• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Question regarding HCR that is now in place?

Do you agree with the component of HCR that disallows rescission.

  • Total voters
    17
:peace
ttwtt78640 said:
The YOU buy them insurance, don't ask me to. The idea that ANYTHING is free is INSANE. We all need food, clothing and shelter, yet are expected to provide it for oursevles. We now keep a permanent 15% of the population on welfare and get ZERO benefit from it. The newest idea is to give them "wellness" or "preventive" care in addition to all of the other current free stuff. That is WAY too much. Welfare now costs about $7,500 per person per year, adding another $2,000 for medical insurance to that is insane. Are you aware that the federal gov't now spends 24% of GDP and only dares to tax at 17% of GDP, running annual deficits of 40% and wants to spend MORE? Let's FIRST pay for what we have NOW (40% in tax increases?), then pay down the $16+ TRILLION in national debt, and THEN start talking about new "nice" things to do.
Click to expand...
 
ttwtt78640 said:
OK, but MANDATING that ALL very sick folks be accepted WILL (no doubt about it) raise the premium costs for all. It looks good on paper but is simply a tax placed on everyone (and very likely to bankrupt the medical insurance companies). If the annual fine is less than the annual insurance premium cost then, unless you are sick (or crazy), you will obviously opt to pay the fine and ONLY opt to buy insurance AFTER you "feel the need" to buy it. The likely effect of that, is LESS business for the private medical insurance companies EXCEPT for those needing expensive care, since they can not be turned down for "pre-exising" condidtions.
Click to expand...

as we don't turn away people without the ability to pay, it's already a tax on everyone.

and "pre-existing" conditions only exist at all because of the failed employer-based delivery system. if coverage is unlinked to employment / employment changes, then the person is covered before the condition and maintains basic coverage for life.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Rescission was very rare but was made into a "current health care CRISIS" boggie man, by those hoping to gain more support for health care mandates of ALL kinds. 90% of medical care insurance is bought and paid for by employers, so NO rescission is possible there. That leaves only individuals, the 10% that purchase policies directly from insurance companies that may even be subject to it.
Click to expand...

Is the moral of that story that you shouldn't be self employed (which I'm guessing is the largest group of people who use individual plans)? Or that it's okay to be screwed by individual plans because groups plans don't screw you? Trying to figure out your point here.

ttwtt78640 said:
Consider the pre-existing condition ban, it sounds SO unfair too, but is it really? If I can buy medical insurance AFTER I discover an expensive to treat condition, or AFTER I feel sickly, then why EVER buy it before then? Why not cancel it immediately after care has been rendered and paid for? The same goes for "rescission"; if I say that I am healthy, or don't NOW smoke, then I get a MUCH better rate, so I likely will say so, hoping it to be true, or that it won't be challenged later. But who knows; I could have early to mid stage cancer yet may have not noticed any symptoms yet? Why don't I just wait until I am sick, or start feeling a bit off? Well, there is a compromise here, to be sure; one can postpone getting insurance until THEY "feel a bit sick" but have yet to seek treatment for that ailment (thus no proof of the "lie" is on file).

This is where MOST rescission comes in; you say all is well and buy the medical insurance. Very soon, you go to the doctor, using that new insurance benefit (why not you are paying for it?) and they find multiple problems, clogged arteries, perhaps some tumors that my be bad news and run a bunch of expensive tests, these expenses (of course) go to the insurance company for payment; the next thing, when the test results come back, they say you need heart bypass surgery and treatment for cancer that will cost well over half a million dollars. The insurance company now feels they were SCREWED, since you have been with them for less than a year, had no prior insurance and they think that you KNEW you were in bad shape, but lied, when you decided, after 20 years, to finally buy medical insurance; they decide to rescind your policy, they know it will be appealed, that you may even get on the news, giving them bad press and they will likely spend up to $200K in legal fees, but they decide that beats taking at least a $500K sure loss.

Link: http://healthblog.ncpa.org/rescissions-much-ado-about-nothing/
Click to expand...


Rescission isn't the only way they get you. After they find out you have a long term illness they can simply raise your rates until you can't afford them anymore. Then you'll drop the individual after you can't afford it anymore and then you'll be barred from future plans. Wait, haven't I told you this already?
 
