regulatory inefficiency) contributing to rising costs, but this is the biggest factor.
The primary reason costs have gone up is that insurance companies are now required to cover people with preexisting conditions. These people cost more because they are more likely to need treatment, so this increases the cost of insurance for everyone.
There are likely other factors (such as regulatory inefficiency) contributing to rising costs, but this is the biggest factor.
No tjust that they are required to cover pre-existing conditions, but coverage for those people cannot exceed teh cost of covreagefor people without preexisting conditions by more than a set percetnage. So, in order to adequately cover the risk of a pre-existing condition, an insurance company has to charge everyone else more.
So now that the ACA is in place, wouldn't these insurance companies be competing against the ACA? Then why raise the premiums?
The premium increases aren't due to competition. Before, insurance companies could simply drop expensive individuals, they can't do that anymore.
Companies are still competing with one another, but to be perfectly honest 'competition' in the Insurance marketplace hasn't existed in the Libertarian fever dream sense of the word. Sure, there was some minor competition, but for the most part in each region one or two insurance companies dominate more than 60% of the market, with the rest not even coming close. 'The rest' mostly meaning self-insured employer plans, which don't really count much towards the competition because the only people with access are the employees, and all employees were already covered there (this is a large part of the reason business were given extra time to comply with the law). Because these insurance companies dominate, there is no incentive for them to negotiate prices with hospitals or the like, which is one of the many reasons healthcare costs are so high. The exchanges, at least, help to make the formerly opaque process more transparent.
The biggest problem with the ACA is that it didn't have a good way to control insurance costs, despite giving insurance companies a windfall of customers, the majority of which are actually young and without pre-existing conditions, so insurance companies have been able to charge whatever they want. And they started doing so well before people started enrolling. And there was also the unintended consequence that the sickest people immediately signed up, while all the previously uninsured youth were dragging their feet. We'll have to see the ramifications down the road. Pretty much everything we pay for right now in healthcare is inflated to ridiculous levels. The entire reason for rising costs is waaaay to complex for me to get into here, as it's about 9 college credits just to get a basic handle on the healthcare industry, but this will do for a short form. I highly recommend the Time article Bitter Pill. It's probably the most comprehensive layman's explanation out there (but it still clocks in at about 42 pages).
Insurance for pre-existing conditions is not insurance, its a subsidy. A subsisdy that everyone else has to pay for.
It always amuses me to read this, as if we weren't already paying this subsidy. I know it's not you or the American people's fault for being ignorant about healthcare (no one wants to think about it until they need it, after all), but we've have been paying the 'subsidy' for these people for the last 30+ years, thanks to EMTALA, rising bad debt and lowering medicare reimbursement (this isn't everything - just a couple choice reasons). We've been offsetting the cost of people with preexisting conditions for decades. I mean, what, did people think that uninsured individuals because of prexisting conditions have just been rolling over to die without insurance? Of course they haven't, they've been showing up the emergency departments for uncompensated treatment, they're making partial payments or declaring bankruptcy at ridiculous medical bills. It's just no longer an invisible cost. That said, hopefully this eventually translates into lower costs overall as these individuals get preventive care and are better able overall to manage their illness without leaving their illness until it becomes catastrophic and expensive. Again, I refer you to the Bitter Pill article. This is a fundamental problem with our healthcare system, not a result of Obamacare. It's just more obvious to people now because of Obamacare.
Premiums have been going up faster than inflation for the past 20 years. This last year, it was actually one of the lowest increases in a decade.
While this is true, it doesn't change the fact that the administration promised that premiums would actually go down. They didn't. In hindsight, they should have expected Insurance companies to further inflate, but what we really needed was comprehensive healthcare reform. The ACA is a bandaid that gives us another 10-15 years before catastrophe (usually meaning Medicaid/Medicare no longer being able to pay their bills, which when I was in school was estimated to be in the mid-2020s). The ACA is the starting point, but we'd need a full real overhaul of our healthcare and health insurance system to do so. Something that isn't going to happen so long as certain individuals remain under the delusion that healthcare is somehow a free market, despite the absence of information. In healthcare, the buyer is not the user, the user doesn't know what they're buying, and prices don't reflect supply and demand, nor are they open to negotiation most of the time, and the actual costs are frequently invisible to the consumer.
