Thoughts from our liberal brethren on the recent events regarding Obamacare.

[Tide1986]

yeah, i don't care. getting outraged and offended that the hype around legislation is overwrought is a waste of energy IMHO, so is pretending to be surprised when large reaching legislation runs into bumps and has to be tweaked. what i care about is the impact, and yeah, there will be some people who end up getting "screwed", but i believe that there are a lot more people being helped than being "screwed". its just that the anecdotes about being "screwed" make far more emotionally compelling stories for those who are looking to be outraged about the healthcare law.

To be clear, the "screwing" of some is occurring to pay for the "helping" of others. I wonder how those who have "favorable" impacts feel about not paying their fair share for their health care costs?

 

[92tide]

That they've become more greedy than they've ever been, more intrusive and more corrupt. I've grown real tired of having a politician get in front of a camera and do what he/she does best and that's lie.

we have a long history of greed, intrusiveness and corruption within our system of governance and politicians have not changed at all.

 

[92tide]

To be clear, the "screwing" of some is occurring to pay for the "helping" of others. I wonder how those who have "favorable" impacts feel about not paying their fair share for their health care costs?

i couldn't tell you because i pay my fair share for health care costs/insurance. the whole concept of insurance is to spread risk.

 

[Tide1986]

i couldn't tell you because i pay my fair share for health care costs. the whole concept of insurance is to spread risk.

In a voluntary market, I would agree with you. But ultimately, Obamacare is not insurance.

Edit: To be more specific, insuring preexisting conditions and preventive care violates one key principle of insurance -- the principle of accidental or contingent, uncertain loss.

 

[92tide]

In a voluntary market, I would agree with you. But ultimately, Obamacare is not insurance.

correct, PPACA is a regulatory framework for the health insurance market. for georgia, our family had around 20 options provided by 3 or 4 companies from which to choose.

 

[Tider@GW_Law]

You don't care the administration knew there would be millions of people who couldn't keep their existing plan yet vehemently insured they would? Isn't that lying? You don't care about that?

Congrats to you that you found a plan similar to the one you had for less. But that is not the case for a lot of people. They are getting screwed.

I find it hard to believe that you don't care that an administration (whether it's democrat or not) goes back into a bill/law and changes it after it has been passed without the knowledge of the American public. So you don't have a problem with any administration doing this? I find that hard to believe about you.

To be perfectly honest, I am still confused by all the anger and shock directed at the feds because insurers are canceling some policies. These cancellations of grandfathered policies are not required by anything in the ACA or the federal regs implementing it, and the expiration and termination of individual/group policies and even complete lines of business by insurers is not uncommon - in many markets this occurs at a fairly predictable rate too.

Here's what I have:
- We all knew there would be new requirements on plans being phased in post-2010, and many of these requirements (e.g., no pre-existing condition exclusions, coverage of a comprehensive scope of services, and no annual or lifetime benefit caps) would result in a significant portion of the individual policies becoming more generous and consequently coming with accordingly higher premiums
- Plans only maintain grandfathered status (i.e., exempt from above requirements) if there are no changes to material features of the plan
- We all know insurers routinely close books of business, and the associated dwindling of grandfathered plans was publicly reported in federal coverage projections and non-profit studies since the ACA was passed in 2010
- President Obama can't speak for the private health insurance companies, and the ACA does not give the feds the power to force insurers to continue offering specific products in the state-regulated individual and small group markets - indeed, the ACA expressly prohibits the feds from requiring termination of grandfathered lines of business
- Plan networks are always in a state of flux to some degree, and providers are free to accept or reject rates offered by a plan from year-to-year

Which part of this is it that is now coming as a surprise to people? Again, EVERYTHING above was known in 2010 and has never been treated as anything more than common knowledge by those in state and federal government agencies and literally every single person who deals with health policy to any degree.

 

[Tider@GW_Law]

In a voluntary market, I would agree with you. But ultimately, Obamacare is not insurance.

Edit: To be more specific, insuring preexisting conditions and preventive care violates one key principle of insurance -- the principle of accidental or contingent, uncertain loss.

If we're talking true insurance, very little in the health insurance market qualifies, and it's been that way for well over twenty years.

 

[bama_wayne1]

I wonder how much cheaper insurance could be if torte reform would have been allowed into the law. Any idea?

 

[Tide1986]

correct, PPACA is a regulatory framework for the health insurance market. for georgia, our family had around 20 options provided by 3 or 4 companies from which to choose.

To clarify my point, the plans offered within this "regulatory framework" are themselves not insurance, especially when non-fortuitous losses are covered without a commensurate risk premium (assuming one can be reasonably calculated).

 

[jthomas666]

In a voluntary market, I would agree with you. But ultimately, Obamacare is not insurance.

Edit: To be more specific, insuring preexisting conditions and preventive care violates one key principle of my definition of insurance -- the principle of accidental or contingent, uncertain loss.

fixed.

 

[Tide1986]

If we're talking true insurance, very little in the health insurance market qualifies, and it's been that way for well over twenty years.

Excepting things like preventive care (which are typically de minimis in cost anyway), free market insurance is essentially true insurance.

 

[JBama_in_PCOLA]

i dont think so. i just think that with all of the improvements in communication that many more folks are able to see (and in some cases be engaged in) the sausage being made

Yeah, but after seeing it, do they care?


Sent from my iPhone

 

[Tide1986]

fixed.

I agree with your fix since it conforms to the generally accepted definition that has existed since the concept of insurance was first created.

 

[Tider@GW_Law]

Excepting things like preventive care (which are typically de minimis in cost anyway), free market insurance is essentially true insurance.

Free market insurance? This is a new one for me.

Do you mean to say indemnity insurance, because that is what most understand the term "true insurance" to mean? For instance, under a true indemnity health insurance product, you see the doctor, any doctor (no limiting networks) - the doctor bills you - you pay the bill - the insurer then reimburses you some agreed upon portion of the paid charges.

 

[jthomas666]

I agree with your fix since it conforms to the generally accepted definition that has existed since the concept of insurance was first created.

Except that it doesn't conform to the actual health insurance industry, which DOES provide coverage for preventative care and pre-existing conditions. It may violate your image of insurance purity, but its been happening in the real world for quite some time.

 

[Tide1986]

Except that it doesn't conform to the actual health insurance industry, which DOES provide coverage for preventative care and pre-existing conditions. It may violate your image of insurance purity, but its been happening in the real world for quite some time.

Prior to ACA, it would provide coverage for preexisting conditions in exchange for a commensurate risk premium or exclude coverage for certain conditions if the losses were essentially incalculable. Edit: ...or add coverage limits to make losses calculable.

 

[92tide]

Yeah, but after seeing it, do they care?


Sent from my iPhone

i dont

 

[jthomas666]

Prior to ACA, it would provide coverage for prexisting conditions in exchange for a commensurate risk premium or exclude coverage for certain conditions if the losses were essentially incalculable. Edit: or add coverage limits to make losses calculable.

What about preventative care?

 

[Tide1986]

What about preventative care?

Covering preventive care is technically not insurance because any loss is not fortuitous, but this fact is generally offset by the relative de minimis and calculable cost for such care.

For example, if you created a policy that solely covered preventive care, the premium for such care would closely approximate the actual cost for the care (generally speaking).

 

[jthomas666]

Covering preventive care is technically not insurance because any loss is not fortuitous, but this fact is generally offset by the relative de minimis and calculable cost for such care.

Don't tell the insurance companies then, because they've been doin' it wrong for years.

And I appreciate that you can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious health insurance.