More evidence of Obamacare lies, FAIL...

[Capitalist]

​

(WaPo) Some of the country’s most prominent health insurance companies have decided to stop offering new child-only plans, rather than comply with rules in the new health-care law that will require such plans to start accepting children with preexisting medical conditions after Sept. 23.
The companies will continue to cover children who already have child-only policies. They will also accept children with preexisting conditions in new family policies.
Nonetheless, supporters of the new health-care law complain that the change amounts to an end run around one of the most prized consumer protections.
“We’re just days away from a new era when insurance companies must stop denying coverage to kids just because they are sick, and now some of the biggest changed their minds,” Ethan Rome, executive director of Health Care for America Now, an advocacy group, said in a statement. “[It] is immoral, and to blame their appalling behavior on the new law is patently dishonest.”
Three insurers – WellPoint, Cigna and CoventryOne – all cited uncertainty in the health insurance market for their decisions. That incertitude and the resulting decision of other insurers to drop their child-only plans, according to WellPoint spokeswoman Kristin Binns, “has created an unlevel competitive environment.”
CoventryOne spokesman Matthew D. Eyles said that the insurer was facing “unique challenges that could undermine our ability to offer value and meet our continued obligations to existing policyholders.”
Read more >>>
​

 

[rightwinger]

(WaPo) Some of the country’s most prominent health insurance companies have decided to stop offering new child-only plans, rather than comply with rules in the new health-care law that will require such plans to start accepting children with preexisting medical conditions after Sept. 23.

Interesting....Insurance companies find the comprehensive health-care plan too burdensome. Maybe if we put in a PUBLIC OPTION they would be willing to compete.

We sold out our Healthcare plan to give insurers everything they wanted (mandatory coverage) without demanding any concessions in return. If they can't find a way to protect children with pre-existing conditions it is more evidence that we should have provided families with a choice from the beginning

 

[Charles_Main]

(WaPo) Some of the country’s most prominent health insurance companies have decided to stop offering new child-only plans, rather than comply with rules in the new health-care law that will require such plans to start accepting children with preexisting medical conditions after Sept. 23.

Interesting....Insurance companies find the comprehensive health-care plan too burdensome. Maybe if we put in a PUBLIC OPTION they would be willing to compete.

We sold out our Healthcare plan to give insurers everything they wanted (mandatory coverage) without demanding any concessions in return. If they can't find a way to protect children with pre-existing conditions it is more evidence that we should have provided families with a choice from the beginning

Yep, isn't hope and change great.

 

[Capitalist]

(WaPo) Some of the country’s most prominent health insurance companies have decided to stop offering new child-only plans, rather than comply with rules in the new health-care law that will require such plans to start accepting children with preexisting medical conditions after Sept. 23.

Interesting....Insurance companies find the comprehensive health-care plan too burdensome. Maybe if we put in a PUBLIC OPTION they would be willing to compete.

We sold out our Healthcare plan to give insurers everything they wanted (mandatory coverage) without demanding any concessions in return. If they can't find a way to protect children with pre-existing conditions it is more evidence that we should have provided families with a choice from the beginning

Well that's at least what the central planners in DC thought, when they crafted the bill that nobody thought to read....
Maybe the free market has out-thought the central planners, once again.

 

[rightwinger]

(WaPo) Some of the country’s most prominent health insurance companies have decided to stop offering new child-only plans, rather than comply with rules in the new health-care law that will require such plans to start accepting children with preexisting medical conditions after Sept. 23.

Interesting....Insurance companies find the comprehensive health-care plan too burdensome. Maybe if we put in a PUBLIC OPTION they would be willing to compete.

We sold out our Healthcare plan to give insurers everything they wanted (mandatory coverage) without demanding any concessions in return. If they can't find a way to protect children with pre-existing conditions it is more evidence that we should have provided families with a choice from the beginning

Well that's at least what the central planners in DC thought, when they crafted the bill that nobody thought to read....
Maybe the free market has out-thought the central planners, once again.

No, they have done just what we expected them to do.

