Health Insurers Raise Rates Because of Obamacare

Yes. A woman on O'Reilly explained that the companies can no longer deny or require a co-pay for preventative tests like MRIs and conolonscopies and whatnot.

MRIs? No. Cost-sharing is eliminated for preventive services that have an A or B rating from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. That list can be viewed here. It ranges from an aspirin to a vision test to cancer screenings.
 
So you think a program that would have increased their number of clients, would make an insurance company have to raise their rates?

If you own a restaurant, and you say double the amount of customers you are getting, paying customers I might add. The insurance companies will be charging the government, for covering their new customers. Would you be forced to raise your prices?
Obamacare is mostly providing insurance for people, through private plans. These insurance companies are going to have millions of new customers. How is the bad for them again?

Let us examine how this works.

A 20 something man looks at the individual mandate tax of $600 and then looks at the insurance premium of $300 a month. This means he has a choice between paying $3600 for something he doesn't want, or $600 for not getting it, which do you think he will choose?

On top of that, the mandate does not take effect until 2016, (after Obama is out of office) which means that this year insurers have to increase benefits, cover sick people, and cut their profits, all without the benefit of more customers. Explain to me, in very small words, how this is going to drive down premium costs this year.
 
So you think a program that would have increased their number of clients, would make an insurance company have to raise their rates?

If you own a restaurant, and you say double the amount of customers you are getting, paying customers I might add. The insurance companies will be charging the government, for covering their new customers. Would you be forced to raise your prices?
Obamacare is mostly providing insurance for people, through private plans. These insurance companies are going to have millions of new customers. How is the bad for them again?

Let us examine how this works.

A 20 something man looks at the individual mandate tax of $600 and then looks at the insurance premium of $300 a month. This means he has a choice between paying $3600 for something he doesn't want, or $600 for not getting it, which do you think he will choose?

On top of that, the mandate does not take effect until 2016, (after Obama is out of office) which means that this year insurers have to increase benefits, cover sick people, and cut their profits, all without the benefit of more customers. Explain to me, in very small words, how this is going to drive down premium costs this year.

GREEDY INSURANCE COMPANIES!!! REPUBLICANS DONT CARE!!! BOOOOSSSHHHHH!!

That's about the best response you'll get to your careful question.
Yes, mandates for increased coverage kick in immediately. Thus prices must rise to cover them because the law did not limit premiums. nor could it because that would drive insurers out of business.
 
A 20 something man looks at the individual mandate tax of $600 and then looks at the insurance premium of $300 a month. This means he has a choice between paying $3600 for something he doesn't want, or $600 for not getting it, which do you think he will choose?

Perhaps he'll opt for a catastrophic plan.
 
A 20 something man looks at the individual mandate tax of $600 and then looks at the insurance premium of $300 a month. This means he has a choice between paying $3600 for something he doesn't want, or $600 for not getting it, which do you think he will choose?

Perhaps he'll opt for a catastrophic plan.

I didn't when it was me, and I wouldn't now if I was 20 something.
 
A 20 something man looks at the individual mandate tax of $600 and then looks at the insurance premium of $300 a month. This means he has a choice between paying $3600 for something he doesn't want, or $600 for not getting it, which do you think he will choose?

Perhaps he'll opt for a catastrophic plan.

I didn't when it was me, and I wouldn't now if I was 20 something.

My 24 year old son agreed with you. Luckily he just landed a job. For the past year + some months, he went without.
 
A 20 something man looks at the individual mandate tax of $600 and then looks at the insurance premium of $300 a month. This means he has a choice between paying $3600 for something he doesn't want, or $600 for not getting it, which do you think he will choose?

Perhaps he'll opt for a catastrophic plan.

I didn't when it was me, and I wouldn't now if I was 20 something.

Why would you? If you get sick then you apply afterwards. They can't deny you coverage. That's the law.
From the time I was 20 until I was probably 35 or so I hardly ever went to the doctor, much less had anything that needed real attention. All the health insurance I had basically wasted during that time. IN retrospect anyway.
 
Perhaps he'll opt for a catastrophic plan.

I didn't when it was me, and I wouldn't now if I was 20 something.

Why would you? If you get sick then you apply afterwards. They can't deny you coverage. That's the law.

Ignorance on full display. You can't go without coverage and then just pick it up the day you get sick. What happens if you are in a car accident and are in a coma? Still gonna call to request coverage? Well thought out logic though. :cuckoo:

In reality, there will be enrollment periods preventing people from being able to do this.
 
I didn't when it was me, and I wouldn't now if I was 20 something.

Why would you? If you get sick then you apply afterwards. They can't deny you coverage. That's the law.

Ignorance on full display. You can't go without coverage and then just pick it up the day you get sick. What happens if you are in a car accident and are in a coma? Still gonna call to request coverage? Well thought out logic though. :cuckoo:

In reality, there will be enrollment periods preventing people from being able to do this.

Many states cover ar accidents under car insurance polices. Nice job of thinking that through.
 
Why would you? If you get sick then you apply afterwards. They can't deny you coverage. That's the law.

Ignorance on full display. You can't go without coverage and then just pick it up the day you get sick. What happens if you are in a car accident and are in a coma? Still gonna call to request coverage? Well thought out logic though. :cuckoo:

In reality, there will be enrollment periods preventing people from being able to do this.

