[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN]…How are you going to stand out doing the CC->UC/CSU route when your competition did everything you did and graduate UC/CSU in 4 years w/ high GPA.[/quote]

Your argument here has a minor problem, AN. It is technically now impossible to graduate from most CSU campuses in 4 yrs even if you start there as a freshman – due to recent massive instructor layoffs in many popular degree programs as a result of recent heavy budget cuts. The only way to circumvent this problem is to take the missing credits needed to graduate at summer and/or online classes at a different CSU campus and transfer them to your school.

Also, in order to get an “internship,” a student needs to be accepted into a degree program. In order to be accepted into a degree program at CSU, you need at least 56 units of undergrad GE’s completed. These can be obtained economically at the CC level. So whatever kind of job a CC student works will likely have no bearing on whether or not they will be able later to land an internship (when they are qualified to be considered for one).

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN]…How are you going to stand out doing the CC->UC/CSU route when your competition did everything you did and graduate UC/CSU in 4 years w/ high GPA.[/quote]

Your argument here has a minor problem, AN. It is technically now impossible to graduate from most CSU campuses in 4 yrs even if you start there as a freshman – due to recent massive instructor layoffs in many popular degree programs as a result of recent heavy budget cuts. The only way to circumvent this problem is to take the missing credits needed to graduate at summer and/or online classes at a different CSU campus and transfer them to your school.

Also, in order to get an “internship,” a student needs to be accepted into a degree program. In order to be accepted into a degree program at CSU, you need at least 56 units of undergrad GE’s completed. These can be obtained economically at the CC level. So whatever kind of job a CC student works will likely have no bearing on whether or not they will be able later to land an internship (when they are qualified to be considered for one).

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN]…How are you going to stand out doing the CC->UC/CSU route when your competition did everything you did and graduate UC/CSU in 4 years w/ high GPA.[/quote]

Your argument here has a minor problem, AN. It is technically now impossible to graduate from most CSU campuses in 4 yrs even if you start there as a freshman – due to recent massive instructor layoffs in many popular degree programs as a result of recent heavy budget cuts. The only way to circumvent this problem is to take the missing credits needed to graduate at summer and/or online classes at a different CSU campus and transfer them to your school.

Also, in order to get an “internship,” a student needs to be accepted into a degree program. In order to be accepted into a degree program at CSU, you need at least 56 units of undergrad GE’s completed. These can be obtained economically at the CC level. So whatever kind of job a CC student works will likely have no bearing on whether or not they will be able later to land an internship (when they are qualified to be considered for one).

[bearishgurl]

[quote=ctr70]I also think it is a myth that the average retail buyer can waltz out there and buy something 20% below market off the MLS with his Realtor. From what I see in the market, there are really only 2 sources of true under market deals: 1. Trustee sale auctions (all cash), 2. Major fixer disasters that mostly the flippers buy with hard money or cash.[/quote]

You forgot contacting an owner directly and making an offer on a vacant or soon-to-be-vacant property in your local area. The property is never listed. Perhaps you already know the property, the former or current tenants, and/or the seller!

Yes, all cash (or lucrative [for the seller] OCB) are win-win situations for both parties, here.

[quote=ctr70]Most retail MLS buyers getting mortgages to buy even if they spend a ton of time looking and make a lot of offers will likely pay 95% or more of market. A big mistake many make is buying a “fixer upper” that needs $30k in fix for only $30k less than the similar fixed up house, thinking they are getting a deal. Why not just buy the clean one and save yourself all the work! And finance the costs of fix up done by someone else at 4% for 30 years vs. paying it out of your pocket. Now if you get it $60k under market and it needs $20k fix, that is getting better.[/quote]

What “seems” to be $30k of work to a potential buyer w/o the time or talent to DIY is actually $8500 to a single or couple with both.

[quote=ctr70]Berishgirl, thanks for the info on your rental across the vacant lot. That is a good warning, you can’t be too careful with location. But I still do not see the logic and where the ROI is on a $265k 70 year old house that gets $1,600 in rent:) Break that out for me. Now a $100k house that gets $1,250 in rent, that is more like it.[/quote]

I am speaking of a 50-60 year-old 3/2/2 1500+ sf SFR on a +/- 7500 sf lot on or within 1 block of 2 bus lines renting for $1800 – $1850.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=ctr70]I also think it is a myth that the average retail buyer can waltz out there and buy something 20% below market off the MLS with his Realtor. From what I see in the market, there are really only 2 sources of true under market deals: 1. Trustee sale auctions (all cash), 2. Major fixer disasters that mostly the flippers buy with hard money or cash.[/quote]

You forgot contacting an owner directly and making an offer on a vacant or soon-to-be-vacant property in your local area. The property is never listed. Perhaps you already know the property, the former or current tenants, and/or the seller!