Insurance companies spent billions lobbying against a Government Option. They gave us a nice smile and said "You can trust us.....we can provide the insurance America needs without the nasty government getting involved"

If insurance companies are unable to find a way to insure babies with pre-existing health problems, it is ample evidence that we need a Government option to fill the needs of Americans

 

[auditor0007]

The insurance companies will do whatever they can to avoid losses. Unfortunately, they are shooting themselves in the foot. Their days are probably numbered due to their own greed. And I do mean greed. Unlike any other industry in a capitalistic society, healthcare and insurance do not follow the model. Think about this; when an industry grows and that industry/company sells more of its products, what happens to the price of those products? The price drops, usually drastically. The healthcare industry has been growing by leaps and bounds, and it is on course to grow substantially larger with the baby boomers hitting retirement. But what happens to the cost? It goes up and up and up. Now why is that?

I'll tell you one very simple reason. It is not the only reason, but it should give you a better understanding of how healthcare works in the good old US of A. Insurance companies make a very small profit margin. This is a fact. However, their costs are pretty basic. They have two primary expenses, administrative costs, and actual healthcare costs. The administrative costs are pretty much set in stone; they can't do much to change those. As for the actual healthcare costs, do you think insurance companies want lower or higher costs? They do not want lower costs, and here is the reason. The more they must pay out, the more they must charge for premiums. Because they make a very small profit margin, the more volume they do, the more they make. If an insurance company must charge a policyholder $2000 per year, and they make a 5% profit, then they make $100 in profit. If they must charge $5000 per year due to escalating healthcare costs, and they make that same 5% profit margin, then they earn a profit of $250. If you ran an insurance company, which would you prefer, lower costs with lower revenues and less profit, or higher costs with higher revenues and more profit? You see, the system is set up to increase costs. That is what is good for the insurers. They don't care if costs are going through the roof, because it is increasing their profits. And this is why the same medical procedure can vary in price by hundreds, thousands, and even tens of thousands of dollars. And in most cases, the insurer is hoping to pay the most expensive rate possible, because it is in their best interest.

 

[Article 15]

(WaPo) Some of the country’s most prominent health insurance companies have decided to stop offering new child-only plans, rather than comply with rules in the new health-care law that will require such plans to start accepting children with preexisting medical conditions after Sept. 23.

Interesting....Insurance companies find the comprehensive health-care plan too burdensome. Maybe if we put in a PUBLIC OPTION they would be willing to compete.

We sold out our Healthcare plan to give insurers everything they wanted (mandatory coverage) without demanding any concessions in return. If they can't find a way to protect children with pre-existing conditions it is more evidence that we should have provided families with a choice from the beginning

Yep, isn't hope and change great.

So wait ... you support a public option?

 

[Nosmo King]

(WaPo) Some of the country’s most prominent health insurance companies have decided to stop offering new child-only plans, rather than comply with rules in the new health-care law that will require such plans to start accepting children with preexisting medical conditions after Sept. 23.

Interesting....Insurance companies find the comprehensive health-care plan too burdensome. Maybe if we put in a PUBLIC OPTION they would be willing to compete.

We sold out our Healthcare plan to give insurers everything they wanted (mandatory coverage) without demanding any concessions in return. If they can't find a way to protect children with pre-existing conditions it is more evidence that we should have provided families with a choice from the beginning

Well that's at least what the central planners in DC thought, when they crafted the bill that nobody thought to read....
Maybe the free market has out-thought the central planners, once again.

Out-thought the central planners? To what end? Screw the families with sick children and increase the corporate bottom line?

If this represents the nobility and benefits of Capitalism, how can anyone with a conscience support it?

 

[Full-Auto]

Interesting....Insurance companies find the comprehensive health-care plan too burdensome. Maybe if we put in a PUBLIC OPTION they would be willing to compete.

We sold out our Healthcare plan to give insurers everything they wanted (mandatory coverage) without demanding any concessions in return. If they can't find a way to protect children with pre-existing conditions it is more evidence that we should have provided families with a choice from the beginning

Well that's at least what the central planners in DC thought, when they crafted the bill that nobody thought to read....
Maybe the free market has out-thought the central planners, once again.