Neomalthusian said:
Breaches of contract were not legal before PPACA.
Click to expand...

It was legal in the health insurance industry to then on the next annual round to cancel the contract ... so you are uninformed. PPACA changed that!
 
lpast said:
Heres the way it works right now, you get denied insurance because of a pre existing condition and you cant get it elsewhere...the person has cancer. They go through the govt and if they can prove indigence they get medicaid, we pay for that. If they cant qualify for medicaid but they cant afford cancer treatment, they go to free clinics and the emergency room and we pay for that too...so in the end were paying for it all. A person with cancer will get treatment with or without insurance...of course without it wont be as good treatment...I dont know about you but I sure wouldnt want that to happen to anyone in my family or anyone I know.
Click to expand...

Then they need to have insurance before they get sick. That's the way insurance works. It's the same with auto or life insurance. You buy insurance for what could happen, not what has already happened.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Doctors who work under socialized medicine still make a damn good amount of money...
And plus wouldnt you want someone operating on you who is a doctor want to be a doctor because of the enjoyment and they care about being a doctor instead of wanting to be a doctor just because of the "profit motive" and out to make a boatload of money?
Click to expand...

I want the doctor who is skilled and has expertise, regardless of his motive. He is providing a valuable service, and has worked his ass off to get through med school, at a very high cost. His malpractice insurance is expensive, his office expenses are high, and he puts up with a ton of **** off hospital administrators and some of the patient population. It's a thankless job, and only someone who has true dedication can do the job well.
 
lizzie said:
Then they need to have insurance before they get sick. That's the way insurance works. It's the same with auto or life insurance. You buy insurance for what could happen, not what has already happened.
Click to expand...

If you are healthy and do not have any medical conditions your medical insurance rate is low due to your good health. Once this changes you can see an increase in rates from your current carrier. If you then try and shop with another company for competitive rates you will discover that since you now have a preexisting condition it may not be possible to get a lower price or even any coverage at all. Not every medical diagnosis has the same effect on your medical insurance premiums. Some ailments are considered high risk, while others are low grade. Understanding which category you fall into will help you navigate the ins and outs of insurance coverage and policy quotes.

As long as you are in good health you have no worries about the cost of insurance protection. Your health can be determined by your physical actions such as how you eat and drink and whether or not you exercise. Even smoking can affect your health. Once your status changes from excellent health to average or poor health to an insurance company you are downgraded as a higher risk. They will raise the price you pay to receive protection.
Click to expand...

Health Care Issues

So people get insurance, get sick, can't afford new premiums and with the new existing illness can't shop for new insurance.

This is just one reason why people are so upset, everybody. Along with the danger of losing your job (and thus losing your coverage) and premiums that rise faster than inflation, the existing form of healthcare is broken.
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
[This is just one reason why people are so upset, everybody. Along with the danger of losing your job (and thus losing your coverage) and premiums that rise faster than inflation, the existing form of healthcare is broken.
Click to expand...

I realize it's broken, but the way our government is trying to fix it, is a huge mistake. The direction of health care coveraoge should be toward catastrophic care coverage, and not comprehensive. This is one of the primary reasons health care costs have gotten out of hand.
 
Dion said:
Because it was legal before HCR ... I think you are the same poster on another thread that thought there were "free" hospitals in each city for the uninsured. You were clueless as to why this would cost more than offering a public option or requiring minimal coverage.
Click to expand...

No, I did not claim that there were "free" hospitals in each city. You must be reading into my posts, beyond what is there.

I'll ask you again, if people are being dropped for illegal reasons, why are malpractice lawyers not filling up the courts with cases? This should be simple enough to prove. If people are not giving false information, or omitting pertinent information when they apply for insurance, why should the insurer continue coverage?
 
lizzie said:
No, I did not claim that there were "free" hospitals in each city. You must be reading into my posts, beyond what is there.

I'll ask you again, if people are being dropped for illegal reasons, why are malpractice lawyers not filling up the courts with cases? This should be simple enough to prove. If people are not giving false information, or omitting pertinent information when they apply for insurance, why should the insurer continue coverage?
Click to expand...

I have explained this several times ... rescission was not illegal before the HCR. It would now be illegal and yet previously it was not.

That is the point of the poll ... I cannot make it much simpler for you.
 
Dion said:
I have explained this several times ... rescission was not illegal before the HCR. It would now be illegal and yet previously it was not.

That is the point of the poll ... I cannot make it much simpler for you.
Click to expand...

In fact, the most anyone could hope to do was drag the health insurance company through the media mud and publicly shame them, which actually worked pretty well, believe it or not. Most people don't have the time or the energy to take on a mulizillion dollar company in the press, though.
 
lizzie said:
I realize it's broken, but the way our government is trying to fix it, is a huge mistake. The direction of health care coveraoge should be toward catastrophic care coverage, and not comprehensive. This is one of the primary reasons health care costs have gotten out of hand.
Click to expand...

Catastrophic coverage at the expense of preventative is even worse.
 
Cardinal said:
Catastrophic coverage at the expense of preventative is even worse.
Click to expand...

What? That is the precise basis for MOST insurance; it is intended for the rare, the unexpected and the expensive event - not for the everyday routine expenses. You do not expect your auto policy to cover oil changes, tune ups or flat tires. You do not expect your homeowners policy to cover worn out appliances, maintaining the lawn or periodically repainting the exterior. Far too many have come to see routine check-ups, minor ailments and a simple cleaning, stitching and dressing of a wound as a MAJOR MEDICAL EVENT that requires use of an insurance policy; that is what drives the cost up, with tons of useless paperwork. Using the KISS principle is in order, just as with ALL other forms of insurance.
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
Catastrophic coverage at the expense of preventative is even worse.
Click to expand...

No, not when you take American lifestyles and mindsets into consideration. By and larage, people in this country don't want to practice preventative medical care. They want to eat like pigs, smoke like stacks, drink like fish, then come running to the hospital to get fixed. Preventative health care is living a healthy lifestyle, which is at odds with American lifestyles. Anybody with a brain can figure out that eating healthy and exercising will prevent an early onset of health problems. They just don't want to do it.
 
Dion said:
I have explained this several times ... rescission was not illegal before the HCR. It would now be illegal and yet previously it was not.

That is the point of the poll ... I cannot make it much simpler for you.
Click to expand...

I understand the poll. I answered the poll. Is there something in my question that you didn't understand?
 
lizzie said:
No, not when you take American lifestyles and mindsets into consideration. By and larage, people in this country don't want to practice preventative medical care. They want to eat like pigs, smoke like stacks, drink like fish, then come running to the hospital to get fixed. Preventative health care is living a healthy lifestyle, which is at odds with American lifestyles. Anybody with a brain can figure out that eating healthy and exercising will prevent an early onset of health problems. They just don't want to do it.
Click to expand...

I can dance to that up until, oh forty years old. At that point most people will need to see a doctor more often regardless of healthy lifestyle.

Do you have a group insurance plan (or are under 30)? I'm not trying to be snide, but you (and ttwtt78640) don't really sound like you've thought about any of this from the perspective of someone who's had to deal with this from the other side of the tracks, so to speak.

http://insureme.us/catastrophic-health-insurance-you/

Disadvantages. The disadvantage of having a catastrophic insurance plan may really depend on the age of the person getting it. For healthy young people, it may work to their advantage as they would not really need much medical care. However, for middle-aged individuals, who would need frequent medical visits and tests done, it may do their pockets more harm than good. Essentially, they will be paying for these services first before the company would shell out any money for them. Getting this type of insurance plan means that you are ready to shell out a certain amount from your own pocket in order for you to be able to experience the full benefit of your insurance coverage.

The bottom line is that you have to know what you need at this point in time. Perhaps asking yourself the following questions will simplify things for you:

Do you find yourself needing medical attention most of the time?
Do you need medical treatment and prescription drugs on a regular basis?
Can you afford to pay out-of-pocket expenses for medical needs?

