Bama Refuses To Cover People With Preexisting Conditions
Offline http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/2013/02/15/cb9d56ac-779c-11e2-8f84-3e4b513b1a13_print.html
Tens of thousands of Americans who cannot get health insurance because of preexisting medical problems will be blocked from a program designed to help them because funding is running low.
Obama administration officials said Friday that the state-based “high-risk pools” set up under the 2010 health-care law will be closed to new applicants as soon as Saturday and no later than March 2, depending on the state.
But they stressed that coverage for about 100,000 people who are now enrolled in the high-risk pools will not be affected.
“We’re being very careful stewards of the money that has been appropriated to us and we wanted to balance our desire to maximize the number of people who can gain from this program while making sure people who are in the program have coverage,” said Gary Cohen, director of the Department of Health and Human Services’ Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight. “This was the most prudent step for us to take at this point in time.”
Imagine that, giving people insurance at the last minute when they have serious medical problems is extremely expensive. The government gave up after a mere 100,000 people applied, yet they expect health insurance companies to cover somewhere from 9 to 25 million people starting next year. Funny thing is that when people can purchase insurance the minute they go to the doctor, they don't bother buying it before something serious happens to them. Despite these people paying higher than average premiums, the government still blew through an additional $5 billion in benefits. Wow, who could possibly have predicted this?
“What we’ve learned through the course of this program is that this is really not a sensible way for the health-care system to be run,” Cohen said.
No shit Sherlock. Insurance is designed to pay before anything bad happens, when you allow the purchase of insurance after a bad event happens it is no longer insurance and is not economically viable. Bamacare is a completely insane way to approach health care. Where is the money going to come from to insure everyone who decides to skip buying insurance until they are in the hospital? To put in perspective how much money the government just blew through, the largest health insurer in the US is United Healthcare with just under $100 billion in premiums extorts $5.5 billion in evil profits, which insures more than 70 million people (that would be $78.57 per customer per year those greedy SOBs) The government is losing $2.5 billion a year insuring 100,000 people- where exactly is the money going to come from to insure 10 million+ people? If they have similar costs, the companies forced to insure them can expect to lose a combined $250 billion- far more than the combined profits of every health insurer in the country (like on the magnitude of 10 times more).
http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/displayfilinginfo.aspx?FilingID=9061475-299808-476815&type=sect&TabIndex=2&companyid=8792&ppu=...
So where is the money going to come from? Well obviously health insurance companies are going to raise rates, so the people who will pay for it will be everyone with insurance. Either directly or the employer will pay for it and in turn pay a lower salary (dirty secret, us employers don't give a fuck if the money is spent on your salary or to purchase health insurance- either way it is an expense and in our heads all combined into one number) The big question is how many people are going to skip buying insurance because they can simply purchase it the day they need it. The law creates a "penalty" but the penalty is much cheaper than insurance is for most people, especially since high deductible cheap policies are outlawed under Bamacare. Any rational person who can do math will refuse to buy health insurance until they have significant health expenses, at which point the companies are forced to insure them. Those who do the "right" thing and purchase health insurance in advance are going to be faced with much higher premiums to subsidize those who do the economically smart thing and don't buy it in advance. I contend that many people will choose their immediate financial interests over doing the "right" thing.
We would be far better off with either removing the restrictions and creating a free market in health insurance or going with a full fledged single payer government ran health insurance, this middle of the road bullshit just means we get hit by cars from both sides and is doomed to fail stuck between governments amazing talent for inefficiency and private insurance companies using government coercion to increase their profits.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
- Login to post comments
Funding is running low? NO SHIT because pretend third partiers like you don't like paying your share of taxes.
Insurance companies will raise rates? Again, NO SHIT, but not because they have to, but because they don't want their CEOs to take pay cuts or or the companies to make less profit. And to accuse "Bama" of cutting people off, insurance companies were doing that anyway, and deny service all the time. They maximize profits by dumping sick people, and denial of service anyway. I am quite sure the amount of sick people dumped by the private companies outnumbers what you are accusing "Bama" of.
