Great News! Just Wait Until You are Sick to Buy Health Insurance!!!

[Truthmatters]

Insurer ends health program rather than pay out big - Washington Times

 

[Truthmatters]

Supply and demand you knot head.

They have a boomimg business..

How will you ignore the other links?

 

[Annie]

From the article in the OP, dumbasses: All Americans would be required for the first time to obtain insurance or face an annual penalty of $695

Which refutes that you can simply "wait until you're sick and purchase!"

Yea, go ahead, and pay an annual fine

I'll take the $695 penalty and pass on the $5k or more per year, until I need it. Thank you very much.

 

[Oldandtired]

Insurer ends health program rather than pay out big - Washington Times

Interesting.
Valid point.
The reason it happened is valid as well but it does not take away the inhumanity of the insurers decision.
What we dont know are the terms of the policy....and seeing as the courts said it was legal, I assume there was a clause in the policy that perhaps was one the insured ignored...did not read...or did not carew about

But I will admit....you make a good case here.

Just dont see it as being an industry wide problem as Reid Pelosi and Obama claim.

 

[Oldandtired]

Supply and demand you knot head.

They have a boomimg business..

How will you ignore the other links?

Knot head?

C'mon...who loves ya TM?
You know I do......dont call me knothead.

 

[Truthmatters]

"Legally barred from discriminating against individuals who submit large claims, the New York-based insurer simply canceled lines of coverage altogether in entire states to avoid paying high-cost claims like Mr. Pearl's."

They canceled a mass of claims to avoid paying this mans policy as they signed a contract to do. They took his money and then canceled him and a Bunch of other people so they didnt have to pay the bills.

 

[Truthmatters]

Daily Dose - HHS: Insurance Companies Encourage Employees to "Revoke Sick People's Health Coverage"

You forgot this one.

There are tons of them.

 

[Oldandtired]

Daily Dose - HHS: Insurance Companies Encourage Employees to "Revoke Sick People's Health Coverage"

You forgot this one.

There are tons of them.

That article says nothing of value.
The story of the lump...as sad as it is....was one of fraud. She knew of her previous diagnosis of osteoperosis and decided to chance it and not mention it.

That is inusrance fraud. She lied on an affidavit.

She was puinished for lying....and yes, the punishment became more severe....but she was not dropped due to the lump...she was dropped due to her lying on the application (afffidavit)...and she was caught lying because of the unfortunate lump.

Sort of like the NINJA loan thing.

Yes, those poor people lost their homes. But not becuase the banks intentionally fooled them into taking loans they could not afford. They lied on the mortgage applications. They lied about their income, and lied about their work history..and so they were approved.

They did not fail becuase the bank tricked them...they failed becuase they lied when they signed the application where it says:

"I swear to the validity of this infomration as to the best of my knowledge"

 

[Truthmatters]

HHS: Insurance Companies Encourage Employees to "Revoke Sick People's Health Coverage"
By David S. Hilzenrath

You might have known that insurers can deny health coverage based on preexisting medical conditions, but here’s something else to worry about: They can take away the coverage you thought you had when actually need it, the government says.

The Department of Health and Human Services put a spotlight on that practice Tuesday in its continuing campaign to build support for an overhaul of health insurance.

“When a person is diagnosed with an expensive condition such as cancer, some insurance companies review his/her initial health status questionnaire,” the HHS said in a posting at HealthReform.Gov. In most states, insurance companies can retroactively cancel individuals' policies if any condition was not disclosed when the policy was obtained,"even if the medical condition is unrelated, and even if the person was not aware of the condition at the time.”

 

[Care4all]

From the article in the OP, dumbasses: All Americans would be required for the first time to obtain insurance or face an annual penalty of $695

Which refutes that you can simply "wait until you're sick and purchase!"

Yea, go ahead, and pay an annual fine

OK.... A man makes 50K a year. His insurance costs him 7K a year. His penalty will be 1K if he is caught without insurance.

SO he gives it a whirl.....they wont catch me....I will save the 7K a year for now..

3 years goes by and no issue. He saved 21k....

Then the IRS cathces up to him and fines him 1K for each of the three years he did not have insurance.

Caught red handed! Yet he still nets out 18K.

Sounds like a plan to me.

No?

he did not get sick either right, that's why irs never caught up to him, right? so he never bought insurance to have them cover an illness....right?

so how does this example fit?

 

[Charles Stucker]

Elimination of pre-exisitng conditions will result in exactly that.

You can be the one who can tell the domestic abuse victims that they won't be getting insurance since they got the shit beaten out of them.

Go ahead.

Domestic Abuse victims won't have the injuries they received while uninsured covered. On the other hand they are covered if they get insured and THEN develop cancer. Or fall and break their hip. Or.... the list gets long after just a touch doesn't it.

Now the Gay who gets diagnosed with AID's while uninsured, he might have problems getting his AIDS covered, but that's the same as waiting until after the cancerous mass is found to wail "I need Care, Insure me NOW!!!!!!!"

 

[Oldandtired]

From the article in the OP, dumbasses: All Americans would be required for the first time to obtain insurance or face an annual penalty of $695

Which refutes that you can simply "wait until you're sick and purchase!"

Yea, go ahead, and pay an annual fine

OK.... A man makes 50K a year. His insurance costs him 7K a year. His penalty will be 1K if he is caught without insurance.

SO he gives it a whirl.....they wont catch me....I will save the 7K a year for now..

3 years goes by and no issue. He saved 21k....

Then the IRS cathces up to him and fines him 1K for each of the three years he did not have insurance.

Caught red handed! Yet he still nets out 18K.

Sounds like a plan to me.

No?

he did not get sick either right, that's why irs never caught up to him, right? so he never bought insurance to have them cover an illness....right?

so how does this example fit?

So are you denying that many do not buy insurance, especially the younger 20-30 generation becuase they believe they are not going to get sick and they prefer not spending the money?

How many times a year does your average healthy 25 year old go to the doctor? How many times a year MUST they see a doctor?

Yeah...that is what I am saying......people will gamble. They do it now....and in no way will the CHANCE of getting caught and having to pay 1K sway them into paying 7K a year for something they dont truly think they will need.

HOw many newlywed 25 year olds spend the 2K a year for a 500K term life insurance policy?

I bet it is less than 10%.

People will game the game and it is naive to think they will not.

 

[Skull Pilot]

From the article in the OP, dumbasses: All Americans would be required for the first time to obtain insurance or face an annual penalty of $695

Which refutes that you can simply "wait until you're sick and purchase!"

Yea, go ahead, and pay an annual fine

it's less than the premiums you'll be paying.

 

[Oldandtired]

HHS: Insurance Companies Encourage Employees to "Revoke Sick People's Health Coverage"
By David S. Hilzenrath

You might have known that insurers can deny health coverage based on preexisting medical conditions, but here’s something else to worry about: They can take away the coverage you thought you had when actually need it, the government says.

The Department of Health and Human Services put a spotlight on that practice Tuesday in its continuing campaign to build support for an overhaul of health insurance.

“When a person is diagnosed with an expensive condition such as cancer, some insurance companies review his/her initial health status questionnaire,” the HHS said in a posting at HealthReform.Gov. In most states, insurance companies can retroactively cancel individuals' policies if any condition was not disclosed when the policy was obtained,"even if the medical condition is unrelated, and even if the person was not aware of the condition at the time.”

Seeing as you opted to ignore it, I will respond to that link again:

That article says nothing of value.
The story of the lump...as sad as it is....was one of fraud. She knew of her previous diagnosis of osteoperosis and decided to chance it and not mention it.

That is inusrance fraud. She lied on an affidavit.

She was puinished for lying....and yes, the punishment became more severe....but she was not dropped due to the lump...she was dropped due to her lying on the application (afffidavit)...and she was caught lying because of the unfortunate lump.

Sort of like the NINJA loan thing.

Yes, those poor people lost their homes. But not becuase the banks intentionally fooled them into taking loans they could not afford. They lied on the mortgage applications. They lied about their income, and lied about their work history..and so they were approved.

They did not fail becuase the bank tricked them...they failed becuase they lied when they signed the application where it says:

"I swear to the validity of this infomration as to the best of my knowledge"

And just so you know, I am a conservative, yes, but I know we need HCR....and I am pushing for a public option as it is the only feasible way this thing will work...in my eyes.

 

[Oldandtired]

From the article in the OP, dumbasses: All Americans would be required for the first time to obtain insurance or face an annual penalty of $695

Which refutes that you can simply "wait until you're sick and purchase!"

Yea, go ahead, and pay an annual fine

it's less than the premiums you'll be paying.

Yeah...I explained that to GT andhe/she disappeared.

 

[Annie]

OK.... A man makes 50K a year. His insurance costs him 7K a year. His penalty will be 1K if he is caught without insurance.

SO he gives it a whirl.....they wont catch me....I will save the 7K a year for now..

3 years goes by and no issue. He saved 21k....

Then the IRS cathces up to him and fines him 1K for each of the three years he did not have insurance.

Caught red handed! Yet he still nets out 18K.

Sounds like a plan to me.

No?

he did not get sick either right, that's why irs never caught up to him, right? so he never bought insurance to have them cover an illness....right?

so how does this example fit?

So are you denying that many do not buy insurance, especially the younger 20-30 generation becuase they believe they are not going to get sick and they prefer not spending the money?