If you do need medical care, treatment, and drugs, then this plan is not for you. Make sure that you assess your medical needs at this point in time, as well as your financial capability. Not having the money to readily pay for your medical expenses also increases the burden on your shoulders, so be very careful about agreeing to pay deductibles if you cannot afford to do so.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
lizzie said:
I understand the poll. I answered the poll. Is there something in my question that you didn't understand?
Click to expand...

The problem with your question is it assumed that reasons for dropping people from their coverage could be illegal.
 

When I was born the bill was under $100, which included the manditory week in hospital. When I was a child our Dr. came to our house when I had Chicken Pox & when my brother was burned, the bills for these visits (found bills in fathers things) was $6.00 per. My brother, who knew the make, model & year of everyone he knew says he drove a '48 Chevy, delux coupe, which was at the time 8 years old, but clean as a whisle. :peace
ttwtt78640 said:
What? That is the precise basis for MOST insurance; it is intended for the rare, the unexpected and the expensive event - not for the everyday routine expenses. You do not expect your auto policy to cover oil changes, tune ups or flat tires. You do not expect your homeowners policy to cover worn out appliances, maintaining the lawn or periodically repainting the exterior. Far too many have come to see routine check-ups, minor ailments and a simple cleaning, stitching and dressing of a wound as a MAJOR MEDICAL EVENT that requires use of an insurance policy; that is what drives the cost up, with tons of useless paperwork. Using the KISS principle is in order, just as with ALL other forms of insurance.
Click to expand...
 
jpevans said:

When I was born the bill was under $100, which included the manditory week in hospital. When I was a child our Dr. came to our house when I had Chicken Pox & when my brother was burned, the bills for these visits (found bills in fathers things) was $6.00 per. My brother, who knew the make, model & year of everyone he knew says he drove a '48 Chevy, delux coupe, which was at the time 8 years old, but clean as a whisle. :peace
Click to expand...

Your point is? Inflation since 1948 was 853.6%, so that 1948 $100 bill is now $953.59. Medical care costs have risen far more than average inflation.
 
Cardinal said:
The problem with your question is it assumed that reasons for dropping people from their coverage could be illegal.
Click to expand...

No, I'm assuming that people are being dropped for legal reasons, otherwise, we would be seeing lawsuits requiring insurance companies to compensate people for damages.
 
Cardinal said:
I can dance to that up until, oh forty years old. At that point most people will need to see a doctor more often regardless of healthy lifestyle.

Do you have a group insurance plan (or are under 30)? I'm not trying to be snide, but you (and ttwtt78640) don't really sound like you've thought about any of this from the perspective of someone who's had to deal with this from the other side of the tracks, so to speak.
Click to expand...

I am over 50, and I carry health insurance through my employer. The side of the track that I deal with the issue from, is that of a health care provider.
 
lizzie said:
I want the doctor who is skilled and has expertise, regardless of his motive.
Click to expand...
Well when you pass medical school and pass medical exams im pretty sure your going to be skilled no matter what, even if you are not making 3 mil.

He is providing a valuable service, and has worked his ass off to get through med school, at a very high cost.
Click to expand...
Yes.....

His malpractice insurance is expensive, his office expenses are high, and he puts up with a ton of **** off hospital administrators and some of the patient population. It's a thankless job, and only someone who has true dedication can do the job well.
Click to expand...

Ok.
Still people who work under socialized medicine still make a **** ton of money. And under a lot of those problems you listed will be covered and taken care of by the gov..
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Doctors who work under socialized medicine still make a damn good amount of money...
And plus wouldnt you want someone operating on you who is a doctor want to be a doctor because of the enjoyment and they care about being a doctor instead of wanting to be a doctor just because of the "profit motive" and out to make a boatload of money?
Click to expand...

people that live in this country have better health care the the wealthiest people had 30 years ago.

right now you are probably saying, so what. good. That was my initial response when you mentioned doctors still make damn good money.
 
ARealConservative said:
people that live in this country have better health care the the wealthiest people had 30 years ago.
Click to expand...
What?
Makes zero sense.


right now you are probably saying, so what. good. That was my initial response when you mentioned doctors still make damn good money.
Click to expand...
What?

Can we reword this whole response to make some sense please?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom