Many people nationwide face loss of cheap policies under new health care reform rules

AlienScience
reply to post by DontTreadOnMe

 

If they made those policies compliant, they would no longer be cheap.

They were cheap for a reason...they sucked and didn't really cover anything. Don't you understand that this was the entire problem with our current healthcare insurance industry? They sold crap policies to people, charged "low" premiums, but then when people went to use them they got denied coverage.

You do know that people bought these plans for a reason right? Because they were all they could afford. They couldn't help it if the coverage was lacking. They couldn't afford to pay for a more expensive plan.

You were being sold crap in a bag and being told it was insurance, now you are crying because you can't buy that crap anymore and instead have to buy real insurance coverage.

The insurance industry was built on denial of coverage, that is just how it worked. Employees in the insurance industry were evaluated on how much they could deny. Promotions were based on it, raises were based on it, bonuses were based on it. And it seems like you and others want that system to continue.

So why are insurance companies included as the companies that you buy the insurance from? Do you think that now that ACA is the "law of the land" that these insurance companies will magically just change their denial of coverage seeking ways? NO! They'll just find more cleaver and insidious ways of doing it (or just stick to their old tactics).

I just don't understand people, they would rather throw away money on an insurance policy that is crap and would never actually help them, so they would pay more in the long run...instead of just paying a little more each month to know that you are covered no matter what.

What is so hard to understand that someone could want insurance, can only afford the bare minimum, but buys it anyways just to be covered by something? Also lol at "...instead of just paying a little more each month..." You do know that many of the increases are as high as 200 or even 400% right? But hey let's take the benefit of the doubt and say that the increase is only a measly 20%. Well if someone can only afford to pay the bare minimum pre-ACA, what makes you think that they can just magically produce the extra funds to pay for the rate increase?

People's priorities suck...that is why we were forced to have government come in and set your priorities for you.

Spoken like a true fascist. People don't believe your ideology? Meh, just force them to accept it at gun point.

sonnny1

AlienScience


People's priorities suck...that is why we were forced to have government come in and set your priorities for you.

Since the insurance companies are all based on a "denial of service" WHY did Obama include them in his "free for all" plan to give everyone Healthcare, and WHY are their stocks up 200 to 300% this year alone?

I might agree with the priorities part, but this "tax" isn't wanted by many Americans.

edit on 15-10-2013 by sonnny1 because: typo fix

The "current" insurance model was all about denial of claims.

The ACA regulations change that, now they have to make their profits off of being competitive and finding other ways to not pay out so much in coverage. One of the best ways to do that is to encourage, instead of discourage, preventative medicine. Encourage your costumers to go to the doctor every year for a check up by making it free or giving a discount for doing so...encourage your costumers to be healthy by offering programs for obesity, smoking, and active lifestyles. All of these things increase the health of the people you are covering and thus decreases the amount of money you will have to pay out due to their health issues. Yes, it may cost some money up front, but in the long run it will make them more profit.

The easy days for insurance companies are over...no longer offer up crap policies and make your money by denying or delaying coverage until your costumer dies and you don't have to pay out money for their care.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


I was going to go into detail like you but I knew eventually someone would.

Well said.

AlienScience

The easy days for insurance companies are over...no longer offer up crap policies and make your money by denying or delaying coverage until your costumer dies and you don't have to pay out money for their care.

And you believe that?

OP is exactly correct. "If you like your plan, you can keep it." is a bald-faced lie. My cost doubles because my plan (the one I liked) is being cancelled because it is not ACA compliant, yet it has a lower deductible than the new plan. If I were to use the state's web site and go that route, my costs would be up 400%.

I checked out the state site, which unlike the fed's works ok, and there is a subsidy if you are classified as "poor" by government standards, but even then the cost out of pocket will be more than lots of lower middle income people will be able to pay. The REALLY poor will qualify for Medicaid, as they always have, but it is the lower middle that will be stuck here.

