Since Obama will cover pre-existing conditions

[Jack78]

Originally Posted by tuff bob

It's to protect the insurance company when people fail to disclose relevant pre-existing conditions that would haveaffected the cost of their insurance when it was being underwritten.

Exactly.

[tuff bob]

Originally Posted by Jack78

Exactly.

The insurance company deserves to protect themselves form insurance fraud.

[tuff bob]

Originally Posted by Jack78

Intentionally not covering sick people is fraud?

people who intentionally fail to disclose pre-existing conditions is fraud.

[Jack78]

Originally Posted by tuff bob

people who intentionally fail to disclose pre-existing conditions is fraud.

It's not fraud, it's to protect profits - It's our system, and it's not right, and most people understand that, and it's going to change.

[SBSpartan]

Originally Posted by Jack78

Average cost for family of four.

Yes I am well aware. I explained why I don't like the number being attached. Almost everything goes up when the gov estimates costs.

[SBSpartan]

Originally Posted by Jack78

This such complete and udder BS. You're talking from the perspective of hurting insurance company profits. That is the issue. The profit motive pushes Insurance companies to look for ways to NOT cover medical expenses. This is why so many families go financially bankrupt when a loved one is suddenly stricken by serious disease.

Yes, "risk" is the key word ... it needs to be spread. IMO, the only difference in premiums s/b based on incenting healthy life styles.

It's not BS Jack, it's just the other side of the coin. And it's not just about profits for the companies. The premiums for the healthy insureds would rise as well.

[SBSpartan]

Originally Posted by Jack78

Exactly.

You are both right in one aspect.

Pre-ex is very important in determining cost. If there was no preex the premiums would have to be high to account for the simple fact there are lots of sick people out there that need a lot of coverage. This means everyones premium would skyrocket. It's like Jack said, pooled risk. No pre-ex=high risk=high premium.

All you guys are talking about is what is fair. The simple fact is this won't be fair for everyone ever.

[SBSpartan]

Originally Posted by Jack78

It's not fraud, it's to protect profits - It's our system, and it's not right, and most people understand that, and it's going to change.

It actually is fraud that is why your policy will be termed if you do it.

[Jack78]

Originally Posted by SBSpartan

It's not BS Jack, it's just the other side of the coin. And it's not just about profits for the companies. The premiums for the healthy insureds would rise as well.

It is BS. This issue is the conflict between the profit motive and the "rules of the game" as they stand today vs. effective health care services and the spreading of related family financial risk for Americans. By all objective measures, the US is lagging in the industrial world - most costly yet low relative effectiveness ... and guess what, as a percentage, the US medical insurance costs are the largest in the world. This will change. There are middle-man costs that can be reaplied to the coverage side to help mitigate your feared premium increases.

[tuff bob]

Originally Posted by Jack78

There are middle-man costs that can be reaplied to the coverage side to help mitigate your feared premium increases.

Ahh the "middle bogie man" argument that makes no sense at all

[Jack78]

Originally Posted by tuff bob

Ahh the "middle bogie man" argument that makes no sense at all

The costs figures keep smacking you about the head - explains your confusion.

[tuff bob]

Originally Posted by Jack78

The costs figures keep smacking you about the head

medicare costs look relatively good due to the fact that medicare covers people that have a relatively high cost of care to what private insurance companies have.

[Jack78]

Originally Posted by tuff bob

medicare costs look relatively good due to the fact that medicare covers people that have a relatively high cost of care to what private insurance companies have.

I'm talking complete health care system, bcl. Look at Germany, at Australia ... the US insurance segment is, by very far, the largest in the world.

[SBSpartan]

Originally Posted by Jack78

It is BS. This issue is the conflict between the profit motive and the "rules of the game" as they stand today vs. effective health care services and the spreading of related family financial risk for Americans. By all objective measures, the US is lagging in the industrial world - most costly yet low relative effectiveness ... and guess what, as a percentage, the US medical insurance costs are the largest in the world. This will change. There are middle-man costs that can be reaplied to the coverage side to help mitigate your feared premium increases.

Middle men are essential in the effective marketing of most every product on the market today. Given that fact, you really should be crusading against anything you might ever buy and the inflated cost the middle man puts into that product shouldn't you? That is an over the top statement because I can clearly see you are speaking more from your emotional side on this issue but you see my point right?

And it isn't simply a fear that premiums will increase under this senario, it is a fact. If you take risk assesment out of the equation you have to protect the investor (insurance company or gov) from over exposure. Over exposure will lead to a situation where more money is going out that coming into the program. That all sounds great but remember it has to be paid for somehow and if it is a Gov program that means you are paying through tax dollars and lots of them.

Just because the Gov will be running the show doesn't mean the services will get less expensive or become free. What would actually make the services less expensive is less Government involvment in the insurance industry. Without the extremely heavy gov involvment and the massive amount of rule you have to follow the prices could easily come down. People love to blame the carrier but the carrier is just doing what the Gov tells them to do. It's not at all unlike the mortgage companies being told they have to take on ****ty risk. It just that we can compensate for that so we don't go under.