Yes, all cash (or lucrative [for the seller] OCB) are win-win situations for both parties, here.

[quote=ctr70]Most retail MLS buyers getting mortgages to buy even if they spend a ton of time looking and make a lot of offers will likely pay 95% or more of market. A big mistake many make is buying a “fixer upper” that needs $30k in fix for only $30k less than the similar fixed up house, thinking they are getting a deal. Why not just buy the clean one and save yourself all the work! And finance the costs of fix up done by someone else at 4% for 30 years vs. paying it out of your pocket. Now if you get it $60k under market and it needs $20k fix, that is getting better.[/quote]

What “seems” to be $30k of work to a potential buyer w/o the time or talent to DIY is actually $8500 to a single or couple with both.

[quote=ctr70]Berishgirl, thanks for the info on your rental across the vacant lot. That is a good warning, you can’t be too careful with location. But I still do not see the logic and where the ROI is on a $265k 70 year old house that gets $1,600 in rent:) Break that out for me. Now a $100k house that gets $1,250 in rent, that is more like it.[/quote]

I am speaking of a 50-60 year-old 3/2/2 1500+ sf SFR on a +/- 7500 sf lot on or within 1 block of 2 bus lines renting for $1800 – $1850.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=ctr70]I also think it is a myth that the average retail buyer can waltz out there and buy something 20% below market off the MLS with his Realtor. From what I see in the market, there are really only 2 sources of true under market deals: 1. Trustee sale auctions (all cash), 2. Major fixer disasters that mostly the flippers buy with hard money or cash.[/quote]

You forgot contacting an owner directly and making an offer on a vacant or soon-to-be-vacant property in your local area. The property is never listed. Perhaps you already know the property, the former or current tenants, and/or the seller!

Yes, all cash (or lucrative [for the seller] OCB) are win-win situations for both parties, here.

[quote=ctr70]Most retail MLS buyers getting mortgages to buy even if they spend a ton of time looking and make a lot of offers will likely pay 95% or more of market. A big mistake many make is buying a “fixer upper” that needs $30k in fix for only $30k less than the similar fixed up house, thinking they are getting a deal. Why not just buy the clean one and save yourself all the work! And finance the costs of fix up done by someone else at 4% for 30 years vs. paying it out of your pocket. Now if you get it $60k under market and it needs $20k fix, that is getting better.[/quote]

What “seems” to be $30k of work to a potential buyer w/o the time or talent to DIY is actually $8500 to a single or couple with both.

[quote=ctr70]Berishgirl, thanks for the info on your rental across the vacant lot. That is a good warning, you can’t be too careful with location. But I still do not see the logic and where the ROI is on a $265k 70 year old house that gets $1,600 in rent:) Break that out for me. Now a $100k house that gets $1,250 in rent, that is more like it.[/quote]

I am speaking of a 50-60 year-old 3/2/2 1500+ sf SFR on a +/- 7500 sf lot on or within 1 block of 2 bus lines renting for $1800 – $1850.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=ctr70]I also think it is a myth that the average retail buyer can waltz out there and buy something 20% below market off the MLS with his Realtor. From what I see in the market, there are really only 2 sources of true under market deals: 1. Trustee sale auctions (all cash), 2. Major fixer disasters that mostly the flippers buy with hard money or cash.[/quote]

You forgot contacting an owner directly and making an offer on a vacant or soon-to-be-vacant property in your local area. The property is never listed. Perhaps you already know the property, the former or current tenants, and/or the seller!

Yes, all cash (or lucrative [for the seller] OCB) are win-win situations for both parties, here.

[quote=ctr70]Most retail MLS buyers getting mortgages to buy even if they spend a ton of time looking and make a lot of offers will likely pay 95% or more of market. A big mistake many make is buying a “fixer upper” that needs $30k in fix for only $30k less than the similar fixed up house, thinking they are getting a deal. Why not just buy the clean one and save yourself all the work! And finance the costs of fix up done by someone else at 4% for 30 years vs. paying it out of your pocket. Now if you get it $60k under market and it needs $20k fix, that is getting better.[/quote]

What “seems” to be $30k of work to a potential buyer w/o the time or talent to DIY is actually $8500 to a single or couple with both.