Anyone who believes the ACA is "affordable" is delusional. The fallout from this has not even yet begun. Wait until the penalties hit. This is going to be the biggest issue with the populace EVAH!

And...this is a DEM product all the way. Not only did not one Republican vote for it, they were completely excluded from the process because the Dems controlled both houses of Congress. Obamacare is aptly named.

reply to post by Krazysh0t

You do know that people bought these plans for a reason right? Because they were all they could afford. They couldn't help it if the coverage was lacking. They couldn't afford to pay for a more expensive plan.

And do you know that it was a complete scam?

It was false security because you and I both know that it was exactly these types of policies that screwed people over once they got sick.

Or are you honestly going to tell me that you think our current system was great and provided people all the coverage they needed?

So why are insurance companies included as the companies that you buy the insurance from? Do you think that now that ACA is the "law of the land" that these insurance companies will magically just change their denial of coverage seeking ways? NO! They'll just find more cleaver and insidious ways of doing it (or just stick to their old tactics).

Already covered this in my previous post.

The ACA no longer allows the denial of coverage scam. Most of the time, they used the old "pre-existing" conditions loop hole to deny coverage...and that is no longer available.

The denial of coverage game is over, it just simply no longer exists. This was the entire idea behind the ACA.

What is so hard to understand that someone could want insurance, can only afford the bare minimum, but buys it anyways just to be covered by something? Also lol at "...instead of just paying a little more each month..." You do know that many of the increases are as high as 200 or even 400% right? But hey let's take the benefit of the doubt and say that the increase is only a measly 20%. Well if someone can only afford to pay the bare minimum pre-ACA, what makes you think that they can just magically produce the extra funds to pay for the rate increase?

If they can truly only afford that, then they will qualify for subsidies to help purchase actual insurance instead of the safety blanket that did nothing for them.

On the other hand...if they can't afford it because of the mortgage they over-extended on, their boat payment, their brand new iphone, their clothes, or habit of eating out at restaurants every day...then their priorities suck and sadly they have to be forced to re-prioritize by the government.

Spoken like a true fascist. People don't believe your ideology? Meh, just force them to accept it at gun point.

Our entire society is based off of forcing everyone to accept some majorities ideology.

sonnny1

AlienScience

The easy days for insurance companies are over...no longer offer up crap policies and make your money by denying or delaying coverage until your costumer dies and you don't have to pay out money for their care.

And you believe that?

I know what regulations are in the ACA, so yes I believe it.

I don't put it past insurance companies to try to find new tricks to make money over providing care to their customers, but we can fix those as they pop up.


Do you honestly think that it was acceptable for insurance companies to play this denial of coverage game? Do you think it is a negative thing to attempt to stop it?

Just because you are pessimistic doesn't mean that we should never try to fix things.

AlienScience
Don't you understand that this was the entire problem with our current healthcare insurance industry?

But, I thought the problem was so many Americans being UNinsured?
Wait... so in Obamaland underemployment does not count as unemployment, but underinsured counts the same an uninsured?

Mind..... BLOWN!



If Americans are too stupid to set their own priorities so government has to come in and do it for them, what the hell do you do when said government is this damn stupid, themselves?

AlienScience


Just because you are pessimistic doesn't mean that we should never try to fix things.

ANYTIME the IRS is involved, it means more MONEY be taken out of my paycheck.

That's a FACT.


And since we are talking about "fixing", lets go back to where and how this tax was made.

Ive posted this in numerous threads.

Note the crucial qualifier: Obamacare could be upheld only as a tax. Not that Obamacare is necessarily a legitimate tax. To be a legitimate tax measure, Obamacare would have to have complied with all the Constitution’s conditions for the imposition of taxes. Because Democrats stubbornly maintained that their unilateral handiwork was not a tax, its legitimacy vel non as a tax has not been explored. Indeed, it is because Obamacare’s enactment was induced by fraud — a massive confiscation masquerading as ordinary regulatory legislation so Democrats could pretend not to be raising taxes — that the chief justice was wrong to rebrand it post facto and thus become a participant in the fraud.