[caspper69]

Originally Posted by tuff bob

Fannie and Freddie: Why doubts persist - Scotsman.com News

Keep it up bob. Why don't you actually LEARN something rather than parroting your party line?

Sure, F/F were part of the problem. So was the CRA. The bigger problem was the idiots on Wall St., which had jack to do with what you keep regurgitating. I guess ignorance is bliss, I suppose.

[Jack78]

Originally Posted by caspper69

Keep it up bob. Why don't you actually LEARN something rather than parroting your party line?

Sure, F/F were part of the problem. So was the CRA. The bigger problem was the idiots on Wall St., which had jack to do with what you keep regurgitating. I guess ignorance is bliss, I suppose.

Exactly what I was referring to. bclbob has no interest in learning ... nor is he willing to start a separate thread, or bump an old one, to further discuss his drivel, which has nothing to do with the subject of this thread. Pathetic.

[tuff bob]

Originally Posted by Jack78

Exactly what I was referring to. bclbob has no interest in learning .

and you have no interest in educating

[SBSpartan]

Originally Posted by Jack78

Exactly what I was referring to. bclbob has no interest in learning ... nor is he willing to start a separate thread, or bump an old one, to further discuss his drivel, which has nothing to do with the subject of this thread. Pathetic.

One of my biggest things about this place is people not staying on topic.

[Jack78]

Originally Posted by SBSpartan

Middle men are essential in the effective marketing of most every product on the market today. Given that fact, you really should be crusading against anything you might ever buy and the inflated cost the middle man puts into that product shouldn't you? That is an over the top statement because I can clearly see you are speaking more from your emotional side on this issue but you see my point right?

Marketing?????? The overhead associated of our medical insurance system and its cascading effect on administrative costs throughout the process pipeline is disastrously inefficient, SB. Our system is very fragmented, procedurally diverse, and laden with overhead redundancy. Administrative costs now represent about 30% of our health care system costs - way more than any other industrialized nation.

Originally Posted by SBSpartan

And it isn't simply a fear that premiums will increase under this senario, it is a fact. If you take risk assesment out of the equation you have to protect the investor (insurance company or gov) from over exposure. Over exposure will lead to a situation where more money is going out that coming into the program. That all sounds great but remember it has to be paid for somehow and if it is a Gov program that means you are paying through tax dollars and lots of them.

I understand our current system. But it's bloated, inefficient, and by objective measures, not effectively meeting the needs of Americans as a whole. There are ways to handle the risk pooling so as not to fall unfairly on a given company, SB. I'm not blaming companies for acting the way they do - they're playing to maximize profits within the current rules. I'm saying the rules suck and will be changed. Companies will adjust to new rules - to maximize profits under a set of rules that provides better coverage for US citizens.

Originally Posted by SBSpartan

Just because the Gov will be running the show doesn't mean the services will get less expensive or become free. What would actually make the services less expensive is less Government involvment in the insurance industry. Without the extremely heavy gov involvment and the massive amount of rule you have to follow the prices could easily come down. People love to blame the carrier but the carrier is just doing what the Gov tells them to do. It's not at all unlike the mortgage companies being told they have to take on ****ty risk. It just that we can compensate for that so we don't go under.

The US system is currently the most expensive in the world and it's not delivering as it should .... and stop with the moronic "free" bull****.

............. and, did I mention that the US system is currently the most expensive in the world???

[Jack78]

Originally Posted by tuff bob

and you have no interest in educating

Special-Ed is very time intensive.

[SBSpartan]

Originally Posted by Jack78

Marketing?????? The overhead associated of our medical insurance system and its cascading effect on administrative costs throughout the process pipeline is disastrously inefficient, SB. Our system is very fragmented, procedurally diverse, and laden with overhead redundancy. Administrative costs now represent about 30% of our health care system costs - way more than any other industrialized nation.

I understand our current system. But it's bloated, inefficient, and by objective measures, not effectively meeting the needs of Americans as a whole. There are ways to handle the risk pooling so as not to fall unfairly on a given company, SB. I'm not blaming companies for acting the way they do - they're playing to maximize profits within the current rules. I'm saying the rules suck and will be changed. Companies will adjust to new rules - to maximize profits under a set of rules that provides better coverage for US citizens.

The US system is currently the most expensive in the world and it's not delivering as it should .... and stop with the moronic "free" bull****.

............. and, did I mention that the US system is currently the most expensive in the world???

You really are one of the most angry people I have ever encountered. So much for having a normal discussion with you. At least I tried.

You have your thoughts on this and a lot of them are very misguided.

One last thing...yes...MARKETING...it is how every single product you see gets into your hands Jack.

Second last thing. A lot of the things you complain about in the second paragraph are direct results of governments involvement in the regulations that govern the insurance industry. Even you say they are problems. So why would you want more government when we both admit they are the problem?

[The Great Danton]

Originally Posted by SBSpartan

That quote has nothing at all to do with the thread.

And if you think insurance is expensive now just wait to see what premiums do if the carriers can't protect against pre-existing conditions.

No kidding. The cost of this program is going to be massive, beyond whatever the estimates are. And we'll be getting worse care for it.