But you are bat shit fucking insane to think they cant afford it. There is a difference between cant and don't want to. And again, this cuts to climate, not just one industry. If all big business cut out their corporate welfare, stuff like this could be covered. How about also stop selling military surplus the pentagon says it doesn't need/
Oh and with all the states that will partake in it that will mean more in the pool, so those costs you talk about can be covered. Larger pool more income. So if they raise rates it will simply to be to increase profits.
The employer will pay a lower salary? NO SHIT, our wages are already too fucking low, so another NO FUCKING DUH. All you are confirming is that people like you are greedy. Not all business owners are, but far too many think like you.
Get the pay gap in your fucking head and then maybe you'll understand how fucking wrong you are.
Oh and if you are going to blame anyone for "Bama's" law, remember he copied it from Mittens, and he did not get what he really wanted because rethuglicans watered it down, and this is a result of rethuglican obstructionism.
AND nice propaganda word in your title, since when does "we don't have the money" mean "I refuse". Maybe if you cut your corporate welfare this wouldn't be happening.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Have to agree. This lip service bs isn't going to work. It's going to fall apart at the insurance level when they go bankrupt. Or worse, see skyrocketing rates that are never paid off which ends up in the either the medical system itself collapsing, or in huge spending increases when the government finally figures out it isn't working to prevent it.
Nothing wrong with a good health system, but the bs between the republicans and democrats ensures that isn't going to happen. It was even a republican plan, and they still had to screw with it.
Your best bet at health care is to get out of the US.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Whether I like it or not I am paying my taxes. Regardless, our government has proven it has no problem spending money it doesn't have, currently we borrow about 35% of the money we spend.
Which profits are large enough to cover the cost? Can you do basic math? The top five health insurance companies make less than $15 billion in profits, ALL insurance companies combined probably make in the ball park of $25-$30 billion. Last time I checked $30 billion is a much smaller number than $250 billion.
Show me how they can. All of their financial information is public and is available online (see the link I posted above) United Healthcare accounts for over 20% of the insurance market so their share of the $250 billion would be $50 billion. Show me where they are supposed to get that from? They only make $5.5 billion in profits (after taxes, they actually make $8.6 billion in profits and pay $3.1 billion in income taxes) and have $17.3 billion in operating expenses which includes all of the salaries of their 133,000+ employees (from their executives and everyone down to the janitor who you say should be paid more- their CEO Stephen Hemsley made $5.28 million in cash and benefits if he decided to work for free and equally distribute all of his income all of the employees would get a bonus check of $39.70), renting office space, paying the electric bill, everything. Even if they surrendered all of their profits and ALL of their employees were willing to work for free and somehow all of their expenses disappeared that only leaves $22.8 billion which is less than $50 billion.
I understand these numbers are hard to grasp because $22.8 billion is a lot of money and you simply see that it is a lot. A lot does not mean infinite and it is blatantly false to say they "have enough money" because no, they do not. Simply pretending doesn't make it so. Even if we assume that the governments experimental run covering 100,000 people consisted of people with higher costs than the 10 million plus that will have to be insured, it is clear that the insurance companies don't currently have even close to enough money. There is a difference between can't and don't want to and whether they want to or not, they can't without raising rates a lot. Which is why insurance rates for me to cover my employees went up 20% this year and I have to find some place in my budget to meet that cost.
I am all for cutting corporate welfare. Remember I opposed the stimulus? I voted against the assholes who pushed for it? I also am all for cutting the military as well. The reality is though that even cutting those things to bare bones our budget is still bloated and we will still be borrowing money to cover the bills even before we start paying for Bamacare.
Our government brings in a lot of money, but again you can't just say "Oh they have a lot they can pay for anything" a lot /= to infinite. Obama's 2013 budget calls for $2.902 trillion in tax revenue (which is a dream assuming our economy will grow but for the sake of discussion let's pretend that the prediction will be more or less accurate).
We spend $940.9 billion on the Department of Health and Human Services which includes Medicare and Medicaid- should we cut that? No? Ok
We spend $882.7 billion on Social Security- should we cut that? No? Ok we are at $1.8236 trillion we only have a little over a trillion left hope we find something to cut soon.