We now know Obamacare was tax legislation. Consequently, it was undeniably a “bill for raising revenue,” for which the Constitution mandates compliance with the Origination Clause (Art. I, Sec. 7). The Clause requires that tax bills must originate in the House of Representatives. Obamacare did not.

Obamacare’s Unconstitutional Origins Tax legislation has to originate in the House; the health-care law didn’t.


FYI, The Supreme Court has reversed its OWN decisions 130 times, because the had it wrong.

If you really believe the "Government" has your best interests at heart, then you are fooling yourself.

Insurance companies have literally made 200 to 300% more money for its stockholders this year alone.

Its not a coincidence on why.

AlienScience
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

And do you know that it was a complete scam?

It was false security because you and I both know that it was exactly these types of policies that screwed people over once they got sick.

Or are you honestly going to tell me that you think our current system was great and provided people all the coverage they needed?

I never said that. All I am saying is that the ACA isn't what it was sold to the public as. We are both in agreement that the health care industry needed an overhaul, but accepting an overhaul just because it is something different then what we currently have is stupid. By all accounts, the ACA will make Americans worse off than they were before.

Already covered this in my previous post.

The ACA no longer allows the denial of coverage scam. Most of the time, they used the old "pre-existing" conditions loop hole to deny coverage...and that is no longer available.

The denial of coverage game is over, it just simply no longer exists. This was the entire idea behind the ACA.

Yes because corporations (especially ones known for scamming the public) are such bastions of good will and now that we've sternly told them not to do this (meanwhile giving them large buckets of money to cause most of their stocks to increase by 200-300%), they totally won't continue to fleece the public.

If they can truly only afford that, then they will qualify for subsidies to help purchase actual insurance instead of the safety blanket that did nothing for them.

On the other hand...if they can't afford it because of the mortgage they over-extended on, their boat payment, their brand new iphone, their clothes, or habit of eating out at restaurants every day...then their priorities suck and sadly they have to be forced to re-prioritize by the government.

Why does someone who is getting by with what they have, paying all the bills, and doing what they have to do to survive have to reprioritize themselves because they can't afford health insurance? I have company provided health care. It is cheap (and comes out pretaxes) for me, but I am hearing that we will be increasing the cost of our insurance come 2014. I can't afford any increase. My income pays for my car, car insurance, rent, utilities, phone, internet, gas, and food. I'm healthy, if I can't afford health insurance, I'll just drop it. I did without it for the bulk of my 20's after I left the Army, no big deal to me. The penalty is just easier to pay. The key is that the majority of the people you are talking about are like me.

Just because the insurance can't deny pre-existing conditions or something like that doesn't mean that it is suddenly affordable because you say it is. I still can't afford it. Others can't afford it either. Also keep in mind that the government is relying on healthy people like me to supplement the subsidies for the poor people, yet we aren't signing up. At the end of the month, if I have to choose between paying the electricity or paying for health insurance, guess which one I'll pick.

Our entire society is based off of forcing everyone to accept some majorities ideology.

Yes and that is what is really wrong with our society these days. Drugs, abortion, prostitution, gambling, business, and now health care are all legislated on by the government which forces the people to accept their ideology about them. Let people make their own decisions, they are much happier that way rather than forcing them to believe one way or another.

AlienScience
Ironically, it only seems to be changing for Republicans...or maybe...just maybe...they are misinformed and not very knowledgeable about what is going on.

Just wait until all the inner city minority democrats go to pay their taxes this coming April and find that they have to pay a whole lot more because of Obamacare. The folks at H&R Block said that next year there are going to be a whole lotta' ticked off people ....

reply to post by burntheships


Because they always name the law in direct opposite of what it actually is.