To give you an example of the absurdity of healthcare costs, I purchased an orthopedic surgical drill in the last few years. In terms of design, there was very little difference to your average $200 power drill from Home Depot. It cost $15,000. For another example, Doctors and Vets typically use a lot of the same drugs and supplies, but the same anesthetic will cost the 10x if the Doctor is the one using it, despite the drug being made in the same damn plant, the only difference is packaging.
It always amuses me to read this, as if we weren't already paying this subsidy. I know it's not you or the American people's fault for being ignorant about healthcare (no one wants to think about it until they need it, after all), but we've have been paying the 'subsidy' for these people for the last 30+ years, thanks to EMTALA, rising bad debt and lowering medicare reimbursement (this isn't everything - just a couple choice reasons). We've been offsetting the cost of people with preexisting conditions for decades. I mean, what, did people think that uninsured individuals because of prexisting conditions have just been rolling over to die without insurance? Of course they haven't, they've been showing up the emergency departments for uncompensated treatment, they're making partial payments or declaring bankruptcy at ridiculous medical bills. It's just no longer an invisible cost. That said, hopefully this eventually translates into lower costs overall as these individuals get preventive care and are better able overall to manage their illness without leaving their illness until it becomes catastrophic and expensive. Again, I refer you to the Bitter Pill article. This is a fundamental problem with our healthcare system, not a result of Obamacare. It's just more obvious to people now because of Obamacare.
While it seems like I was *****ing, it was not pointing out a problem but rather the characterization of the term insurance. The ACA just continues this ignorance you speak of with a lie about it being insurance, its just more obvious it's a subsidy but they call insurance. In my opinion, if we, as a society deem it an entitlement or right to have universal healthcare we need to eradicate insurance. Insurance is a lose/lose proposition for consumers. Profit is built in. Not only are you paying the doctors profit, your paying the insurance profit and the drug companies profit as well. The drugs companies a little more difficult to put into the governments hands because innovation is involved and profit definitely drives it. We do not call social security insurance for getting old.
While it seems like I was *****ing, it was not pointing out a problem but rather the characterization of the term insurance. The ACA just continues this ignorance you speak of with a lie about it being insurance, its just more obvious it's a subsidy but they call insurance. In my opinion, if we, as a society deem it an entitlement or right to have universal healthcare we need to eradicate insurance. Insurance is a lose/lose proposition for consumers. Profit is built in. Not only are you paying the doctors profit, your paying the insurance profit and the drug companies profit as well. The drugs companies a little more difficult to put into the governments hands because innovation is involved and profit definitely drives it. We do not call social security insurance for getting old.
I see what you're saying. You know, even your explanation doesn't get to the heart of it, really, because we're also paying the ridiculous profit that little medical device companies make, too. The problem is complex that even a 1,000 page bill barely scratches the surface and creates its own problems.
While it seems like I was *****ing, it was not pointing out a problem but rather the characterization of the term insurance. The ACA just continues this ignorance you speak of with a lie about it being insurance, its just more obvious it's a subsidy but they call insurance. In my opinion, if we, as a society deem it an entitlement or right to have universal healthcare we need to eradicate insurance. Insurance is a lose/lose proposition for consumers. Profit is built in. Not only are you paying the doctors profit, your paying the insurance profit and the drug companies profit as well. The drugs companies a little more difficult to put into the governments hands because innovation is involved and profit definitely drives it. We do not call social security insurance for getting old.
I see what you're saying. You know, even your explanation doesn't get to the heart of it, really, because we're also paying the ridiculous profit that little medical device companies make, too. The problem is complex that even a 1,000 page bill barely scratches the surface and creates its own problems.
This is why I'm always amused when people talk about it being a start. The entire premise of the solution is flawed so how does any law they create going to solve anything. It is a complex problem. However, I believe government can help with complex problems. Its why I'm so critical when they pass a haphazard bill like the ACA that not only violates peoples rights but mandates profit for certain people.
If the entitlement is affordable healthcare then attack where the profit is being made. Mandating coverage and balancing who pays for it does neither of these things. It just shifts money around. If its health care, provide healthcare.
After a while, I see this "Armageddon" to better come now than before I retire. Other nations who made this transition took about 10-15 years to work it's way through. I'm confident that through Democrat and Republican management over the long term will fix the issues along with a heavy conversation and a lot of capitalism finally looking at the costs of healthcare. Stop hiding it, make everyone bleed directly. I love it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Jay13x: "While this is true, it doesn't change the fact that the administration promised that premiums would actually go down."