Many states cover ar accidents under car insurance polices. Nice job of thinking that through.

You'll have to excuse RDD. He thought insurers were opposed to Obamacare so his level of knowledge here is minimal.
 
Why would you? If you get sick then you apply afterwards. They can't deny you coverage. That's the law.

Ignorance on full display. You can't go without coverage and then just pick it up the day you get sick. What happens if you are in a car accident and are in a coma? Still gonna call to request coverage? Well thought out logic though. :cuckoo:

In reality, there will be enrollment periods preventing people from being able to do this.

Many states cover ar accidents under car insurance polices. Nice job of thinking that through.

LMAO! :clap2:
 
Ignorance on full display. You can't go without coverage and then just pick it up the day you get sick. What happens if you are in a car accident and are in a coma? Still gonna call to request coverage? Well thought out logic though. :cuckoo:

In reality, there will be enrollment periods preventing people from being able to do this.

Many states cover ar accidents under car insurance polices. Nice job of thinking that through.

You'll have to excuse RDD. He thought insurers were opposed to Obamacare so his level of knowledge here is minimal.

Nice non-response.
 
Ignorance on full display. You can't go without coverage and then just pick it up the day you get sick. What happens if you are in a car accident and are in a coma? Still gonna call to request coverage? Well thought out logic though. :cuckoo:

In reality, there will be enrollment periods preventing people from being able to do this.

Many states cover ar accidents under car insurance polices. Nice job of thinking that through.

LMAO! :clap2:

You find it funny that you made an inaccurate and poorly thought out reply? Good for you I guess.
 

You find it funny that you made an inaccurate and poorly thought out reply? Good for you I guess.

LOL, Ok, you have a stroke, or heart attack, or shot and are rendered unconscious, etc.... Is your master plan to still be covered by your car insurance? LOL.

Okay, switching back to that argument. So, I got you on the car accident point.

Most people are well protected under bankruptcy laws and would suffer minimal losses on a medical bankruptcy. People do this on a regular basis. Care to inquire as to why it is so popular? Cheaper than insurance and fairly easy to get. No denial of coverage. You do realize hospitals will give you care on the conditions you mentioned right?
 
You find it funny that you made an inaccurate and poorly thought out reply? Good for you I guess.

LOL, Ok, you have a stroke, or heart attack, or shot and are rendered unconscious, etc.... Is your master plan to still be covered by your car insurance? LOL.

Okay, switching back to that argument. So, I got you on the car accident point.

Most people are well protected under bankruptcy laws and would suffer minimal losses on a medical bankruptcy. People do this on a regular basis. Care to inquire as to why it is so popular? Cheaper than insurance and fairly easy to get. No denial of coverage. You do realize hospitals will give you care on the conditions you mentioned right?

IT GETS EVEN BETTER! Your solution is bankruptcy!!! LMAO!!!!! :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: LOL!!!! Holy shit, I need to catch my breath. WOW!!!
 
Yes, I'm the first to have ever considered it.


Illness and medical bills caused half of the 1,458,000 personal bankruptcies in 2001, according to a study published by the journal Health Affairs.

Read more: Medical Bills Leading Cause of Bankruptcy, Harvard Study Finds

LOL, I'm still laughing!

You just proved exactly why health reform is needed in this country, because of the overwhelming number of people who went bankrupt due to medical bills.

LOL, Thank you for the good laugh, I appreciate it.
 
Yes, I'm the first to have ever considered it.


Illness and medical bills caused half of the 1,458,000 personal bankruptcies in 2001, according to a study published by the journal Health Affairs.

Read more: Medical Bills Leading Cause of Bankruptcy, Harvard Study Finds

LOL, I'm still laughing!

You just proved exactly why health reform is needed in this country, because of the overwhelming number of people who went bankrupt due to medical bills.

LOL, Thank you for the good laugh, I appreciate it.

When ARE they going to start healthcare reform? The cost containment type.
 
LOL, Ok, you have a stroke, or heart attack, or shot and are rendered unconscious, etc.... Is your master plan to still be covered by your car insurance? LOL.

Okay, switching back to that argument. So, I got you on the car accident point.

Most people are well protected under bankruptcy laws and would suffer minimal losses on a medical bankruptcy. People do this on a regular basis. Care to inquire as to why it is so popular? Cheaper than insurance and fairly easy to get. No denial of coverage. You do realize hospitals will give you care on the conditions you mentioned right?

IT GETS EVEN BETTER! Your solution is bankruptcy!!! LMAO!!!!! :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: LOL!!!! Holy shit, I need to catch my breath. WOW!!!

You have been pwned from here to eternity. Every post you have made is simply factually wrong. When you can't refute it, you declare victory and go home.

The basic point is proven: young people will not enroll in insurance plans that exceed to cost of the fine for not doing it. They will remain uninsured until they get sick, at which time they will apply for and get insurance. If they can't, their relatives can certainly do it for them under power of attorney (didn't consider that one, eh?).
Thus insurers will not really get the stock of premium-paying low risk people they thought but will be stuck with mandates that raise exposure.
Thus rates will continue up at ever greater percentages until a government takeover is the "only" solution.
 

Forum List

Back
Top