We spend $672.9 billion on the Department of Defense- should we cut that? Yes? How much? Hell, lets just eliminate it 100% we have enough gun nuts if our country is ever invaded. Phew, we finally saved some money. We have no military at all but hey, have to make sacrifices. (Obviously I know you do not support completely eliminating the military but I am simply making the point that the money isn't there. Even if we go to the absurd and completely eliminated the military we are still spending more than we bring in)
We spend $246 billion on interest on our debt- should we stop paying that? I hope you are not so dense that you need me to explain why it is important for us to pay that. (That is right, we could buy almost another half of our over sized military simply with what we spend on interest alone.) We are at $2.0696 trillion.
We spend $154.5 billion on the Department of Agriculture- should we cut that? I think so, but based on what you said in the past I doubt you support cutting much of it. They pay for things like food stamps, food safety, rural housing subsidies for the poor, rural utilities, the national forest service etc. I doubt you support cutting any of that, correct me if I am wrong. We are at $2.2241 trillion.
We spend $139.7 billion on the Department of Veteran Affairs- should we cut that? No? Ok. The good news is that since we eliminated the military the costs will drop as vets die off. $2.2638 trillion.
We spend $110.3 billion on the Department of the Treasury- should we cut that? Again, I say yes but I doubt you agree. They pay for things like the IRS, printing money and investigating financial crimes. I am all for eliminating the IRS. You disagree? Ok. $2.4741 trillion
We spend $101.7 billion on the Department of Labor- should we cut that? No? Well I would be happy without OSHA, unemployment compensation and the ridiculous amount of regulations imposed through the department of labor on evil capitalists like me but you keep saying we need more of that. Ok. $2.5758 trillion.
We spend $98.5 billion on the Department of Transportation- should we cut that? No? Ok. $2.6743 trillion.
We spend $71.9 billion on the Department of Education- should we cut that? No? Ok. $2.7462 trillion. Eek, we are getting close, hope we can cut something soon.
We spend $59.5 billion on the Department of State- should we cut that? Well I suppose if we don't have a military we really need to double down kissing asses at the UN. Ok. $2.8057 trillion.
We spend $55.4 billion on the Department of Homeland Security- should we cut that? I am guessing you said no? Ok. $2.8611 trillion.
We spend $52.6 billion on the National Intelligence Program- should we cut that? Maybe a little? After all, with no military and no war the CIA won't have as much to do. Let's cut it to $30 billion, fair enough? Ok. Phew, good thing we found something to cut but we are still at $2.8911 trillion.
We spend $46.3 billion on the Department of Housing and Urban Development- should we cut that? No? Damn it, we are going to win the war on poverty if it kills us! Ok. $2.9374 trillion.... uh oh we have gone over our revenue and we are not finished yet.
We spend $36.5 billion on the Department of Justice- should we cut that?
We spend $35 billion on the Department of Energy- should we cut that? Well there is a lot of corporate welfare here, I bitch about it all the time. They are phrased as "investments" in "green energy" but from what I can tell you seem to support those.
Then we have another $100 billion in a bunch of small departments like NASA, Department of the Interior (national parks), Department of Commerce, Environmental Protection Agency, Army Corps of Engineers, National Science Foundation, Small Business Administration etc.
All told we are at $3.1089 trillion giving us a $206.9 billion deficit and that is completely eliminating the military or perhaps severely cutting it and finding enough corporate welfare to cut out to make up the rest. So tell me Brian, what else do you support cutting? So tell me Brian, where are we going to get the money? Simply saying "it is there" doesn't cut it. All of these numbers are available on the internet- show me evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_States_federal_budget
Adding more people into the pool only provides more gross revenue. If on average the people entering the pool pay more for the insurance than they draw in benefits each new person results in a net loss. By definition, the class of people we are talking about are people who have severe illnesses and will draw significantly more benefits than they will pay in premiums because they are already sick before they buy the insurance. If their medical expenses were less than the premiums, why would they pay for the insurance? That is why the government blew through $5 billion in subsidies faster than they expected on a mere 100,000 people.