Out-thought the central planners? To what end? Screw the families with sick children and increase the corporate bottom line?

If this represents the nobility and benefits of Capitalism, how can anyone with a conscience support it?

They are no longer offering these policies because they can not predict costs.

Just once I WOULD LIKE THE LEFT TO PROVE MOTIVES AND INTENT.

 

[rightwinger]

Well that's at least what the central planners in DC thought, when they crafted the bill that nobody thought to read....
Maybe the free market has out-thought the central planners, once again.

Out-thought the central planners? To what end? Screw the families with sick children and increase the corporate bottom line?

If this represents the nobility and benefits of Capitalism, how can anyone with a conscience support it?

They are no longer offering these policies because they can not predict costs.

Just once I WOULD LIKE THE LEFT TO PROVE MOTIVES AND INTENT.

If that is the case, it looks like the government needs to step in and offer insurance for these poor children.

Insurance companies assured us if we removed the government option that they would provide the necessary coverage. If they can't. lets bring back the government option

 

[Capitalist]

From Rep. Dave Camp:
Results from a report released a month after the health care vote were troubling. The report released by Medicare and Medicaid actuaries showed that medical costs will skyrocket rising $389 billion 10 years. 14 million will lose their employer-based coverage. Millions of Americans will be left without insurance. And, millions more may be dumped into the already overwhelmed Medicaid system. 4 million American families will be hit with tax penalties under this new law.

From Politico.com a few stats:
–4,103 – Pages of regulations issued on the health care law through Sept. 17, 2010
–12 – Number of final regulations not subjected to public scrutiny before taking effect
–5 – Missed implementation deadlines to date.

From Rep. Michael Burgess M.D. (R-TX), the ranking member of the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Regulations:
called for Secretary Sebelius to come before the committee and explain some of her troubling comments.

“It has now been six months since the passage of the PPACA, and this Committee has yet to hear from Secretary Sebelius on her efforts to administer the law. Secretary Sebelius is the head of the department now responsible for overseeing a dramatic change to one-fifth of the American economy, and Members of Congress should have the opportunity to discuss the PPACA with her,” the lawmakers wrote.
The letter emphasized the committee and subcommittee’s important oversight responsibilities, noting that, “In the months leading up to the passage of the PPACA, the Subcommittee on Health and the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a number of hearings in order to build support for the passage of a new health care law. Since its passage, however, these committees have not held one hearing specifically on the PPACA. As the Ranking Members of the Full Committee and the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, we believe this is unacceptable.”
The lawmakers first made the request to Waxman for Secretary Sebelius to testify before the committee in a letter dated July 30, 2010, but have received no response.
“Since we sent that letter, Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said during an interview with ABC News Radio on August 30, 2010, ‘[T]here is still a great deal of confusion about what is in [the health care law] and what isn’t.’ The Secretary concluded that the administration had ‘a lot of reeducation to do.’”
“Inviting Secretary Sebelius to testify before this Committee, so that we may understand her ‘reeducation’ of the American public, would be a good start to a public conversation about the new health care law,” Burgess and Barton continued.

To view the letter, click here.
—Congressman Michael Burgess, R-Texas, ranking member of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, and Congressman Joe Barton, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, today wrote to Committee Chairman Henry Waxman requesting that the Secretary of Health and Human Services testify before the committee on implementation of the health care law.

 

[Meister]

Out-thought the central planners? To what end? Screw the families with sick children and increase the corporate bottom line?

If this represents the nobility and benefits of Capitalism, how can anyone with a conscience support it?

They are no longer offering these policies because they can not predict costs.

Just once I WOULD LIKE THE LEFT TO PROVE MOTIVES AND INTENT.

If that is the case, it looks like the government needs to step in and offer insurance for these poor children.

Insurance companies assured us if we removed the government option that they would provide the necessary coverage. If they can't. lets bring back the government option

If the government never stepped in with the mandates, the insurance companies would have never excluded the single child coverage.
Perhaps the insurance companies would have provided the proper care with proper healthcare reform, instead of this BS that has landed on their lap from the government. Hmmmmm?

 

[Nosmo King]

They are no longer offering these policies because they can not predict costs.

Just once I WOULD LIKE THE LEFT TO PROVE MOTIVES AND INTENT.

If that is the case, it looks like the government needs to step in and offer insurance for these poor children.

Insurance companies assured us if we removed the government option that they would provide the necessary coverage. If they can't. lets bring back the government option

If the government never stepped in with the mandates, the insurance companies would have never excluded the single child coverage.
Perhaps the insurance companies would have provided the proper care with proper healthcare reform, instead of this BS that has landed on their lap from the government. Hmmmmm?

Are you basing this on the insurance company's long standing reputation for fair play and honest brokering? Hmmmmm? Surely no insurance company would ever do anything to deny a child with a pre-existing condition! Why that would be heartless! And insurance companies are anything but heartless.

 

[Meister]

If that is the case, it looks like the government needs to step in and offer insurance for these poor children.

Insurance companies assured us if we removed the government option that they would provide the necessary coverage. If they can't. lets bring back the government option

If the government never stepped in with the mandates, the insurance companies would have never excluded the single child coverage.
Perhaps the insurance companies would have provided the proper care with proper healthcare reform, instead of this BS that has landed on their lap from the government. Hmmmmm?

Are you basing this on the insurance company's long standing reputation for fair play and honest brokering? Hmmmmm? Surely no insurance company would ever do anything to deny a child with a pre-existing condition! Why that would be heartless! And insurance companies are anything but heartless.

You failed to acknowledge the part where I stated "proper care with proper healthcare reform" everything else would have fallen into place. As for the rest of your drivel.....well that just what it is.....drivel.

 

[Full-Auto]

Out-thought the central planners? To what end? Screw the families with sick children and increase the corporate bottom line?

If this represents the nobility and benefits of Capitalism, how can anyone with a conscience support it?

They are no longer offering these policies because they can not predict costs.

Just once I WOULD LIKE THE LEFT TO PROVE MOTIVES AND INTENT.

If that is the case, it looks like the government needs to step in and offer insurance for these poor children.

Insurance companies assured us if we removed the government option that they would provide the necessary coverage. If they can't. lets bring back the government option

So you would be much happier government denying the care Based on rules not yet written. Which lobbyist will be helping the democrats write the rules?

 

[Chris]

This is exactly why we need a public option.

For profit insurance companies do not want to cover sick people.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Everybody will be singing a different tune when you realize just how much this "free" health care is going to cost you.

 

[∑₭o Đ∆Żə]

I figured this would happen. People (like rightwinger in another thread) talk about how health care won't change so much because people can still keep their existing plan -- for now.

What Obummer is doing is to make it impossible for isurance companies to offer certain kinds of coverage because they simply couldn't stay in business if they did. This is a further extension of the Marxist operating plan; demand the impossible, and then punish the 'villian' by taking more of what it has. What this will mean is that we'll soon be one step closer to the UK, Canadian and Swiss government monopoly on all-things-related-to-medicine plan. It's just a work in process.

 

[Chris]

Every other industrialized nation in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. Why? Because healthcare lobbyists gave $10 BILLION DOLLARS to members of Congress in the last decade. The Republicans and their corporate masters are the ones who are ripping us off, not Obama.

 

[∑₭o Đ∆Żə]

Every other industrialized nation in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. Why? Because healthcare lobbyists gave $10 BILLION DOLLARS to members of Congress in the last decade. The Republicans and their corporate masters are the ones who are ripping us off, not Obama.

Don't leave out the part about 6-month waiting lists to see doctors, preferential treatment for party members and those with connections (which technically never happens), far fewer tests and proceedures available -- even for those who'd sell their own house to stay alive, all the peopel who die while on waiting lists with no legal alternatives, as well as being stuck with whatever kind of care they're given or however they're treated by professionals.

Eat you fruits and veggies America, and learn how to kiss-ass big time, because if the people handling your medical case decide they don't like you for any reason, then you're shit outta' luck.