Technically not 110% true, some of their quotes were that, some did accurately state "Premiums will be lower than they were projected to be without intervention" - which most sensible people did take to be the meaning of the other less clear version of the statement.
On packaging costs: If you want to be even more offended at price differences in packaging, look at veterinary packaged versions of things versus human ones. Horse nitroglycerin pills I know are identical to human besides a much larger (5x I think?) dosage but have a cost per pill under a penny while human ones are multiple dollars a pill.
[Note: Old school Vaclav - no clue why it's got me on my normal Curse account versus the MTG Salv acct I had.. not that it matters with how little I post now since I find the new format horrendous though]
But yes, tons of people, Obama included on a few occasions overabbreviated it to "Saving money on healthcare insurance rates" which definitely implies it was going to be a net savings not a savings versus future growth. But as demonstrated there, it was properly quoted at least on a few occasions - really felt like it was a rare occasion though when it was properly quoted however. (I'd guess by feel it was misquoted as the abbreviated form 80% of the time)
Wow, thanks for replying everyone. My mind is blown.
I like the idea of universal healthcare. I've seen it work in Asia (not talking about 3rd world witch doctors either). I've seen it work in Europe (one of my customers laughs at us Americans over our healthcare). It saddens me to see the USA try to get universal healthcare (like everyone else) and we end up with this muck. I think part of the problem is the cost of healthcare in the US and the obesity rate here. The article "Bitter Pill" as cited by Jay13x is an excellent but disgusting article.
Insurance for pre-existing conditions is not insurance, its a subsidy. A subsisdy that everyone else has to pay for.
Can you explain how you came to this fallacious conclusion?
Namely, how you don't understand what insurance is.
Insurance is in case you get sick. When you are already sick its not insurance. Insurance manages risk. There is no risk once you are sick. You dont go wreck your car and then get insurance. They'd laugh at you or at least I would.
You do understand that PEC was often used retroactively on people as well as in advance, right?
Or in your analogy, after the accident they said - "Oops, you were missing a tail light - we're cancelling your policy and leaving you high and dry on this accident"
Not to mention bundling risk is pretty much the definition of insurance, some people "win" with insurance and some lose and "subsidize" the winners. (although these winners are sick and infirm)
It's like a casino, and PEC have a better chance of "winning" like someone who understands gambling theory - not like someone who can count cards perfectly for MOST PEC. (Average PEC was 10% more cost, because of how liberally it was applied - I likely have incurred less healthcare costs than most here since 2009 - around $1600 total before insurance including pharmacy costs in 5 years. About $320 a year - less than many people owe before insurance for ONE pharmaceutical or a single yearly physical)
Insurance for pre-existing conditions is not insurance, its a subsidy. A subsisdy that everyone else has to pay for.
Can you explain how you came to this fallacious conclusion?
Namely, how you don't understand what insurance is.
Insurance is in case you get sick. When you are already sick its not insurance. Insurance manages risk. There is no risk once you are sick. You dont go wreck your car and then get insurance. They'd laugh at you or at least I would.
Oh a car analogy? That's a good one because in America, we already have mandatory insurance for our cars and companies can't actually deny you because you've been in an accident before.
Insurance is about future risk, and if you have a preexisting condition that makes you high risk. Insurance isn't a time machine to pay your past bills. It's still insurance even if it's likely that you'll cash it in.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What's the big deal? You could have played multiple Righteous Avengers for years now.
Insurance for pre-existing conditions is not insurance, its a subsidy. A subsisdy that everyone else has to pay for.
Can you explain how you came to this fallacious conclusion?
Namely, how you don't understand what insurance is.
Insurance is in case you get sick. When you are already sick its not insurance. Insurance manages risk. There is no risk once you are sick. You dont go wreck your car and then get insurance. They'd laugh at you or at least I would.
Oh a car analogy? That's a good one because in America, we already have mandatory insurance for our cars and companies can't actually deny you because you've been in an accident before.
Insurance is about future risk, and if you have a preexisting condition that makes you high risk. Insurance isn't a time machine to pay your past bills. It's still insurance even if it's likely that you'll cash it in.
LOL....Auto insurance will not pay for damages you've incurred before getting insurance. Please try a little harder. There is zero risk for the person with PEC signing up for insurance. It's a subsisdy.
By the way, not like it matters due to it being a straw man but, yes, they can deny you because of your driving record.