Affordable Health Act = Completely unaffordable

Patriot Act = The most fascist, tyrannical set of laws every drawn up in America

So on and so forth, but nobody would have signed on for the Unaffordable Health Act or the Fascist Act so they do what they do best, lie and put the complete opposite of what it really is in the title. Clever huh?

AlienScience

sonnny1

AlienScience

The easy days for insurance companies are over...no longer offer up crap policies and make your money by denying or delaying coverage until your costumer dies and you don't have to pay out money for their care.

And you believe that?

I know what regulations are in the ACA, so yes I believe it.

I don't put it past insurance companies to try to find new tricks to make money over providing care to their customers, but we can fix those as they pop up.


Do you honestly think that it was acceptable for insurance companies to play this denial of coverage game? Do you think it is a negative thing to attempt to stop it?

Just because you are pessimistic doesn't mean that we should never try to fix things.

If fixing new tricks insurance companies employ to scam customers is such an easy fix like you suggested, why did we have to overhaul the whole healthcare system? Why couldn't we have just fixed those two issues?

As far as I've seen, the only redeeming features of this bill seem to be the preexisting coverage part, seems like this could have been addressed with a far easier solution that just addresses this instead of changing the whole system.

reply to post by burdman30ott6

But, I thought the problem was so many Americans being UNinsured?
Wait... so in Obamaland underemployment does not count as unemployment, but underinsured counts the same an uninsured?

I stated that was the problem with our insurance industry, not our healthcare industry.

Two different things, try to keep up.

reply to post by sonnny1


The ACA was started in the House...it is H.R. 3590 of the 111th Congress.

Here, you can see for yourself right here.

www.govtrack.us...


I think the government holds the best interest of the country, not the individuals. But the majority of people are stupid, and collectively they can damage the country with their stupidity. If the country is damaged, I am damaged. So I fully support the government having to tell stupid people what to do when they can't figure it out themselves to prevent damage to the country.

Obamacare AKA the "ACA" will fail, it was designed to.

The ultimate goal of the politicians is to get us into a universal, single-payer system. Americans weren't ready for that leap, so an even worse system than the current one was implemented.

Problem, reaction, solution.

They caused a problem, we're all reacting to it .... I'm waiting for the "We need to scrap this and do a single-payer" speech. When that speech and push is made, Americans will be so desperate for ANYTHING, even if it's marginally better.

Yep, they intentionally broke the system to get us to their ultimate goal.

This is why I'm not terribly worried.

reply to post by AlienScience


Mine is locked in forever but then I work for a living so yes I'm a Republican. Been one all my life but having self respect and knowing what respect means makes it worth it. I would probably still vote Republican if I wasn't making a bunch of money. Wait till tax time and there's no refund for those who pay no taxes. 16,000 new IRS agents will all want to be recognized on how well they are getting the government their money! That's how the working mans system works

reply to post by Krazysh0t

I never said that. All I am saying is that the ACA isn't what it was sold to the public as. We are both in agreement that the health care industry needed an overhaul, but accepting an overhaul just because it is something different then what we currently have is stupid. By all accounts, the ACA will make Americans worse off than they were before.

People who were paying attention and understood the legislation aren't surprised at all about the ACA. Nothing that has come out about the ACA has surprised me, it is all exactly as it was debated for a year in Congress.

Please share how the ACA will make Americans worse off? By having them buy health insurance that will actually cover them instead of them throwing money away only to have insurance companies deny their coverage?

Yes because corporations (especially ones known for scamming the public) are such bastions of good will and now that we've sternly told them not to do this (meanwhile giving them large buckets of money to cause most of their stocks to increase by 200-300%), they totally won't continue to fleece the public. nsert rolling eyes emoticon>

I'm sure they will try, which is why strict regulation was needed and will be important to continue to monitor to see if these companies attempt to weasel out of their responsibility.

Democrats wanted a single payer system to remove the insurance companies from the equation...Republicans cried "socialism" and this was the compromise.

