Is Mitt right?

[BDBoop]

Mitt Romney: Insurance companies should be allowed to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions

Read more: Mitt Romney: Insurance companies should be allowed to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions - NY Daily News

 

[whitehall]

Forcing medical insurance to cover people who have been diagnosed with a terminal disease is like forcing liability companies to insure a burning building.

 

[BDBoop]

So they are just screwed, is what you're saying.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Should insurance companies be allowed to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions

If we had ‘single-payer’ universal healthcare – Medicare for all – yes, it would be perfectly appropriate for health insurance companies to deny based on pre-existing conditions. One is entitled to healthcare, he is not entitled to health insurance.

But unfortunately we don’t, so no.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Mitt Romney: Insurance companies should be allowed to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions

Read more: Mitt Romney: Insurance companies should be allowed to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions - NY Daily News

Are you prepared for the charge that an Insurance company would make to cover someone with a pre existing condition? Or are you claiming they should cover people and not charge an appropriate amount for the risk and cost?

 

[midcan5]

"We have two American flags always: one for the rich and one for the poor. When the rich fly it means that things are under control; when the poor fly it means danger, revolution, anarchy." Henry Miller

Life, sickness, accidents, injuries, and death are all preexisting conditions of this thing we call life. If the world were made up of Mitts (today's Mitt) we could change our primary American value to the land of the social Darwinists. No offence meant to Darwin who was misunderstood.

No one complains when we buy bombs, but many complain when we help people. What a odd land we live in.

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." Dom Helder Camara

 

[oldernwiser]

Should insurance companies be allowed to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions

If we had ‘single-payer’ universal healthcare – Medicare for all – yes, it would be perfectly appropriate for health insurance companies to deny based on pre-existing conditions. One is entitled to healthcare, he is not entitled to health insurance.

But unfortunately we don’t, so no.

Think you might have this backwards.
If we had universal healthcare (Medicare for all, as you put it), then no one should be turned away for any reason.

If we have to pay for our health insurance, the best way I can think of to pay the MOST for premiums and get the least payback is to accept everyone without regard to their actual health.

Now - before the beating starts, please understand that health care is NOT the same thing as health insurance. It's because most folks don't understand the basic difference that we have this argument in the first place.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I see that Romney is saying that it is a state issue, not necessarily that he is for or against it?

 

[oldernwiser]

No one complains when we buy bombs, but many complain when we help people. What a odd land we live in.

No one complains about the thousands of lives lost or the untold cost of our "war on drugs", but the first thing they cut when they need a new prison is education - and the ensuing lack of education becomes a platform for the next administration. Sometimes we just make no sense at all.

 

[nitroz]

Forcing medical insurance to cover people who have been diagnosed with a terminal disease is like forcing liability companies to insure a burning building.

So you rather let them suffer until they croak?

 

[Katzndogz]

Requiring insurance companies to cover pre existing conditions means that most people just wouldn't get insurance at all until they were diagnosed. What is more persuasive is to be prohibited from covering pre existing conditions for someone who is just changing companies but has paid for insurance.

California has a state provision that covers those considered "uninsurable" due to pre existing conditions. The downside is, they can only be treated at the county hospital.

 

[Care4all]

Requiring insurance companies to cover pre existing conditions means that most people just wouldn't get insurance at all until they were diagnosed. What is more persuasive is to be prohibited from covering pre existing conditions for someone who is just changing companies but has paid for insurance.

California has a state provision that covers those considered "uninsurable" due to pre existing conditions. The downside is, they can only be treated at the county hospital.

but with it being mandatory, that is not the case....everyone has to have the insurance UPFRONT, so that shouldn't happen...

the way congress passed the law...

if it changes, then this would change or could change too. but as it stands, all will have insurance already, so no one is gonna wait till the last second.

and if insurance does not cover it, the preexisting conditions, then more hospitals will go bankrupt or the government will be reimbursing the hospitals with our tax dollars or money the gvt borrows from China.

 

[oldernwiser]

Requiring insurance companies to cover pre existing conditions means that most people just wouldn't get insurance at all until they were diagnosed. What is more persuasive is to be prohibited from covering pre existing conditions for someone who is just changing companies but has paid for insurance.

California has a state provision that covers those considered "uninsurable" due to pre existing conditions. The downside is, they can only be treated at the county hospital.

but with it being mandatory, that is not the case....everyone has to have the insurance UPFRONT, so that shouldn't happen...

the way congress passed the law...

if it changes, then this would change or could change too. but as it stands, all will have insurance already, so no one is gonna wait till the last second.

and if insurance does not cover it, the preexisting conditions, then more hospitals will go bankrupt or the government will be reimbursing the hospitals with our tax dollars or money the gvt borrows from China.