You do understand that PEC was often used retroactively on people as well as in advance, right?
Or in your analogy, after the accident they said - "Oops, you were missing a tail light - we're cancelling your policy and leaving you high and dry on this accident"
Not to mention bundling risk is pretty much the definition of insurance, some people "win" with insurance and some lose and "subsidize" the winners. (although these winners are sick and infirm)
It's like a casino, and PEC have a better chance of "winning" like someone who understands gambling theory - not like someone who can count cards perfectly for MOST PEC. (Average PEC was 10% more cost, because of how liberally it was applied - I likely have incurred less healthcare costs than most here since 2009 - around $1600 total before insurance including pharmacy costs in 5 years. About $320 a year - less than many people owe before insurance for ONE pharmaceutical or a single yearly physical)
This is what pisses me off about proponets of the ACA do, somehow you can not accept the government program that mandates coverage for people who are already sick as anything other than "insurance". I know subsidy is a bad word and no one likes it but no one likes taxes either....oh wait...
PEC's get healthcare cost covered. Which is not a bad thing but lets not pretend they are getting "insurance". That would be a lie.
You can use the word equally to before or after is the point.
Nothing about the game having subsidies for some has changed, just a few more people are allowed to join the game. Period.
20-55 most policies barely adjusted their rates before the ACA even though the 55 year old had many times the risk in both cost and frequency. They did not pay 4-5 times more as their risk would mandate for them to have not been subsidized.
We don't ban the clumsy from having warranties after all. Even though they're tons more likely of needing a claim.
LOL....Auto insurance will not pay for damages you've incurred before getting insurance. Please try a little harder. There is zero risk for the person with PEC signing up for insurance. It's a subsisdy.
[/quote]
But they will pay for damages you incur AFTER getting the insurance. Just like with health insurance.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What's the big deal? You could have played multiple Righteous Avengers for years now.
LOL....Auto insurance will not pay for damages you've incurred before getting insurance. Please try a little harder. There is zero risk for the person with PEC signing up for insurance. It's a subsisdy.
But they will pay for damages you incur AFTER getting the insurance. Just like with health insurance.
Say you have a dented fender on the back part of the car before you buy car insurance and you damage the front side, the insurance company will not pay for the repair for the dented fender on the back of the car. You have diabetes. You need medication before you have insurancev and after. There is zero risk for you to get "insurance" that covers diabetes.... You are being subsidized the cost of care because you have diabetes. Its not insurance dude.
You can use the word equally to before or after is the point.
Nothing about the game having subsidies for some has changed, just a few more people are allowed to join the game. Period.
20-55 most policies barely adjusted their rates before the ACA even though the 55 year old had many times the risk in both cost and frequency. They did not pay 4-5 times more as their risk would mandate for them to have not been subsidized.
We don't ban the clumsy from having warranties after all. Even though they're tons more likely of needing a claim.
Dont pivot. Im' not arguing for or against the subsidies. I'm arguing at the decietful need to present a subsidy for those with health issues as "insurance".
You're the one pivoting - the same thing occurred before and after - calling it by a new term after and not applying it to before is deceitful as anything.
Nothing is new, just one new group is allowed in the pool.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
My question to them is: what was stopping insurance companies from increasing premiums and reducing coverage in the past?
The obvious answer is competition.
So now that the ACA is in place, wouldn't these insurance companies be competing against the ACA? Then why raise the premiums?
Let's keep this discussion civil without the name calling and party bashing.
There are likely other factors (such as regulatory inefficiency) contributing to rising costs, but this is the biggest factor.
No tjust that they are required to cover pre-existing conditions, but coverage for those people cannot exceed teh cost of covreagefor people without preexisting conditions by more than a set percetnage. So, in order to adequately cover the risk of a pre-existing condition, an insurance company has to charge everyone else more.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
The premium increases aren't due to competition. Before, insurance companies could simply drop expensive individuals, they can't do that anymore.
Companies are still competing with one another, but to be perfectly honest 'competition' in the Insurance marketplace hasn't existed in the Libertarian fever dream sense of the word. Sure, there was some minor competition, but for the most part in each region one or two insurance companies dominate more than 60% of the market, with the rest not even coming close. 'The rest' mostly meaning self-insured employer plans, which don't really count much towards the competition because the only people with access are the employees, and all employees were already covered there (this is a large part of the reason business were given extra time to comply with the law). Because these insurance companies dominate, there is no incentive for them to negotiate prices with hospitals or the like, which is one of the many reasons healthcare costs are so high. The exchanges, at least, help to make the formerly opaque process more transparent.
The biggest problem with the ACA is that it didn't have a good way to control insurance costs, despite giving insurance companies a windfall of customers, the majority of which are actually young and without pre-existing conditions, so insurance companies have been able to charge whatever they want. And they started doing so well before people started enrolling. And there was also the unintended consequence that the sickest people immediately signed up, while all the previously uninsured youth were dragging their feet. We'll have to see the ramifications down the road. Pretty much everything we pay for right now in healthcare is inflated to ridiculous levels. The entire reason for rising costs is waaaay to complex for me to get into here, as it's about 9 college credits just to get a basic handle on the healthcare industry, but this will do for a short form. I highly recommend the Time article Bitter Pill. It's probably the most comprehensive layman's explanation out there (but it still clocks in at about 42 pages).
It always amuses me to read this, as if we weren't already paying this subsidy. I know it's not you or the American people's fault for being ignorant about healthcare (no one wants to think about it until they need it, after all), but we've have been paying the 'subsidy' for these people for the last 30+ years, thanks to EMTALA, rising bad debt and lowering medicare reimbursement (this isn't everything - just a couple choice reasons). We've been offsetting the cost of people with preexisting conditions for decades. I mean, what, did people think that uninsured individuals because of prexisting conditions have just been rolling over to die without insurance? Of course they haven't, they've been showing up the emergency departments for uncompensated treatment, they're making partial payments or declaring bankruptcy at ridiculous medical bills. It's just no longer an invisible cost. That said, hopefully this eventually translates into lower costs overall as these individuals get preventive care and are better able overall to manage their illness without leaving their illness until it becomes catastrophic and expensive. Again, I refer you to the Bitter Pill article. This is a fundamental problem with our healthcare system, not a result of Obamacare. It's just more obvious to people now because of Obamacare.
While this is true, it doesn't change the fact that the administration promised that premiums would actually go down. They didn't. In hindsight, they should have expected Insurance companies to further inflate, but what we really needed was comprehensive healthcare reform. The ACA is a bandaid that gives us another 10-15 years before catastrophe (usually meaning Medicaid/Medicare no longer being able to pay their bills, which when I was in school was estimated to be in the mid-2020s). The ACA is the starting point, but we'd need a full real overhaul of our healthcare and health insurance system to do so. Something that isn't going to happen so long as certain individuals remain under the delusion that healthcare is somehow a free market, despite the absence of information. In healthcare, the buyer is not the user, the user doesn't know what they're buying, and prices don't reflect supply and demand, nor are they open to negotiation most of the time, and the actual costs are frequently invisible to the consumer.
To give you an example of the absurdity of healthcare costs, I purchased an orthopedic surgical drill in the last few years. In terms of design, there was very little difference to your average $200 power drill from Home Depot. It cost $15,000. For another example, Doctors and Vets typically use a lot of the same drugs and supplies, but the same anesthetic will cost the 10x if the Doctor is the one using it, despite the drug being made in the same damn plant, the only difference is packaging.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
While it seems like I was *****ing, it was not pointing out a problem but rather the characterization of the term insurance. The ACA just continues this ignorance you speak of with a lie about it being insurance, its just more obvious it's a subsidy but they call insurance. In my opinion, if we, as a society deem it an entitlement or right to have universal healthcare we need to eradicate insurance. Insurance is a lose/lose proposition for consumers. Profit is built in. Not only are you paying the doctors profit, your paying the insurance profit and the drug companies profit as well. The drugs companies a little more difficult to put into the governments hands because innovation is involved and profit definitely drives it. We do not call social security insurance for getting old.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
I see what you're saying. You know, even your explanation doesn't get to the heart of it, really, because we're also paying the ridiculous profit that little medical device companies make, too. The problem is complex that even a 1,000 page bill barely scratches the surface and creates its own problems.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
This is why I'm always amused when people talk about it being a start. The entire premise of the solution is flawed so how does any law they create going to solve anything. It is a complex problem. However, I believe government can help with complex problems. Its why I'm so critical when they pass a haphazard bill like the ACA that not only violates peoples rights but mandates profit for certain people.
If the entitlement is affordable healthcare then attack where the profit is being made. Mandating coverage and balancing who pays for it does neither of these things. It just shifts money around. If its health care, provide healthcare.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Technically not 110% true, some of their quotes were that, some did accurately state "Premiums will be lower than they were projected to be without intervention" - which most sensible people did take to be the meaning of the other less clear version of the statement.
On packaging costs: If you want to be even more offended at price differences in packaging, look at veterinary packaged versions of things versus human ones. Horse nitroglycerin pills I know are identical to human besides a much larger (5x I think?) dosage but have a cost per pill under a penny while human ones are multiple dollars a pill.
[Note: Old school Vaclav - no clue why it's got me on my normal Curse account versus the MTG Salv acct I had.. not that it matters with how little I post now since I find the new format horrendous though]
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
But yes, tons of people, Obama included on a few occasions overabbreviated it to "Saving money on healthcare insurance rates" which definitely implies it was going to be a net savings not a savings versus future growth. But as demonstrated there, it was properly quoted at least on a few occasions - really felt like it was a rare occasion though when it was properly quoted however. (I'd guess by feel it was misquoted as the abbreviated form 80% of the time)
Can you explain how you came to this fallacious conclusion?
Namely, how you don't understand what insurance is.
I like the idea of universal healthcare. I've seen it work in Asia (not talking about 3rd world witch doctors either). I've seen it work in Europe (one of my customers laughs at us Americans over our healthcare). It saddens me to see the USA try to get universal healthcare (like everyone else) and we end up with this muck. I think part of the problem is the cost of healthcare in the US and the obesity rate here. The article "Bitter Pill" as cited by Jay13x is an excellent but disgusting article.
Insurance is in case you get sick. When you are already sick its not insurance. Insurance manages risk. There is no risk once you are sick. You dont go wreck your car and then get insurance. They'd laugh at you or at least I would.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Or in your analogy, after the accident they said - "Oops, you were missing a tail light - we're cancelling your policy and leaving you high and dry on this accident"
Not to mention bundling risk is pretty much the definition of insurance, some people "win" with insurance and some lose and "subsidize" the winners. (although these winners are sick and infirm)
It's like a casino, and PEC have a better chance of "winning" like someone who understands gambling theory - not like someone who can count cards perfectly for MOST PEC. (Average PEC was 10% more cost, because of how liberally it was applied - I likely have incurred less healthcare costs than most here since 2009 - around $1600 total before insurance including pharmacy costs in 5 years. About $320 a year - less than many people owe before insurance for ONE pharmaceutical or a single yearly physical)
Oh a car analogy? That's a good one because in America, we already have mandatory insurance for our cars and companies can't actually deny you because you've been in an accident before.
Insurance is about future risk, and if you have a preexisting condition that makes you high risk. Insurance isn't a time machine to pay your past bills. It's still insurance even if it's likely that you'll cash it in.
LOL....Auto insurance will not pay for damages you've incurred before getting insurance. Please try a little harder. There is zero risk for the person with PEC signing up for insurance. It's a subsisdy.
By the way, not like it matters due to it being a straw man but, yes, they can deny you because of your driving record.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
This is what pisses me off about proponets of the ACA do, somehow you can not accept the government program that mandates coverage for people who are already sick as anything other than "insurance". I know subsidy is a bad word and no one likes it but no one likes taxes either....oh wait...
PEC's get healthcare cost covered. Which is not a bad thing but lets not pretend they are getting "insurance". That would be a lie.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Nothing about the game having subsidies for some has changed, just a few more people are allowed to join the game. Period.
20-55 most policies barely adjusted their rates before the ACA even though the 55 year old had many times the risk in both cost and frequency. They did not pay 4-5 times more as their risk would mandate for them to have not been subsidized.
We don't ban the clumsy from having warranties after all. Even though they're tons more likely of needing a claim.
[/quote]
But they will pay for damages you incur AFTER getting the insurance. Just like with health insurance.
Say you have a dented fender on the back part of the car before you buy car insurance and you damage the front side, the insurance company will not pay for the repair for the dented fender on the back of the car. You have diabetes. You need medication before you have insurancev and after. There is zero risk for you to get "insurance" that covers diabetes.... You are being subsidized the cost of care because you have diabetes. Its not insurance dude.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Dont pivot. Im' not arguing for or against the subsidies. I'm arguing at the decietful need to present a subsidy for those with health issues as "insurance".
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Nothing is new, just one new group is allowed in the pool.