Here is a secret, myself and everyone that is aware of what is going on know 100% that the ACA is not our long term solution. It is a patch to get us to the point where our population will realize that a single payer universal care system is the only way to go in our modern society. The problem is that we still have a segment of society who are very poorly educated, mostly older people, who think any socialist policy is evil. These people will die out and eventually we will get to a single payer system.

If the ACA fails, no big deal, that will just force us towards single payer sooner.

Why does someone who is getting by with what they have, paying all the bills, and doing what they have to do to survive have to reprioritize themselves because they can't afford health insurance? I have company provided health care. It is cheap (and comes out pretaxes) for me, but I am hearing that we will be increasing the cost of our insurance come 2014. I can't afford any increase. My income pays for my car, car insurance, rent, utilities, phone, internet, gas, and food. I'm healthy, if I can't afford health insurance, I'll just drop it. I did without it for the bulk of my 20's after I left the Army, no big deal to me. The penalty is just easier to pay. The key is that the majority of the people you are talking about are like me.

And that is your choice. As long as you pay the fine, the ACA works. The problem is if you go without health insurance and then need emergency health care that all of us end up paying for through increased costs.

Your insurance is cheap because it sucks. If it is going to increase, it is because they have to comply with the standard coverage that they currently aren't providing.

I don't know your situation, but I'm sure I could find spending that would better go towards health insurance than whatever it is going to now. For example, internet service, unless you work online from home...this isn't a necessity. And the jobs where you are allowed to work online from home, your company should be paying for your internet. I'm sure there is more where your priority is more luxury than need.

Also keep in mind that the government is relying on healthy people like me to supplement the subsidies for the poor people, yet we aren't signing up. At the end of the month, if I have to choose between paying the electricity or paying for health insurance, guess which one I'll pick.

The ACA actually counts on a lot of young people to not buy insurance, that is why there is the fine.

Your choice wouldn't be between electricity and health insurance...it would be between your luxury spending...internet, cell phones, eating out, a car at a price you can't afford, an apartment of rent more than you need.

Priorities, most people really suck at them.

Yes and that is what is really wrong with our society these days. Drugs, abortion, prostitution, gambling, business, and now health care are all legislated on by the government which forces the people to accept their ideology about them. Let people make their own decisions, they are much happier that way rather than forcing them to believe one way or another.

I disagree...as simple as that.

And you are living in the wrong country if you don't want the majority of society to determine our laws.

FlyersFan

AlienScience
Ironically, it only seems to be changing for Republicans...or maybe...just maybe...they are misinformed and not very knowledgeable about what is going on.

Just wait until all the inner city minority democrats go to pay their taxes this coming April and find that they have to pay a whole lot more because of Obamacare. The folks at H&R Block said that next year there are going to be a whole lotta' ticked off people ....

Why not just come out and say black people?

Everyone knows that is what you are trying to say.

reply to post by Krazysh0t

If fixing new tricks insurance companies employ to scam customers is such an easy fix like you suggested, why did we have to overhaul the whole healthcare system? Why couldn't we have just fixed those two issues?

Because pre-existing conditions requires the overhaul to correct.

You can't just declare pre-existing conditions illegal, because then some (most) people will never carry insurance when they are healthy...they will only buy it once they get diagnosed with a sickness. The insurance industry relies on a group of people all paying into it, and most of them healthy to pay for the sick ones. That is the only insurance model that works.

So in order to get rid of pre-existing conditions, you have to mandate everyone participate in the system. That system is either our private capitalistic insurance industry or it can be a public socialistic single payer system. Our ignorant country is not ready for single payer, so we have to entertain them by trying this patch first.

As far as I've seen, the only redeeming features of this bill seem to be the preexisting coverage part, seems like this could have been addressed with a far easier solution that just addresses this instead of changing the whole system.

Please explain how you address this issue without mandating everyone take part in the system.