[quote=ctr70]Berishgirl, thanks for the info on your rental across the vacant lot. That is a good warning, you can’t be too careful with location. But I still do not see the logic and where the ROI is on a $265k 70 year old house that gets $1,600 in rent:) Break that out for me. Now a $100k house that gets $1,250 in rent, that is more like it.[/quote]

I am speaking of a 50-60 year-old 3/2/2 1500+ sf SFR on a +/- 7500 sf lot on or within 1 block of 2 bus lines renting for $1800 – $1850.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=ctr70]I also think it is a myth that the average retail buyer can waltz out there and buy something 20% below market off the MLS with his Realtor. From what I see in the market, there are really only 2 sources of true under market deals: 1. Trustee sale auctions (all cash), 2. Major fixer disasters that mostly the flippers buy with hard money or cash.[/quote]

You forgot contacting an owner directly and making an offer on a vacant or soon-to-be-vacant property in your local area. The property is never listed. Perhaps you already know the property, the former or current tenants, and/or the seller!

Yes, all cash (or lucrative [for the seller] OCB) are win-win situations for both parties, here.

[quote=ctr70]Most retail MLS buyers getting mortgages to buy even if they spend a ton of time looking and make a lot of offers will likely pay 95% or more of market. A big mistake many make is buying a “fixer upper” that needs $30k in fix for only $30k less than the similar fixed up house, thinking they are getting a deal. Why not just buy the clean one and save yourself all the work! And finance the costs of fix up done by someone else at 4% for 30 years vs. paying it out of your pocket. Now if you get it $60k under market and it needs $20k fix, that is getting better.[/quote]

What “seems” to be $30k of work to a potential buyer w/o the time or talent to DIY is actually $8500 to a single or couple with both.

[quote=ctr70]Berishgirl, thanks for the info on your rental across the vacant lot. That is a good warning, you can’t be too careful with location. But I still do not see the logic and where the ROI is on a $265k 70 year old house that gets $1,600 in rent:) Break that out for me. Now a $100k house that gets $1,250 in rent, that is more like it.[/quote]

I am speaking of a 50-60 year-old 3/2/2 1500+ sf SFR on a +/- 7500 sf lot on or within 1 block of 2 bus lines renting for $1800 – $1850.

[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.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=GH]….If and I am approved for insurance, make the legal assumption the insurer has run ALL needed background investigations and concluded I am qualified for their plan, rather than having them deny my claim later after finding out I tried a cigarette in High School…[/quote]

GH, this is the way individuals bought medical insurance for themselves before “Obamacare.” The pricing of the premiums was ALSO based largely upon the individual’s prior health-care usage, reasons for that prior usage and their daily habits, past habits, current weight and a barrage of medical tests before deciding to underwrite.

Now, under “Obamacare,” even fit and well individuals are charged “extra” in their monthly premium to “even out” premiums for high-usage policyholders in their age groups who formerly were “uninsurable” due to pre-existing conditions. A large percentage of those “pre-existing conditions” were directly caused by the behavior of the (formerly uninsurable) individual.

There is a point where a monthly health premium becomes exorbitant, even for a high-usage person. My understanding is that beginning in 2014, these high monthly premiums (> $1,000 month for one individual) will be regulated under Obamacare …. that is, the insurance companies will be regulated as to how much they can charge for premiums for different categories of high-usage individuals. This will only serve to raise EVERY policyholder’s monthly premiums in a particular age group even MORE.

The insurance companies aren’t going to lose money so the money to pay for the “high users” medical bills has to come from somewhere.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=GH]….If and I am approved for insurance, make the legal assumption the insurer has run ALL needed background investigations and concluded I am qualified for their plan, rather than having them deny my claim later after finding out I tried a cigarette in High School…[/quote]

GH, this is the way individuals bought medical insurance for themselves before “Obamacare.” The pricing of the premiums was ALSO based largely upon the individual’s prior health-care usage, reasons for that prior usage and their daily habits, past habits, current weight and a barrage of medical tests before deciding to underwrite.

Now, under “Obamacare,” even fit and well individuals are charged “extra” in their monthly premium to “even out” premiums for high-usage policyholders in their age groups who formerly were “uninsurable” due to pre-existing conditions. A large percentage of those “pre-existing conditions” were directly caused by the behavior of the (formerly uninsurable) individual.

There is a point where a monthly health premium becomes exorbitant, even for a high-usage person. My understanding is that beginning in 2014, these high monthly premiums (> $1,000 month for one individual) will be regulated under Obamacare …. that is, the insurance companies will be regulated as to how much they can charge for premiums for different categories of high-usage individuals. This will only serve to raise EVERY policyholder’s monthly premiums in a particular age group even MORE.

The insurance companies aren’t going to lose money so the money to pay for the “high users” medical bills has to come from somewhere.

[Author]

Posts