Pre-existing conditions coverage

[PaintMyHouse]

Auto insurance is required because of the Free Rider problem. That is different from the economics of an insurance company, and why they wouldn't and don't want very ill people they have to pay for.

So if I'm sick, why would an health insurance company not want me as a client? Why would they deny me a policy? What's the problem here, the OP needs to know?

 

[Plasmaball]

Keep in mind that this is the first time the govt has ever forced it's citizens to buy a product. There should be no mandate. Period.

You're not forced to buy auto insurance?

No, the federal govt will not tax or penalize me if I do not buy car insurance. However, since obamacare set a precedent I could now easily see the feds forcing you to buy car insurance.

What happens if you are driving without insurance and get pulled over? What does the government do then?

 

[Little-Acorn]

This is one of the most popular provisions in an otherwise despised law, Obamacare. It polls consistently well.

Of course it does.

If you made a law saying anyone who exceeds the speed limit, has to pay a fine of $1,000, but also gets a new Mercedes for free, guess which part of that otherwise-despised law would be the "most popular"? And would "poll consistently well"?

The fact that getting a new car has virtually nothing to do with exceeding the speed limit, is unimportant.

And "pre-existing conditions" have virtually nothing to do with insurance, either.

The entire purpose of insurance, and the fundamental reason it was invented, is to guard against bad things that might or might not happen in the future.

The fact that you caught the flu, or cancer, LAST week, obviously has nothing to do with "insurance" in any way.

Telling an insurance company to pay for an illness or injury you had before you signed up, is like telling the traffic court judge to give a speeder a new car because he banged the gavel and pronounced him guilty of speeding. The only reaction you should get to such a requirement, is a puzzled look and sardonic laugh from the judge, who knows you are full of it.

And you should get the same reaction from the insurance company. And for the same reason.

Handing out new cars (free or otherwise) is the job of a car dealer, not of the judicial branch of government.

And handing out payments for treatment of a pre-existing condition, is the job of... well, there isn't anybody with that job now, except the guy who got sick or injured. But it certainly isn't the job of an insurance company. Or a grocery store. Or the local PTA. Why on earth do you assign it to any of them?

If you want to set up some group whose job IS to pay for people's pre-existing conditions, fine. Go for it. Sounds like a very worthwhile thing to do - pre-existing conditions can bankrupt a guy, or worse. Let me know when you find a way to make it work, and sustain itself.

But why dump that obligation on a group who never volunteered for it, never had anything to do with it, and has no reason to take it on? Whether it's the PTA, the local Safeway, or an insurance company?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

This is one of the most popular provisions in an otherwise despised law, Obamacare. It polls consistently well.

Of course it does.

If you made a law saying anyone who exceeds the speed limit, has to pay a fine of $1,000, but also gets a new Mercedes for free, guess which part of that otherwise-despised law would be the "most popular"? And would "poll consistently well"?

The fact that getting a new car has virtually nothing to do with exceeding the speed limit, is unimportant.

And "pre-existing conditions" have virtually nothing to do with insurance, either.

The entire purpose of insurance, and the fundamental reason it was invented, is to guard against bad things that might or might not happen in the future.

The fact that you caught the flu, or cancer, LAST week, obviously has nothing to do with "insurance" in any way.

Telling an insurance company to pay for an illness or injury you had before you signed up, is like telling the traffic court judge to give a speeder a new car because he banged the gavel and pronounced him guilty of speeding. The only reaction you should get to such a requirement, is a puzzled look and sardonic laugh from the judge, who knows you are full of it.

And you should get the same reaction from the insurance company. And for the same reason.

Handing out new cars (free or otherwise) is the job of a car dealer, not of the judicial branch of government.

And handing out payments for treatment of a pre-existing condition, is the job of... well, there isn't anybody with that job now, except the guy who got sick or injured. But it certainly isn't the job of an insurance company. Or a grocery store. Or the local PTA. Why on earth do you assign it to any of them?

If you want to set up some group whose job IS to pay for people's pre-existing conditions, fine. Go for it. Sounds like a very worthwhile thing to do - pre-existing conditions can bankrupt a guy, or worse. Let me know when you find a way to make it work, and sustain itself.

But why dump that obligation on a group who never volunteered for it, never had anything to do with it, and has no reason to take it on? Whether it's the PTA, the local Safeway, or an insurance company?

It goes against the purpose of Capitalism correct? It is Anti-Capitalistic? True Capitalism would allow companies to not renew the policies, or to deny a policy, to someone who wasn't healthy, don't you agree?

 

[Edgetho]

This is one of the most popular provisions in an otherwise despised law, Obamacare. It polls consistently well. And it sounds good: Insirance companies cannot deny coverage for pre existing conditions. Right?
But why would they deny coverage to begin with?
When they are forced to issue policies to people with pre existing conditions, who pays for the higher risk the company incurs by insuring them?
I realize these are beyond Stage One questions so the leftists here wont have a clue what I mean. But maybe some of the more informed posters can chime in.

Until the idiot-inspired ACA came along, Insurance was regulated by State, so I can't speak with any authority on States other than Florida.

But Florida was always generally in the Main Stream of Insurance rules, so....

Before, if you kept your Health Insurance (a major medical, not a per diem policy or any shit like that) Policy in force, and it hadn't lpased more than 30 days ago, Florida Law required a "No Loss, No Gain" principle when people were moving from one policy to another.

IOW, there were no pre-existing condition waiting periods.

Unless you came in off the street with no prior Insurance, then there was.

Which made sense, IMO.

The ACA is a mess. Live or die, with the ACA dimocraps have made themselves responsible for Health Care in this Country for...... ever.

Not a good spot to be in. Every time Granny shits a red turd, she's gonna blame a dimocrap. Rightly or wrongly, dimocraps are gonna get the blame for everything bad that happens regarding Health Care in this Country.

Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of scumbags.

As far as repealing it?

We don't have to. Told you guys that.

All we gotta do is let nature take its course. This thing is such a clusterfuck that without Federal Subsidies, it will fail from its own weight.

We don't have to repeal it. All we have to do is insist that it pay its own way.

The ACA was DOA the minute dimocrap scum made it a totally partisan bill.

And that's too bad. I mean it. It really is.

Good idea. An idea whose time had come. Was overdue in fact.

But left to dimocrap scum, they fucked it up.

Shocking

 

[LordBrownTrout]

You're not forced to buy auto insurance?

No, the federal govt will not tax or penalize me if I do not buy car insurance. However, since obamacare set a precedent I could now easily see the feds forcing you to buy car insurance.

What happens if you are driving without insurance and get pulled over? What does the government do then?

A state govt can assess a penalty....which I do not agree with but there is no state mandate that penalizes or taxes a person for not having insurance. Federal govt doesn't force a mandate on auto insurance either.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, the federal govt will not tax or penalize me if I do not buy car insurance. However, since obamacare set a precedent I could now easily see the feds forcing you to buy car insurance.

What happens if you are driving without insurance and get pulled over? What does the government do then?

A state govt can assess a penalty....which I do not agree with but there is no state mandate that penalizes or taxes a person for not having insurance. Federal govt doesn't force a mandate on auto insurance either.

Both governments in the federal system have that power, give by We the People.

 

[Little-Acorn]

What happens if you are driving without insurance and get pulled over? What does the government do then?

A state govt can assess a penalty....which I do not agree with but there is no state mandate that penalizes or taxes a person for not having insurance. Federal govt doesn't force a mandate on auto insurance either.

Both governments in the federal system have that power, give by We the People.

Sorry, no. Article 1, Sec. 9, Clause 3 forbids it, for ALL govrenments in the U.S. CJ Roberts' enthusiastic law-rewriting notwithstanding.

 

[emilynghiem]

This is one of the most popular provisions in an otherwise despised law, Obamacare. It polls consistently well. And it sounds good: Insirance companies cannot deny coverage for pre existing conditions. Right?
But why would they deny coverage to begin with?
When they are forced to issue policies to people with pre existing conditions, who pays for the higher risk the company incurs by insuring them?
I realize these are beyond Stage One questions so the leftists here wont have a clue what I mean. But maybe some of the more informed posters can chime in.

perhaps you lack understanding of the purpose of the provisions of the ACA... wait... not PERHAPS... you do lack understanding of the purpose of the provisions of the ACA....

the point of the MANDATE is to make covering pre-existing conditions, etc, affordable for the insurance companies.

you're welcome.


no wonder no one listens to what you have to say.

Dear Jillian: If the point was to regulate insurance companies,
that still does not justify imposing conditions on CONSUMERS
to be COMPELLED BY GOVT to BUY INSURANCE.

When we regulate safety measures on car manufacturers, this is NOT contingent
on some federal govt regulation that ALL citizens have to buy cars or pay a fine.

THAT is the issue.

The citizens have had civil liberties (free choice to pay for our own health care) taken away
by govt, without "due process" or any proof of committing any crime or fraudulent intent of
not paying for services we receive.

You are in fact punishing ALL citizens and making us pay for things in advance for insurance before proving we did anything amiss or had any ill intent not to pay our costs.

If the point is to regulate INSURANCE COMPANIES then why hold consumers responsible for paying, who are not even customers by choice, but are being FORCED to be under this law?

 

[emilynghiem]

What happens if you are driving without insurance and get pulled over? What does the government do then?

A state govt can assess a penalty....which I do not agree with but there is no state mandate that penalizes or taxes a person for not having insurance. Federal govt doesn't force a mandate on auto insurance either.

Both governments in the federal system have that power, give by We the People.

Yes and no, as long as the govern reflects CONSENT by ALL people as "we the people."

Clearly half the nation does NOT consent, Jake.
So you cannot discount those votes for NO and say 'We the People said yes.'

The reason this ACA is working its way through is because of the people who said YES.
The reason this ACA is opposed and is not considered constitutional is because
of the people who say NO.

In order to represent ALL the people equally, that is why I say we should let the Democrats who passed and support ACA be in charge of it; and recognize equal freedom and rights to other parties to set up, fund and run their own systems of health care they deem lawful.

Just counting the YES votes is NOT "We the people"
it is just counting the views of one political religion over another which is unconstitutional.

 

[Edgetho]

perhaps you lack understanding of the purpose of the provisions of the ACA... wait... not PERHAPS... you do lack understanding of the purpose of the provisions of the ACA....

the point of the MANDATE is to make covering pre-existing conditions, etc, affordable for the insurance companies.

you're welcome.


no wonder no one listens to what you have to say.

Keep in mind that this is the first time the govt has ever forced it's citizens to buy a product. There should be no mandate. Period.

You're not forced to buy auto insurance?

Not if you don't own a car.

You really don't think things through, do you?

 

[JakeStarkey]

A state govt can assess a penalty....which I do not agree with but there is no state mandate that penalizes or taxes a person for not having insurance. Federal govt doesn't force a mandate on auto insurance either.

Both governments in the federal system have that power, give by We the People.

Sorry, no. Article 1, Sec. 9, Clause 3 forbids it, for ALL govrenments in the U.S. CJ Roberts' enthusiastic law-rewriting notwithstanding.

Only your uninformed opinion, but go ahead and email SCOTUS.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A state govt can assess a penalty....which I do not agree with but there is no state mandate that penalizes or taxes a person for not having insurance. Federal govt doesn't force a mandate on auto insurance either.

Both governments in the federal system have that power, give by We the People.

Yes and no, as long as the govern reflects CONSENT by ALL people as "we the people." Clearly half the nation does NOT consent, Jake.

This is not a Jacksonian democracy and never has been.

We the People by majority decide such things, and if it is questionable constitutionally, then it goes to SCOTUS.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Yes and no, as long as the govern reflects CONSENT by ALL people as "we the people."

Clearly half the nation does NOT consent, Jake.

Actually, it has to reflect the consent of the Constitution.

And the Constitution does not "consent" to this one, as Roberts pointed out, before he decided to rewrite the law from the bench.

"We the people" have always had the power to change what the Constitution says, by amending it as it provides.

We decided not to change it in this case.

The people have spoken.

 

[bendog]

The whole mandate no mandate diatribe is nothing but RW nutter hyperbole. HC is like 15% of the natl economy. Roberts got what he wanted by rolling back commerce clause congressional power. YES RW, the govt CANNOT FORCE YOU TO BUY INSURANCE.

But you pretty much have to figure Medicaid is unconstitutional to think congress can't tax you more if you don't have insurance and will fall back on Medicaid if you catch cancer. IN FACT that was the Heritage arugment for having a mandate/tax penalty for not having catastrophic coverage.

 

[emilynghiem]

It goes against the purpose of Capitalism correct? It is Anti-Capitalistic? True Capitalism would allow companies to not renew the policies, or to deny a policy, to someone who wasn't healthy, don't you agree?

Wouldn't the system of capitalism, free enterprise or free choice
keep choices of health care to the individual?

And keep government out of free market choice to begin with?

Also what about other choices excluded from govt health care and insurance mandates:
* medical school programs where doctors receive education and training
in exchange for serving in public health clinics to compensate for the costs
* charitable hospitals, clinics and medical programs
* free spiritual healing therapy that has cured and reduced costs of
cancer, schizophrenia, and other physical, mental and even criminal illnesses

Why aren't these equal choices? Why is paying for insurance the only choice not penalized?

the problem with pushing this govt health care is it cannot cover all conditions,
and yet it is being imposed on all citizens to pay for, who all have different standards and BELIEFS about health care and how to provide coverage for which populations.

Clearly it is not the job of govt to regulate all manner of charity and spiritual healing that is an integral part of heath care.

If the point was to regulate insurance, they should stick to just that and not impose this system on citizens who have equal rights and responsibilities to pay for our own health care choices and programs.

If people choose to use govt for medical programs, those people should pay for it; but not people who believe in other systems of reducing costs and providing care to more people.

 

[Little-Acorn]

This is one of the most popular provisions in an otherwise despised law, Obamacare. It polls consistently well.

Of course it does.

If you made a law saying anyone who exceeds the speed limit, has to pay a fine of $1,000, but also gets a new Mercedes for free, guess which part of that otherwise-despised law would be the "most popular"? And would "poll consistently well"?

The fact that getting a new car has virtually nothing to do with exceeding the speed limit, is unimportant.

And "pre-existing conditions" have virtually nothing to do with insurance, either.

The entire purpose of insurance, and the fundamental reason it was invented, is to guard against bad things that might or might not happen in the future.

The fact that you caught the flu, or cancer, LAST week, obviously has nothing to do with "insurance" in any way.

Telling an insurance company to pay for an illness or injury you had before you signed up, is like telling the traffic court judge to give a speeder a new car because he banged the gavel and pronounced him guilty of speeding. The only reaction you should get to such a requirement, is a puzzled look and sardonic laugh from the judge, who knows you are full of it.

And you should get the same reaction from the insurance company. And for the same reason.

Handing out new cars (free or otherwise) is the job of a car dealer, not of the judicial branch of government.

And handing out payments for treatment of a pre-existing condition, is the job of... well, there isn't anybody with that job now, except the guy who got sick or injured. But it certainly isn't the job of an insurance company. Or a grocery store. Or the local PTA. Why on earth do you assign it to any of them?

If you want to set up some group whose job IS to pay for people's pre-existing conditions, fine. Go for it. Sounds like a very worthwhile thing to do - pre-existing conditions can bankrupt a guy, or worse. Let me know when you find a way to make it work, and sustain itself.

But why dump that obligation on a group who never volunteered for it, never had anything to do with it, and has no reason to take it on? Whether it's the PTA, the local Safeway, or an insurance company?

Paying for pre-existing conditions has never been the function of insurance companies, any more than it's the function of a grocery store or your local PTA.

Why dump it on any of them?

"People need someone else to pay for it" is not a sufficient reason to pick any one of those groups.

 

[Plasmaball]

No, the federal govt will not tax or penalize me if I do not buy car insurance. However, since obamacare set a precedent I could now easily see the feds forcing you to buy car insurance.

What happens if you are driving without insurance and get pulled over? What does the government do then?

A state govt can assess a penalty....which I do not agree with but there is no state mandate that penalizes or taxes a person for not having insurance. Federal govt doesn't force a mandate on auto insurance either.

The penalty is you can't drive or register your car in some states.

So no there is mandate there. People have just come to accept it.

I disagree with the mandate for insurance but let's not fool ourselves into thinking it isn't already being done.

 

[emilynghiem]

Both governments in the federal system have that power, give by We the People.

Yes and no, as long as the govern reflects CONSENT by ALL people as "we the people." Clearly half the nation does NOT consent, Jake.

This is not a Jacksonian democracy and never has been.

We the People by majority decide such things, and if it is questionable constitutionally, then it goes to SCOTUS.

Dear Jake: I agree that before we had the internet, we didn't have the ability to organize direct democracy by consent. But now we do. It can be partially indirect by representatives in government and by party, but through those systems citizens can have direct input too.

There is no excuse for continuing to impose political religions by party
abusing "majority rule" to do so.

The major parties collect so much money from constituents, they could set up and pay for programs and JOBS running their own administrations. Why not repurpose the resources we are already spending, and invest directly into reforms and solutions we believe in?

We have a much more educated, participatory citizenry, as reflected on even this forum.
We have political parties organized in hierarchical, democratically elected structures
from local to national, and even international organizations networked by online access.

How difficult is it to separate issues by party, and reward citizens for investing their tax dollars in their own solutions instead of imposing their beliefs on others who disagree?

It is already legal to do all this. It is even legal to issue your own currency to manage your own business networks and local economies. Anyone can set up their own credit unions, though it takes a lot more to set up a bank or a system like the Federal Reserve. But these were all built by investors working in groups, so anyone can do the same.

It is already legal to practice localized democracy and "decisions by consensus" as the Greens do. We might have to change some things to have a President and Vice President
from different parties, but most changes can be set up without government legislation.

Anyone can set up a business, nonprofit, school or caucus within a political party.
Why not use those structures to organize networks to represent community interests?

 

[bendog]

What happens if you are driving without insurance and get pulled over? What does the government do then?

A state govt can assess a penalty....which I do not agree with but there is no state mandate that penalizes or taxes a person for not having insurance. Federal govt doesn't force a mandate on auto insurance either.

The penalty is you can't drive or register your car in some states.

So no there is mandate there. People have just come to accept it.

I disagree with the mandate for insurance but let's not fool ourselves into thinking it isn't already being done.

Well, a person can choose not to have a car, and thus avoid insurance. But, at the same time, he's taxed to help pay for mass transit, and assuming he just rides a bike, he's paying taxes for his share of the road.

I don't see a real difference with the ACA. I could say it's overkill, but that's not the point for the thread. If one doesn't get insurance, he gets taxed. And there is a further penalty. when he gets cancer, the insurance isn't effective till he signs up. He can't be denied coverage, but I don't see any "look back" to let him get paid for past treatment.