Actually, if SCOTUS rejects the appeal, then everyone WILL have insurance one way or another, and every insurer will be forced to accept new applicants without regard to pre-existing conditions. On top of that, the US Government will find itself to be the nation's #1 insurance provider in very short order.

Insurance companies use a common fund to protect one another against the chance that one company runs out of money to fully pay subscriber claims (ie, goes out of business, declares bankruptcy, etc). In the case of ACA, WE - more accurately, those of us who are employed - become the contingency funding plan.

 

[oldernwiser]

Requiring insurance companies to cover pre existing conditions means that most people just wouldn't get insurance at all until they were diagnosed. What is more persuasive is to be prohibited from covering pre existing conditions for someone who is just changing companies but has paid for insurance.

California has a state provision that covers those considered "uninsurable" due to pre existing conditions. The downside is, they can only be treated at the county hospital.

Most states already have a high risk pool set up to accommodate those who were rejected by private insurers. These folks pay MUCH higher rates, but, IMO, that's only fair.

Health insurance rates are set using a loss ratio applied to a specific group - benefits paid divided by premiums paid. As people with a MUCH higher risk are accepted in a specific group, the ratio approaches 100%. ACA would cap insurance providers to 80% before they ask for rate hikes - but how long do think it will take before the ACA plan starts to look really good financially?

As it is, the costs of medical services is expected to rise another 7+% next year, and will continue a 4 to 6% per year climb for the next decade at least. This is the benefits paid portion of the equation. Adding the requirement of pre-existing conditions (where the new subscriber WILL be using benefits) means a MUCH higher premium.

 

[Care4all]

Requiring insurance companies to cover pre existing conditions means that most people just wouldn't get insurance at all until they were diagnosed. What is more persuasive is to be prohibited from covering pre existing conditions for someone who is just changing companies but has paid for insurance.

California has a state provision that covers those considered "uninsurable" due to pre existing conditions. The downside is, they can only be treated at the county hospital.

Most states already have a high risk pool set up to accommodate those who were rejected by private insurers. These folks pay MUCH higher rates, but, IMO, that's only fair.

Health insurance rates are set using a loss ratio applied to a specific group - benefits paid divided by premiums paid. As people with a MUCH higher risk are accepted in a specific group, the ratio approaches 100%. ACA would cap insurance providers to 80% before they ask for rate hikes - but how long do think it will take before the ACA plan starts to look really good financially?

As it is, the costs of medical services is expected to rise another 7+% next year, and will continue a 4 to 6% per year climb for the next decade at least. This is the benefits paid portion of the equation. Adding the requirement of pre-existing conditions (where the new subscriber WILL be using benefits) means a MUCH higher premium.

Do you know how many people we have in this country with preexisting conditions that insurance companies rejected? 1% 10% 50%???? And are you saying, we as Insurance payers now, are ALREADY experiencing higher costs for our insurance so to pay for those without insurance...? Are the hospitals charging more for procedures etc to the insurance companies when their negotiations are made right now to cover those with preexisting conditions, and also for those without insurance....

basically, aren't our prices now for health insurance much higher than they should be, to cover the hospital's expense for all of those patients the hospitals take in with pre existing conditions or no insurance to help pay the bill?

Wasn't health insurance increasing each year before the health care bill passed at around 7%-12% a year and what was the reason for these increases the decade BEFORE Obama care?

Just wondering...

 

[rightwinger]

Forcing medical insurance to cover people who have been diagnosed with a terminal disease is like forcing liability companies to insure a burning building.

Just like Mitt......let them die

 

[PredFan]

It would be like me having and accident in my car, then buying a policy and demanding they pay for fixing it. I'm sorry you have this disease, but you don't have a right to have it paid for.

 

[BDBoop]

Yup.

This country is screwed.

 

[rightwinger]

It would be like me having and accident in my car, then buying a policy and demanding they pay for fixing it. I'm sorry you have this disease, but you don't have a right to have it paid for.

So someone who had cancer as a child or someone who has heart disease and lost their job is just shit out of luck

The only answer is cradle to grave health insurance that you can carry your whole life.

 

[BDBoop]

It would be like me having and accident in my car, then buying a policy and demanding they pay for fixing it. I'm sorry you have this disease, but you don't have a right to have it paid for.

So someone who had cancer as a child or someone who has heart disease and lost their job is just shit out of luck

The only answer is cradle to grave health insurance that you can carry your whole life.

What do you think the chances are he'd change his tune if a loved one was denied.

Those videos I posted yesterday - the people HAD health coverage. They were just denied treatment. One of the young ladies said "If I don't get this [product], I will die" and her examiner said "Okay."