Reply With Quote
this is why Insurance Company sponsored anti-reform commercials have disappeared, and not one of these commercials aired during the SuperBowl. the GOP right now is waging a word war because they know this is going to pass.
I guess there's a first for everything.
this is why Insurance Company sponsored anti-reform commercials have disappeared, and not one of these commercials aired during the SuperBowl. the GOP right now is waging a word war because they know this is going to pass.
any politician that works for the Insurance Companies is OK with this bill.
Thanks for posting
What for-profit insurance company wouldn't support a bill that forces citizens to buy their products, subsidized by taxpayers?
30+ million guaranteed clients on exorbitantly expensive individual plans, what's not to love?
I'm a little behind on what's going on, but...the bill is going to make it a law that everyone is insured, subsidize it with tax payer money, and if someone doesn't have insurance they get in trouble?
"everyone is insured"
nearly everyone, not everyone w/o insurance now will be covered, it covers "nearly everybody"
"subsidize it with tax payer money"
... if the person can't pay it all, yes.
the insurance will be available in the exchanges, which are just for-profit insurance companies offering exorbitantly priced (way more than group plans) knowing taxpayers will subsidize the insurance.
> , and if someone doesn't have insurance they get in trouble?
they get fined.
Insurance will not be able to refuse/cancel sick people like they do now to goose up their executives' salaries and bonuses, but what this means is that they will jack up their premiums, increase co-payments, disallow some treatment, to offset having to pay for the sickos.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 03-18-2010 at 09:44 PM.
That's what it was. It probably survived this latest incarnation, but the text of the bill was just released.
MANY of those uninsured will be picked up either by their current employer's plan - because they will no longer be allowed to "opt out"; or their employer, through this bill's coercion, will begin to provide insurance.
BTW; it is a myth that individual premiums are higher that equivalent group premiums. Healthy individuals pay lower premiums than their counterparts in group plans. It is the sick individual who pays the higher premiums; "House on Fire" analogy is pretty good.
Again, Summers is right on just about every count; the difference I have with his concept is that the govt. should cover every American; but at a VERY high level - somewhere in the low 6 figures. Then let insurance companies, or the individuals themselves fund up to that point. Govt. is NOT as efficient as private co.'s at sniffing out fraud, abuse, etc (which happens primarily with every day, common claims)...., and an en lement program is certainly NOT the way to control utilization.
"uninsured will be picked up either by their current employer's plan"
If an employee can refuse an employer's group plan, do they get those $1000s of unspent premiums in salary?
"it is a myth that individual premiums are higher that equivalent group premiums"
I just read an article that said nationally, individual plans run about +18% versus same coverage in a group plan. Seems to be consistent with the huge increase, in individual plans only, this month by that CA insurance company.
Significantly less. For the same plan from Blue Shield, my wife and I would pay almost double at the group rate than we do now as individuals.
Paying healthy people to NOT be on a plan simply raises the bar for how sick you have to be to BE on the plan; it's a deadly spiral.
Healthy individuals tend to not buy insurance; sick individuals do - thus higher premiums. Plan design is not the leading determiner of premium; health of the insured, is.
"Paying healthy people to NOT be on a plan"
Medical catastrophes are not all from self-inflicted bad health of food and no exercise.
Even Superman ended up spending $300K/year for ACCIDENTAL quadriplegia.
Add in household falls, car/sports accidents, breast/prostate/smoking cancers, etc, etc. Healthy people are not exempt from medical catastrophes and bankruptcy. With mandated health insurance, everybody's covered, everybody pays, even eventually with a income deduction like in intelligent countries.
I'm all for giving people strong discounts off their insurance premiums for achieving and maintaining annually measurable health parameters (% body fat, BP, glucose, lung capacity, treadmill stress test, etc).
Also, capping SocSec at $110K because rich people don't need SocSec assumes that they will all make it to 65 without a financial catastrophe, their wealth intact and their retirement paid for by themselves. eg, a lot of them were de-wealthed by the Madoffs, Wall St, and the rest of the bankster mafia.
It seems like people who buy insurance in the group exchanges will have to pay with their after-tax money, unlike employees who get the employer insurance paid for from pre-tax wages.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