I know he did, which is why I was never a supporter of Mittens. YOU were the one who said during the primary that you hoped Mittens would win the primary because you thought he would be the best option among republicans if Bama lost. I have never thought that there would be anything good about a Mittens presidency, that is why I cast my vote for Gary Johnson. Are you really that dense? Or are you Poeing me?
There are many republicans who support the idea of forcing insurance companies to cover people with preexisting conditions- for the most part this part of the law wasn't in dispute except among people like me who can do math. My point here is that such an idea is completely irrational and not financially viable at all. The small scale test was an utter failure, there is no reason to believe that by making it 100 times bigger that the essential problems are going to go away.
So show me Brian. How is it going to be paid for? Show me how the insurance companies have the money. Or show me how the government is going to get that much money. Tell me what you think the tax rates should be and I will do the math for you and see if it is enough. Tell me which government programs above you are willing to cut. You want Bamacare? Fine, but you have to show me how we are going to pay for it. And your vague comments about "cut the military" and "cut corporate welfare" don't hack it. I have shown above that practically eliminating both does not eliminate or deficit. You still need more money. Should we raise your taxes? Or just mine? What should my federal tax rate be? What should the tax rate on your pal Warren be? We are dealing with real numbers so you have to be specific rather than just spout your platitudes as if they are facts.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
true that. i've been in europe almost nine years now, and on european healthcare for six years, and i've never looked back. seriously, america can go suck a bag of dicks.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
I am sick of "both parties" no, Democrats have been fucking wimps for far too long. But the reason we don't have the health care system other countries do is because your businesses know healthy workers mean a healthy worker who isn't struggling makes a better economy.
This is because of ONE party, not both. Now the only part I will admit to is is that Dems have been weak, and walked all over for the past 30 years.
Even Teddy Roosevelt advocated for universal health care.
Money and greed have dominated our politics, the only problem with the democrats is that they need to fight back.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
More blood on Obama's hands
Your point? Teddy Roosevelt was one of the main figures of the Progressive movement. He supported all sorts of government interventionism and is very much responsible for starting many of the federal agencies we have today. It is hardly a surprise that he supported universal health care, he was a strong believer that the federal government could and should micromanage peoples lives. He supported prohibition and believed that cocaine should be banned because it caused Negroes to rape white women. So should we just be a big supporter of everything Teddy wanted?
I even devoted three parts of my little project on various things that Roosevelt thought the government needed more control over.
http://www.rationalresponders.com/history_us_economic_law_part_6_monopoly
http://www.rationalresponders.com/history_us_economic_law_part_7_regulating_railroads
http://www.rationalresponders.com/history_us_economic_law_part_8_regulating_food
Yet your greed and desire for other peoples money is the basis of every political argument you make. All of your arguments can be boiled down to "I want this, I want that, government should give it to me because other people won't. And NO I shouldn't have to do anything to get it." You are a little kid that looks at the government as a candy store and expect mommy to buy you whatever you want.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
I know it doesn't look like it from inside the US, but the democrats are a right wing party. They've adopted a few left wing ideas, and some democrats are more left than right, but they are solidly on the right as a party, as a whole. They are ineffective and weak because they have no real identity. Half their membership agrees with the republicans on multiple issues. They can't get anything done as much because they are internally divided as because of their opposition.
The situation America is in is the result of BOTH parties, and indeed the party system.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
i've seen both sides of this issue. i was born and raised in the US and have now spent almost one third of my life in slovakia. i can say this is 100% correct. i can also say that most europeans don't realize how homogeneous the american political landscape is. my slovak wife was genuinely bewildered when my reaction to obama winning was "i don't give a fuck."
america has entered the decandent phase of its history. it literally cannot change in any fundamental sense without some sort of catastrophe happening, and considering how deeply inert americans are, it will take a long time for that to happen, but when it does, it will be fucking huge. and no, this situation probably wasn't preventable. history seems to have its own inalterable processes.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson