ok: can someone tell me what good is left for the health care reform

[Anonymous]

[quote=SK in CV]There is no evidence that more competition will decrease costs.[/quote]

True. The economy here in California is plenty big enough to allow competition. Allowing companies from other states to peddle their products here isn’t going to change the market dynamics enough to influence prices.

The “interstate competition” argument is just a Republican red herring. An absurdly ironic one considering that we hear phrases like “let the states decide” on many other issues. The Republicans wanted the heatchcare bill to fail because they wanted Obama to fail – it is that simple. So they contrived a few half-hearted arguments to make it appear that they were actually involved in the debate. Some folks are so obedient to their master’s talking points that they are still repeating them years later.

[quote]Medical insurers gouge consumers. It’s what they do.[/quote]

It’s what all companies will try to do. But medical insurers can actually get away with it because their product is:

1) Mandatory (we all have unpredictable health needs)
2) So incredibly complicated that nobody really understands what they are buying.

Heathcare is the biggest real-world example of a market skewed by information asymmetry. There’s no way an individual consumer can even begin understand what they need, what it should cost, and what their alternatives are. How many people actually read the contract between them and their insurance company, let alone understand it?

If there is any industry where government must be involved to prevent market failures, it is health care (which includes health insurance.) Funny how some economics professors fail to acknowledge this basic Econ 101 concept.

[UCGal]

[quote=SK in CV]
Reigning in tort laws (if needed at all) would have a minimal effect on overall health care costs. HSA’s, while a good deal for those that participated, have had little effect on controlling health care costs.
[/quote]

For the record to all folks (not you sk in cv) who comment about needing tort reform. California has tort reform for medical malpractice and has since 1975. The pain and suffering/punative part of settlements for malpractice are limited to $250k. This is not indexed to inflation, so it’s worth a lot less today than when it was instated. It also caps fees by lawyers, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_Injury_Compensation_Reform_Act

Here in CA we do not need tort reform, because we already have it.
And doctors still have rising medical malpractice insurance costs. I also read that despite this law, medical malpractice has gone up between 190-450% since enacted. (Different sources… different figures, but both still big numbers.)

When you hear about how tort reform will solve the problem, consider whether it’s working in CA, where it’s been in place for 36 years.

[UCGal]

[quote=SK in CV]
Reigning in tort laws (if needed at all) would have a minimal effect on overall health care costs. HSA’s, while a good deal for those that participated, have had little effect on controlling health care costs.
[/quote]

For the record to all folks (not you sk in cv) who comment about needing tort reform. California has tort reform for medical malpractice and has since 1975. The pain and suffering/punative part of settlements for malpractice are limited to $250k. This is not indexed to inflation, so it’s worth a lot less today than when it was instated. It also caps fees by lawyers, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_Injury_Compensation_Reform_Act

Here in CA we do not need tort reform, because we already have it.
And doctors still have rising medical malpractice insurance costs. I also read that despite this law, medical malpractice has gone up between 190-450% since enacted. (Different sources… different figures, but both still big numbers.)

When you hear about how tort reform will solve the problem, consider whether it’s working in CA, where it’s been in place for 36 years.

[UCGal]

[quote=SK in CV]
Reigning in tort laws (if needed at all) would have a minimal effect on overall health care costs. HSA’s, while a good deal for those that participated, have had little effect on controlling health care costs.
[/quote]

For the record to all folks (not you sk in cv) who comment about needing tort reform. California has tort reform for medical malpractice and has since 1975. The pain and suffering/punative part of settlements for malpractice are limited to $250k. This is not indexed to inflation, so it’s worth a lot less today than when it was instated. It also caps fees by lawyers, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_Injury_Compensation_Reform_Act

Here in CA we do not need tort reform, because we already have it.
And doctors still have rising medical malpractice insurance costs. I also read that despite this law, medical malpractice has gone up between 190-450% since enacted. (Different sources… different figures, but both still big numbers.)

When you hear about how tort reform will solve the problem, consider whether it’s working in CA, where it’s been in place for 36 years.

[UCGal]

[quote=SK in CV]
Reigning in tort laws (if needed at all) would have a minimal effect on overall health care costs. HSA’s, while a good deal for those that participated, have had little effect on controlling health care costs.
[/quote]

For the record to all folks (not you sk in cv) who comment about needing tort reform. California has tort reform for medical malpractice and has since 1975. The pain and suffering/punative part of settlements for malpractice are limited to $250k. This is not indexed to inflation, so it’s worth a lot less today than when it was instated. It also caps fees by lawyers, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_Injury_Compensation_Reform_Act

Here in CA we do not need tort reform, because we already have it.
And doctors still have rising medical malpractice insurance costs. I also read that despite this law, medical malpractice has gone up between 190-450% since enacted. (Different sources… different figures, but both still big numbers.)

When you hear about how tort reform will solve the problem, consider whether it’s working in CA, where it’s been in place for 36 years.

[UCGal]

[quote=SK in CV]
Reigning in tort laws (if needed at all) would have a minimal effect on overall health care costs. HSA’s, while a good deal for those that participated, have had little effect on controlling health care costs.
[/quote]

For the record to all folks (not you sk in cv) who comment about needing tort reform. California has tort reform for medical malpractice and has since 1975. The pain and suffering/punative part of settlements for malpractice are limited to $250k. This is not indexed to inflation, so it’s worth a lot less today than when it was instated. It also caps fees by lawyers, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_Injury_Compensation_Reform_Act

Here in CA we do not need tort reform, because we already have it.
And doctors still have rising medical malpractice insurance costs. I also read that despite this law, medical malpractice has gone up between 190-450% since enacted. (Different sources… different figures, but both still big numbers.)

When you hear about how tort reform will solve the problem, consider whether it’s working in CA, where it’s been in place for 36 years.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=SK in CV]Bearishgirl, you’re smarter than this. You know better than to believe political rhetoric, without doing your own research. I’ll leave my comment there.

Except with regards to the apparent discrepancy between your lauding both GINA and the elimination of annual/lifetime caps, and then criticizing the ACA for elimination of restrictions for pre-existing conditions. You both want it, and don’t want it. Can’t have it both ways. (There is, by the way, nothing within the ACA that requires insurance companies to charge the same premiums for those with pre-existing conditions. So those fat, out of shape, smokers you so disdain, can be charged higher premiums.)[/quote]

SK, I am FOR giving folks with pre-existing conditions the right to be covered. Prior to “Obamacare,” they didn’t HAVE that right. As you know, “pre-existing” conditions aren’t always the fault of the insured, or person seeking insurance. Sometimes it’s just bad luck, or the person (unknowingly) worked or lived in an area which exposed them to carcinogens. Or they became injured through no fault of their own.

It’s just that, for now, insurance companies are obligated to take this group if they apply. Currently, a carrier can set their premium in accordance with risk. When that ability “goes away” (in 2014), they will no longer be able to do so.

And where do you draw the line on premiums before the people who need them most can’t afford them? A 6-8 year Stage 3 cancer survivor NEEDS coverage but how much is too much to charge them for premiums? Is $1100 month too much? How about $1500?? I know we “can’t have it both ways.”

The reason I was expressing “disdain” over premium hikes or “gouging” is because I have never given my carrier a reason to do this to me. I have only used my carrier for “routine care” and two very minor “mishaps.” I believe they’re doing it due to “age-group average usage.”

Why can’t underwriting for health insurance be like that of an auto insurance company? For instance, I have a lower auto premium because I drive under 10K miles per year, do not have any points against my license and my vehicle is garaged at night.

I’ve had the same health carrier since 2004 but converted my group policy to an individual HDHP policy in 2006.

For health insurance scrutiny on application and “premium reset times,” I feel I have been “lumped in” with all my “compadres,” many of who loaded themselves up with a multitude of toxic chemicals between 1965 and 1975, smoked tobacco and/or cannibis products 30+ years (whether or not still smoking), drank themselves into oblivion, turned into a lifetime junk-food junkie, never exercised in their adulthood, dipped snuff for 30+ years, were longtime speed/meth/cocaine freaks, etc. I’m not perfect but why should my premium be based upon the “aggregate usage” for my age group instead of MY usage? By the time you’re my age, your past is catching up with you if it hasn’t already :=]

Health insurance pricing doesn’t seem fair to me. I can ill afford the premiums but must accept reality that they will continue to rise twice yearly.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=SK in CV]Bearishgirl, you’re smarter than this. You know better than to believe political rhetoric, without doing your own research. I’ll leave my comment there.

Except with regards to the apparent discrepancy between your lauding both GINA and the elimination of annual/lifetime caps, and then criticizing the ACA for elimination of restrictions for pre-existing conditions. You both want it, and don’t want it. Can’t have it both ways. (There is, by the way, nothing within the ACA that requires insurance companies to charge the same premiums for those with pre-existing conditions. So those fat, out of shape, smokers you so disdain, can be charged higher premiums.)[/quote]

SK, I am FOR giving folks with pre-existing conditions the right to be covered. Prior to “Obamacare,” they didn’t HAVE that right. As you know, “pre-existing” conditions aren’t always the fault of the insured, or person seeking insurance. Sometimes it’s just bad luck, or the person (unknowingly) worked or lived in an area which exposed them to carcinogens. Or they became injured through no fault of their own.

It’s just that, for now, insurance companies are obligated to take this group if they apply. Currently, a carrier can set their premium in accordance with risk. When that ability “goes away” (in 2014), they will no longer be able to do so.

And where do you draw the line on premiums before the people who need them most can’t afford them? A 6-8 year Stage 3 cancer survivor NEEDS coverage but how much is too much to charge them for premiums? Is $1100 month too much? How about $1500?? I know we “can’t have it both ways.”

The reason I was expressing “disdain” over premium hikes or “gouging” is because I have never given my carrier a reason to do this to me. I have only used my carrier for “routine care” and two very minor “mishaps.” I believe they’re doing it due to “age-group average usage.”

Why can’t underwriting for health insurance be like that of an auto insurance company? For instance, I have a lower auto premium because I drive under 10K miles per year, do not have any points against my license and my vehicle is garaged at night.

I’ve had the same health carrier since 2004 but converted my group policy to an individual HDHP policy in 2006.

For health insurance scrutiny on application and “premium reset times,” I feel I have been “lumped in” with all my “compadres,” many of who loaded themselves up with a multitude of toxic chemicals between 1965 and 1975, smoked tobacco and/or cannibis products 30+ years (whether or not still smoking), drank themselves into oblivion, turned into a lifetime junk-food junkie, never exercised in their adulthood, dipped snuff for 30+ years, were longtime speed/meth/cocaine freaks, etc. I’m not perfect but why should my premium be based upon the “aggregate usage” for my age group instead of MY usage? By the time you’re my age, your past is catching up with you if it hasn’t already :=]

Health insurance pricing doesn’t seem fair to me. I can ill afford the premiums but must accept reality that they will continue to rise twice yearly.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=SK in CV]Bearishgirl, you’re smarter than this. You know better than to believe political rhetoric, without doing your own research. I’ll leave my comment there.

Except with regards to the apparent discrepancy between your lauding both GINA and the elimination of annual/lifetime caps, and then criticizing the ACA for elimination of restrictions for pre-existing conditions. You both want it, and don’t want it. Can’t have it both ways. (There is, by the way, nothing within the ACA that requires insurance companies to charge the same premiums for those with pre-existing conditions. So those fat, out of shape, smokers you so disdain, can be charged higher premiums.)[/quote]

SK, I am FOR giving folks with pre-existing conditions the right to be covered. Prior to “Obamacare,” they didn’t HAVE that right. As you know, “pre-existing” conditions aren’t always the fault of the insured, or person seeking insurance. Sometimes it’s just bad luck, or the person (unknowingly) worked or lived in an area which exposed them to carcinogens. Or they became injured through no fault of their own.

It’s just that, for now, insurance companies are obligated to take this group if they apply. Currently, a carrier can set their premium in accordance with risk. When that ability “goes away” (in 2014), they will no longer be able to do so.

And where do you draw the line on premiums before the people who need them most can’t afford them? A 6-8 year Stage 3 cancer survivor NEEDS coverage but how much is too much to charge them for premiums? Is $1100 month too much? How about $1500?? I know we “can’t have it both ways.”

The reason I was expressing “disdain” over premium hikes or “gouging” is because I have never given my carrier a reason to do this to me. I have only used my carrier for “routine care” and two very minor “mishaps.” I believe they’re doing it due to “age-group average usage.”

Why can’t underwriting for health insurance be like that of an auto insurance company? For instance, I have a lower auto premium because I drive under 10K miles per year, do not have any points against my license and my vehicle is garaged at night.

I’ve had the same health carrier since 2004 but converted my group policy to an individual HDHP policy in 2006.

For health insurance scrutiny on application and “premium reset times,” I feel I have been “lumped in” with all my “compadres,” many of who loaded themselves up with a multitude of toxic chemicals between 1965 and 1975, smoked tobacco and/or cannibis products 30+ years (whether or not still smoking), drank themselves into oblivion, turned into a lifetime junk-food junkie, never exercised in their adulthood, dipped snuff for 30+ years, were longtime speed/meth/cocaine freaks, etc. I’m not perfect but why should my premium be based upon the “aggregate usage” for my age group instead of MY usage? By the time you’re my age, your past is catching up with you if it hasn’t already :=]

Health insurance pricing doesn’t seem fair to me. I can ill afford the premiums but must accept reality that they will continue to rise twice yearly.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=SK in CV]Bearishgirl, you’re smarter than this. You know better than to believe political rhetoric, without doing your own research. I’ll leave my comment there.

Except with regards to the apparent discrepancy between your lauding both GINA and the elimination of annual/lifetime caps, and then criticizing the ACA for elimination of restrictions for pre-existing conditions. You both want it, and don’t want it. Can’t have it both ways. (There is, by the way, nothing within the ACA that requires insurance companies to charge the same premiums for those with pre-existing conditions. So those fat, out of shape, smokers you so disdain, can be charged higher premiums.)[/quote]

SK, I am FOR giving folks with pre-existing conditions the right to be covered. Prior to “Obamacare,” they didn’t HAVE that right. As you know, “pre-existing” conditions aren’t always the fault of the insured, or person seeking insurance. Sometimes it’s just bad luck, or the person (unknowingly) worked or lived in an area which exposed them to carcinogens. Or they became injured through no fault of their own.

It’s just that, for now, insurance companies are obligated to take this group if they apply. Currently, a carrier can set their premium in accordance with risk. When that ability “goes away” (in 2014), they will no longer be able to do so.

And where do you draw the line on premiums before the people who need them most can’t afford them? A 6-8 year Stage 3 cancer survivor NEEDS coverage but how much is too much to charge them for premiums? Is $1100 month too much? How about $1500?? I know we “can’t have it both ways.”

The reason I was expressing “disdain” over premium hikes or “gouging” is because I have never given my carrier a reason to do this to me. I have only used my carrier for “routine care” and two very minor “mishaps.” I believe they’re doing it due to “age-group average usage.”

Why can’t underwriting for health insurance be like that of an auto insurance company? For instance, I have a lower auto premium because I drive under 10K miles per year, do not have any points against my license and my vehicle is garaged at night.

I’ve had the same health carrier since 2004 but converted my group policy to an individual HDHP policy in 2006.

For health insurance scrutiny on application and “premium reset times,” I feel I have been “lumped in” with all my “compadres,” many of who loaded themselves up with a multitude of toxic chemicals between 1965 and 1975, smoked tobacco and/or cannibis products 30+ years (whether or not still smoking), drank themselves into oblivion, turned into a lifetime junk-food junkie, never exercised in their adulthood, dipped snuff for 30+ years, were longtime speed/meth/cocaine freaks, etc. I’m not perfect but why should my premium be based upon the “aggregate usage” for my age group instead of MY usage? By the time you’re my age, your past is catching up with you if it hasn’t already :=]

Health insurance pricing doesn’t seem fair to me. I can ill afford the premiums but must accept reality that they will continue to rise twice yearly.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=SK in CV]Bearishgirl, you’re smarter than this. You know better than to believe political rhetoric, without doing your own research. I’ll leave my comment there.

Except with regards to the apparent discrepancy between your lauding both GINA and the elimination of annual/lifetime caps, and then criticizing the ACA for elimination of restrictions for pre-existing conditions. You both want it, and don’t want it. Can’t have it both ways. (There is, by the way, nothing within the ACA that requires insurance companies to charge the same premiums for those with pre-existing conditions. So those fat, out of shape, smokers you so disdain, can be charged higher premiums.)[/quote]

SK, I am FOR giving folks with pre-existing conditions the right to be covered. Prior to “Obamacare,” they didn’t HAVE that right. As you know, “pre-existing” conditions aren’t always the fault of the insured, or person seeking insurance. Sometimes it’s just bad luck, or the person (unknowingly) worked or lived in an area which exposed them to carcinogens. Or they became injured through no fault of their own.

It’s just that, for now, insurance companies are obligated to take this group if they apply. Currently, a carrier can set their premium in accordance with risk. When that ability “goes away” (in 2014), they will no longer be able to do so.

And where do you draw the line on premiums before the people who need them most can’t afford them? A 6-8 year Stage 3 cancer survivor NEEDS coverage but how much is too much to charge them for premiums? Is $1100 month too much? How about $1500?? I know we “can’t have it both ways.”

The reason I was expressing “disdain” over premium hikes or “gouging” is because I have never given my carrier a reason to do this to me. I have only used my carrier for “routine care” and two very minor “mishaps.” I believe they’re doing it due to “age-group average usage.”

Why can’t underwriting for health insurance be like that of an auto insurance company? For instance, I have a lower auto premium because I drive under 10K miles per year, do not have any points against my license and my vehicle is garaged at night.

I’ve had the same health carrier since 2004 but converted my group policy to an individual HDHP policy in 2006.

