New York Health Insurers on Obamacare Exchange Seeking Massive Rate Hikes

a reply to: Aazadan

People shouldn't have to degrade their quality of life to subsidize someone else's health care. Nor should pre-existing conditions prevent someone from getting health coverage. Also, claiming that people are just unwilling instead of just flat out unable to afford it is a blanket statement that's inaccurate. The old system had its flaws, but the ACA is no where near better than what we had.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Gothmog
I could say that also if I were not in the know , or not living in this country for 50+ years.

Perhaps your viewpoint would be different if you or a family member was uninsurable due to pre existing conditions, but now have the option to get medical care?

And how do you know I am not? hahaha. Well at least I know that you do not know me .I can assure you , that was not the case before PelosiCare.
Another untruth , brought to you by the leftists , to try and justify this piece of BS legislation. They are still desperately tryin to find anything to give Obama a positive legacy.

a reply to: xuenchen


It's like this for most every state in the union for 2017. Tennessee's average increase for 2017 is 32%, unless the government denies the increase. If this happens the health insurers will simply stop selling in that state. That's what Blue Cross did in New Mexico.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: Aazadan

People shouldn't have to degrade their quality of life to subsidize someone else's health care. Nor should pre-existing conditions prevent someone from getting health coverage.

These two ideas are mutually exclusive. Either the insurance companies have to accept people, which at some point means everyone's premiums/deductibles go up to pay for it which is necessary to be accepted with pre existing conditions, or the healthy pay lower rates that fit within a budget.

People clamored for health insurance for all, but asking the government for something is a bit of a monkeys paw. They asked for their understanding of insurance which is something that covers routine care and makes it possible to see a doctor when they have a minor to moderate illness. That's not what insurance is for though, insurance exists purely as a hedge against catastrophe at a greater cost to everyone else in the pool the rest of the time. That's exactly what was delivered.

a reply to: xuenchen

LOL, just look at that retard behind Obama listening to him and just eating it up like everything Obama says is full of integrity. Even after all of Obama's lies have been exposed into the present, these kinds of people would still buy anything Obama sells them. And so ends the American dream without a hope unless this junk gets dumped for good, and real soon.

a reply to: Aazadan

If they were actually forced to compete with one another, I've a feeling that wouldn't be the case.

a reply to: JaMeDoIt

It's a disaster. The only people ACA benefits are those well below the poverty line, and insurance companies. Well, the insurance companies are benefitting less and less... and will continue too since the GOP won the ruling that Obama can't artificially drive prices down by spotting them with illegally appropriated congressional funds to make up the difference. Those people in poverty? What's their motivation to do better for themselves? As soon as they're over the income limit they have to pay out the nose for what is essentially nothing more than catastrophe insurance.
Hate to say we told you so, but we've been saying it for years. I hope everyone enjoys the crap fest the wanted.

a reply to: Aazadan

I love this argument. "But pre-existing conditions!" Congrats, you're on board with the most obvious (and only legitimate) benefit. How did you get so clever?
It's actually pathetic that the pre-existing condition point is the only thing you can turn to. Couldn't any idiot make pre existing conditions a non issue with a bit of legislation without wrecking an entire health care system? Before you say it hasn't been wrecked, you should also admit that the only reason this corpse is still floating is because Obama has been subsidizing financial losses by the insurances providers will provisional funds that were never approved by Congress. Oops! Once that goes away, and it will as the GOP already won their lawsuit on these grounds, it will get even more expensive. You'll see more companies drop out. Then who cares about pre existing conditions? No one will be doing business with ACA anyway!
People blamed the GOP for just about everything (even things the Dems turned around and copied mere months later and gave themselves credit for. Sequester, anyone?), but no one wanted to hear it because they thought they were getting a free ride. Well, the ride is about over. Hope you had fun!

a reply to: xuenchen

Insurance companies like UHC helped write this abortion of a law and now they are trying to distance themselves from it? They need to lay in the bed they made.

originally posted by: neveroddoreven99
Couldn't any idiot make pre existing conditions a non issue with a bit of legislation without wrecking an entire health care system?

No, because insurance is based on the idea that you cover healthy people who will never need coverage. Once you have a condition that requires coverage it's a sunk cost, it's not insurable because it has already happened. Do you remember the days where you would apply for health insurance, and the company would send you to a doctor as a pre screen to look for major issues you didn't tell them about before they would decide to cover you or not?

Literally everything in the ACA is built around the concept of making covering pre existing conditions viable in an insurance model. From broadening risk pools to higher premiums.

a reply to: Aazadan

Why didn't Congress just place all pre-existing conditions on Medicare?

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Aazadan

Why didn't Congress just place all pre-existing conditions on Medicare?

They tried, it was decided that doing so would make Medicare competitive against the private companies. Eventually everyone ends up with a pre existing condition, so eventually when people change providers they would end up in Medicare, this would function as a government monopoly over the private sector over the long term.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Aazadan

Why didn't Congress just place all pre-existing conditions on Medicare?

They tried, it was decided that doing so would make Medicare competitive against the private companies. Eventually everyone ends up with a pre existing condition, so eventually when people change providers they would end up in Medicare, this would function as a government monopoly over the private sector over the long term.

When did they try this?

And if pre-existing is rejected by private companies, how is Medicare competing?

originally posted by: xuenchen
When did they try this?

Part of the negotiations when implementing the ACA.

And if pre-existing is rejected by private companies, how is Medicare competing?

Medicare would eventually take every customer, there would be no reason to have preventive care because you would be guaranteed Medicare once you got sick. Insurance is designed to offset catastrophic loss, if there's a private company that requires you be a customer prior to loss in order to cash in, or an option that accepts everyone after that loss has already happened, many people will simply opt to save the money and go for the option that accepts them after that loss has happened.

a reply to: Aazadan

The Public Option debate wasn't about pre-existing conditions.