Big insurance companies stop insuring children

[Chris]

Major health insurance companies in California and other states have decided to stop selling policies for children rather than comply with a new federal healthcare law that bars them from rejecting youngsters with preexisting medical conditions.

Anthem Blue Cross, Aetna Inc. and others will halt new child-only policies in California, Illinois, Florida, Connecticut and elsewhere as early as Thursday when provisions of the nation's new healthcare law take effect, including a requirement that insurers cover children under age 19 regardless of their health histories.

The action will apply only to new coverage sought for children and not to existing child-only plans, family policies or insurance provided to youngsters through their parents' employers. An estimated 80,000 California children currently without insurance — and as many as 500,000 nationwide — would be affected, according to experts.

Health insurance: Big medical insurers to stop selling new child-only policies - latimes.com

 

[R.C. Christian]

Good job Washington.

 

[uscitizen]

If there is a demand for child only insurance someone will sell it.

Or isn't that how capitalism and supply/demand, etc works?

 

[Sheldon]

I think supply and demand function differently in the health-care market.

 

[uscitizen]

I think supply and demand function differently in the health-care market.

Yep And in insurance as well.

 

[uscitizen]

A perfect place for free market stuff?

 

[AllieBaba]

Yay, this means we're that much closer to having a government monopoly on insurance!

Happy days! I'm sure this is going to work out JUST GREAT for everybody!

 

[Madeline]

Insurers want to be in a guaranteed profit position, and without the right to deny health care coverage to very ill people they have a much harder time doing so. It's rational behavior on their part but it underscores why a capitalist, for-profit system does not work in health care.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If there is a demand for child only insurance someone will sell it.

Or isn't that how capitalism and supply/demand, etc works?

Not when regulations are so odious and expensive that one can not make money selling a service.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Insurers want to be in a guaranteed profit position, and without the right to deny health care coverage to very ill people they have a much harder time doing so. It's rational behavior on their part but it underscores why a capitalist, for-profit system does not work in health care.

Hate to break it to you but no profit no insurance company. They have to make a profit to stay in business. How exactly do they pay for your bills if they have no money?

 

[Madeline]

I agree with you, RetiredGySgt. That's why I support universal care....I don't think private insurance is the answer.

 

[California Girl]

I agree with you, RetiredGySgt. That's why I support universal care....I don't think private insurance is the answer.

If you actually knew what 'universal' care would look like in the US, I doubt you'd be quite so keen. Anyone who has actually experienced it - and paid for it - is slightly more informed than you are.

The Brits love their NHS, and everyone who works here (including me - who doesn't actually use it because I have private health insurance) pays for it. No matter how much money you dump into it, it's not enough. For an island of some 60million people, their NHS is the 4th largest employer IN THE WORLD.

The French have a good service. But, again, taxpayers are being bled dry by it. The system works well but not only do they have to pay a fortune into it, they also have to have private 'top up' insurance to pay for the stuff their system doesn't cover.

All across Europe these 'single payer' systems are a fucking nightmare. It's one of those things that looks good on paper but it just doesn't work in practice.

 

[chanel]

And that's what will happen here. The "rich" will still have better insurance, because they will buy additional coverage. The people who will be screwed are the middle class. As always.

This is from Hot Air. I couldn't agree more.

The real truth is that hardly anyone under 40 needs the kind of insurance policy mandated by ObamaCare. They would be much better advised to buy catastrophic insurance and pay for their minimal use of the medical system through HSAs. Most younger people take one visit to a clinic each year, which would cost arounbd $150, for a physical, a far cry from the thousands they will have to pay for ObamaCare exchange policies. They are being used to subsidize older members of the risk pool in order to keep insurers from going bankrupt under the weight of ObamaCare mandates for coverage.

Hot Air Insurers to drop child-only plans

 

[R.C. Christian]

Now this is change you can believe in.

 

[chanel]

Yeah. No one saw this coming. Oh wait. Half of us did.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I agree with you, RetiredGySgt. That's why I support universal care....I don't think private insurance is the answer.

If you actually knew what 'universal' care would look like in the US, I doubt you'd be quite so keen. Anyone who has actually experienced it - and paid for it - is slightly more informed than you are.

The Brits love their NHS, and everyone who works here (including me - who doesn't actually use it because I have private health insurance) pays for it. No matter how much money you dump into it, it's not enough. For an island of some 60million people, their NHS is the 4th largest employer IN THE WORLD.

The French have a good service. But, again, taxpayers are being bled dry by it. The system works well but not only do they have to pay a fortune into it, they also have to have private 'top up' insurance to pay for the stuff their system doesn't cover.

All across Europe these 'single payer' systems are a fucking nightmare. It's one of those things that looks good on paper but it just doesn't work in practice.

Madeline is a Ravi clone, clueless and uninformed. She routinely makes statements and espouses positions with out a clue as to reality or history. Having an intelligent conversation with her is tough as she also just ignores all the information you give her or can not comprehend it.

 

[uscitizen]

Insurers want to be in a guaranteed profit position, and without the right to deny health care coverage to very ill people they have a much harder time doing so. It's rational behavior on their part but it underscores why a capitalist, for-profit system does not work in health care.

Hate to break it to you but no profit no insurance company. They have to make a profit to stay in business. How exactly do they pay for your bills if they have no money?

Umm ever hear of not for profit?

 

[chanel]

Non profits hoard money instead of sharing with their investors. They too have bills to pay.

Nonprofit health insurers may be setting aside unnecessarily large surpluses even as some of them continue to raise premiums, according to an analysis by a consumer rights group.

The report released Thursday by the Consumers Union, the nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports, found that seven of 10 Blue Cross Blue Shield affiliates examined had amassed surpluses that are more than three times the level regulators deemed necessary for them to remain solvent.

Nonprofit health insurers holding large surpluses, consumer group reports

 

[PoliticalChic]

Insurers want to be in a guaranteed profit position, and without the right to deny health care coverage to very ill people they have a much harder time doing so. It's rational behavior on their part but it underscores why a capitalist, for-profit system does not work in health care.

Why would you suggest that the healthcare system functions on a capitalist basis???

How can you keep requiring business to go into the red, and see the system as naught but exactly what those of us who opposed it- for exactly this reason- as the neo-socialist scam that it is????


"Insurers said they were acting because the new federal requirement could create huge and unexpected costs for covering children. They said the rule might prompt parents to buy policies only after their kids became sick, producing a glut of ill youngsters to insure. As a result, they said, many companies would flee the marketplace, leaving behind a handful to shoulder a huge financial burden."
Ibid.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Major health insurance companies in California and other states have decided to stop selling policies for children rather than comply with a new federal healthcare law that bars them from rejecting youngsters with preexisting medical conditions.

Anthem Blue Cross, Aetna Inc. and others will halt new child-only policies in California, Illinois, Florida, Connecticut and elsewhere as early as Thursday when provisions of the nation's new healthcare law take effect, including a requirement that insurers cover children under age 19 regardless of their health histories.

The action will apply only to new coverage sought for children and not to existing child-only plans, family policies or insurance provided to youngsters through their parents' employers. An estimated 80,000 California children currently without insurance — and as many as 500,000 nationwide — would be affected, according to experts.

Health insurance: Big medical insurers to stop selling new child-only policies - latimes.com

Interesting article, Chris.

I'm sure you didn't intend it as such, but it clearly validated the criticisms of Obamacare that so many of us made.