For health insurance scrutiny on application and “premium reset times,” I feel I have been “lumped in” with all my “compadres,” many of who loaded themselves up with a multitude of toxic chemicals between 1965 and 1975, smoked tobacco and/or cannibis products 30+ years (whether or not still smoking), drank themselves into oblivion, turned into a lifetime junk-food junkie, never exercised in their adulthood, dipped snuff for 30+ years, were longtime speed/meth/cocaine freaks, etc. I’m not perfect but why should my premium be based upon the “aggregate usage” for my age group instead of MY usage? By the time you’re my age, your past is catching up with you if it hasn’t already :=]

Health insurance pricing doesn’t seem fair to me. I can ill afford the premiums but must accept reality that they will continue to rise twice yearly.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]
SK, I am FOR giving folks with pre-existing conditions the right to be covered. Prior to “Obamacare,” they didn’t HAVE that right. As you know, “pre-existing” conditions aren’t always the fault of the insured, or person seeking insurance. Sometimes it’s just bad luck, or the person (unknowingly) worked or lived in an area which exposed them to carcinogens. Or they became injured through no fault of their own.

It’s just that, for now, insurance companies are obligated to take this group if they apply. Currently, a carrier can set their premium in accordance with risk. When that ability “goes away” (in 2014), they will no longer be able to do so.
[/quote]

I’m reasonably sure this is not correct. Between now and 2014, the previously uninsurable over 19 are not required to be insured by commercial medical insurance companies. If they meet certain requirements (among them, being unisured for 6 months or more) they can be insured by a temporary, government created and partially funded PCIP (Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan). Beyond 2013, I’m not sure there is any requirement that premiums cannot reflect higher risk. But until then, there is no requirement for them to be accepted into your insurance plan at any cost.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]
SK, I am FOR giving folks with pre-existing conditions the right to be covered. Prior to “Obamacare,” they didn’t HAVE that right. As you know, “pre-existing” conditions aren’t always the fault of the insured, or person seeking insurance. Sometimes it’s just bad luck, or the person (unknowingly) worked or lived in an area which exposed them to carcinogens. Or they became injured through no fault of their own.

It’s just that, for now, insurance companies are obligated to take this group if they apply. Currently, a carrier can set their premium in accordance with risk. When that ability “goes away” (in 2014), they will no longer be able to do so.
[/quote]

I’m reasonably sure this is not correct. Between now and 2014, the previously uninsurable over 19 are not required to be insured by commercial medical insurance companies. If they meet certain requirements (among them, being unisured for 6 months or more) they can be insured by a temporary, government created and partially funded PCIP (Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan). Beyond 2013, I’m not sure there is any requirement that premiums cannot reflect higher risk. But until then, there is no requirement for them to be accepted into your insurance plan at any cost.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]
SK, I am FOR giving folks with pre-existing conditions the right to be covered. Prior to “Obamacare,” they didn’t HAVE that right. As you know, “pre-existing” conditions aren’t always the fault of the insured, or person seeking insurance. Sometimes it’s just bad luck, or the person (unknowingly) worked or lived in an area which exposed them to carcinogens. Or they became injured through no fault of their own.

It’s just that, for now, insurance companies are obligated to take this group if they apply. Currently, a carrier can set their premium in accordance with risk. When that ability “goes away” (in 2014), they will no longer be able to do so.
[/quote]

I’m reasonably sure this is not correct. Between now and 2014, the previously uninsurable over 19 are not required to be insured by commercial medical insurance companies. If they meet certain requirements (among them, being unisured for 6 months or more) they can be insured by a temporary, government created and partially funded PCIP (Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan). Beyond 2013, I’m not sure there is any requirement that premiums cannot reflect higher risk. But until then, there is no requirement for them to be accepted into your insurance plan at any cost.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]
SK, I am FOR giving folks with pre-existing conditions the right to be covered. Prior to “Obamacare,” they didn’t HAVE that right. As you know, “pre-existing” conditions aren’t always the fault of the insured, or person seeking insurance. Sometimes it’s just bad luck, or the person (unknowingly) worked or lived in an area which exposed them to carcinogens. Or they became injured through no fault of their own.

It’s just that, for now, insurance companies are obligated to take this group if they apply. Currently, a carrier can set their premium in accordance with risk. When that ability “goes away” (in 2014), they will no longer be able to do so.
[/quote]

I’m reasonably sure this is not correct. Between now and 2014, the previously uninsurable over 19 are not required to be insured by commercial medical insurance companies. If they meet certain requirements (among them, being unisured for 6 months or more) they can be insured by a temporary, government created and partially funded PCIP (Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan). Beyond 2013, I’m not sure there is any requirement that premiums cannot reflect higher risk. But until then, there is no requirement for them to be accepted into your insurance plan at any cost.

[Author]

Posts