How many times a year does your average healthy 25 year old go to the doctor? How many times a year MUST they see a doctor?

Yeah...that is what I am saying......people will gamble. They do it now....and in no way will the CHANCE of getting caught and having to pay 1K sway them into paying 7K a year for something they dont truly think they will need.

HOw many newlywed 25 year olds spend the 2K a year for a 500K term life insurance policy?

I bet it is less than 10%.

People will game the game and it is naive to think they will not.

Indeed. Even someone older now will be able to take chances with health care. If I do lose my job, my Cobra is over $400 per month. If I had my choice, I'd be better off with skipping and paying for my occasional doctor's visit out of pocket, even with a $1k penalty. Now if I found I had diabetes or something, I'd sign right up, pre-existing and all. Sweet. Thank you all, very much!

 

[Care4all]

OK.... A man makes 50K a year. His insurance costs him 7K a year. His penalty will be 1K if he is caught without insurance.

SO he gives it a whirl.....they wont catch me....I will save the 7K a year for now..

3 years goes by and no issue. He saved 21k....

Then the IRS cathces up to him and fines him 1K for each of the three years he did not have insurance.

Caught red handed! Yet he still nets out 18K.

Sounds like a plan to me.

No?

he did not get sick either right, that's why irs never caught up to him, right? so he never bought insurance to have them cover an illness....right?

so how does this example fit?

So are you denying that many do not buy insurance, especially the younger 20-30 generation becuase they believe they are not going to get sick and they prefer not spending the money?

How many times a year does your average healthy 25 year old go to the doctor? How many times a year MUST they see a doctor?

Yeah...that is what I am saying......people will gamble. They do it now....and in no way will the CHANCE of getting caught and having to pay 1K sway them into paying 7K a year for something they dont truly think they will need.

HOw many newlywed 25 year olds spend the 2K a year for a 500K term life insurance policy?

I bet it is less than 10%.

People will game the game and it is naive to think they will not.

why would someone at 25, making only a modest salary, turn down FREE health insurance or nearly free health insurance? the affordability credits to buy insurance in varying amounts will be there to subsidize their insurance if the bill is what they say it is?

 

[Care4all]

also, WHY would someone with a preexisting condition of high blood pressure, hypertension, asthma, heart disease, etc, NOT BUY in to a health insurance plan....the whole point is that they could NOT buy in to a health insurance plan with their preexisting conditions because they were priced out of it...or denied coverage altogether by insurance companies?

BOTH THE REPUBLICANS and the democrats AGREE to this measure....so why argue over it? they both agree to covering preexisting conditions.

 

[Oldandtired]

he did not get sick either right, that's why irs never caught up to him, right? so he never bought insurance to have them cover an illness....right?

so how does this example fit?

So are you denying that many do not buy insurance, especially the younger 20-30 generation becuase they believe they are not going to get sick and they prefer not spending the money?

How many times a year does your average healthy 25 year old go to the doctor? How many times a year MUST they see a doctor?

Yeah...that is what I am saying......people will gamble. They do it now....and in no way will the CHANCE of getting caught and having to pay 1K sway them into paying 7K a year for something they dont truly think they will need.

HOw many newlywed 25 year olds spend the 2K a year for a 500K term life insurance policy?

I bet it is less than 10%.

People will game the game and it is naive to think they will not.

why would someone at 25, making only a modest salary, turn down FREE health insurance or nearly free health insurance? the affordability credits to buy insurance in varying amounts will be there to subsidize their insurance if the bill is what they say it is?

Point well made.

So lets look at 35.....making 100K.....7K is a nice chunk.....worth waiting until it is needed is not a bad idea.....

People game the game....happens all the time......for this to be done right, we need a single payer system or a public opotion. I do not want either, but I want HCR for those with pre-exisiting conditions....and the only way that will work is if we get rid of the insurance industry...not happy about it...but pre-exisiting condition issues have to come before what I lkike and dont like.

 

[Oldandtired]

also, WHY would someone with a preexisting condition of high blood pressure, hypertension, asthma, heart disease, etc, NOT BUY in to a health insurance plan....the whole point is that they could NOT buy in to a health insurance plan with their preexisting conditions because they were priced out of it...or denied coverage altogether by insurance companies?

BOTH THE REPUBLICANS and the democrats AGREE to this measure....so why argue over it? they both agree to covering preexisting conditions.

I am not arguing that at all.

I am referring to those that are healthy...and dont want to pay the 7K...and will wait till they MUST pay the 7K...

But we are not far apart.... I am for HCR..and I am for something way different than my co-consertvatives are for becuase I am looking at it from a liberal's eyes....

I was debating TM on the validity of the DROPPING of those that have pre-exisitng conditions they knew about but did not reveal.