Insurers Profit From Health Law They Fought

AdamT · Jan 8, 2012

Neomalthusian said:
Why couldn't Obama have vetoed PPACA then? Why didn't he?

No one here is denying the OP. So Obama willingly signed into law this legislation that worsens the problem. And you all are okay with that?

It doesn't make the problem worse. It includes a number of important insurance reforms, such as eliminating the excuse of preexisting conditions, removing lifetime limits, and mandating that at least 85% of premiums must be spent on health care. The perfect can be the enemy of the good.

Neomalthusian · Jan 9, 2012

AdamT said:
It doesn't make the problem worse. It includes a number of important insurance reforms, such as eliminating the excuse of preexisting conditions, removing lifetime limits, and mandating that at least 85% of premiums must be spent on health care.

All of which promote a continued rise in premium prices, except now we're forbidden from deciding (as individuals) that it's not worth the premium for what coverage is offered. As customers we lose the freedom of that decision.

A government-mandated purchase is effectively a tax, but the tax revenue goes to a private company whose executives we don't vote for. It is taxation (by another name) without representation.

Yeah right, it doesn't make it worse... are you god**** kidding me?

Nah. You're kidding yourself.

AdamT · Jan 9, 2012

Neomalthusian said:
All of which promote a continued rise in premium prices, except now we're forbidden from deciding (as individuals) that it's not worth the premium for what coverage is offered. As customers we lose the freedom of that decision.

A government-mandated purchase is effectively a tax, but the tax revenue goes to a private company whose executives we don't vote for. It is taxation (by another name) without representation.

Yeah right, it doesn't make it worse... are you god**** kidding me?

Nah. You're kidding yourself.

Premiums should not rise substantially *because* of the reforms, as the insurance companies will benefit in other ways (larger risk pool). As noted, they are now mandated to spend at least 85% of premiums on medical care.

Unless you are independently wealth, and VERY wealthy, health insurance is not optional. You can't say it's not "worth it" if, when you get sick, you will end up using public support to pay for your health care. That is the other side of the coin that conservatives seem to forget.

Now, if you do insist on being completely irresponsible you have the option of paying a $700 fine which does NOT go to insurance companies. Rather, it goes to provide care for people like you who refuse to take responsibility for your own health care.

Samhain · Jan 9, 2012

AdamT said:
Premiums should not rise substantially *because* of the reforms, as the insurance companies will benefit in other ways (larger risk pool). As noted, they are now mandated to spend at least 85% of premiums on medical care.

Unless you are independently wealth, and VERY wealthy, health insurance is not optional. You can't say it's not "worth it" if, when you get sick, you will end up using public support to pay for your health care. That is the other side of the coin that conservatives seem to forget.

Now, if you do insist on being completely irresponsible you have the option of paying a $700 fine which does NOT go to insurance companies. Rather, it goes to provide care for people like you who refuse to take responsibility for your own health care.

Since I can now buy insurance for a health problem after acquiring it( ban on blocked pre-existing conditions ), it makes no sense to carry insurance in the long term. I will just pay the fine, and purchase my insurance when I require it. How does that help the risk pool?

So with a riskier pool, premiums would rise to cover the medical care of those, since you've now mandated that they spend 85% of premiums on care itself.

AdamT · Jan 9, 2012

Samhain said:
Since I can now buy insurance for a health problem after acquiring it( ban on blocked pre-existing conditions ), it makes no sense to carry insurance in the long term. I will just pay the fine, and purchase my insurance when I require it. How does that help the risk pool?

So with a riskier pool, premiums would rise to cover the medical care of those, since you've now mandated that they spend 85% of premiums on care itself.

So you will game the system to rip off responsible citizens? That's what the mandate is supposed to prevent. I agree that the penalty should be much higher.

As far as there being greater risk in the pool ... well, that's what insurance is for -- to spread risk.

Samhain · Jan 9, 2012

AdamT said:
So you will game the system to rip off responsible citizens? That's what the mandate is supposed to prevent. I agree that the penalty should be much higher.

As far as there being greater risk in the pool ... well, that's what insurance is for -- to spread risk.

That's not gaming the system, that's called following the rules. Absolutely nothing is setup now to promote responsibility. There is nothing to force the young, healthy, "I'm superman so I don't need health insurance" 20-somethings to join risk pools to lower overall risk. There is a free-pass now for those that didn't have the responsibility to purchase health insurance and got a condition that required treatment.

Sure, there are people that got ****ed and couldn't get insurance through no fault of their own, but the majority that are helped are those that did not act responsibly.

The risk pools have gotten "riskier" since 2010, because the pre-existing condition clause already took place. So the majority of the new enrollments in insurance plans are bringing higher risk.

AdamT · Jan 9, 2012

Samhain said:
That's not gaming the system, that's called following the rules. Absolutely nothing is setup now to promote responsibility. There is nothing to force the young, healthy, "I'm superman so I don't need health insurance" 20-somethings to join risk pools to lower overall risk. There is a free-pass now for those that didn't have the responsibility to purchase health insurance and got a condition that required treatment.

Sure, there are people that got ****ed and couldn't get insurance through no fault of their own, but the majority that are helped are those that did not act responsibly.

The risk pools have gotten "riskier" since 2010, because the pre-existing condition clause already took place. So the majority of the new enrollments in insurance plans are bringing higher risk.

The mandate is specifically designed to promote responsibility. That's kind of the whole idea behind it.

If you can afford insurance and don't buy it, banking on the fact that you can always get free (publicly financed) health care if you get sick, or because you figure you can just buy insurance when you get sick, you are, of course, gaming the system. I don't know how you could claim otherwise.