The one thing in the law that I hear is good is that people with preexisting conditions cannot be excluded from getting insurance.
Democrats tout that and not much else.
So my question is if I can say that in 10 words why is this thing 1,990 pages long?
I don't know if you read the title's of the charts...
but the charts were clearly indicating that the percent change was still positive for each year.
But it's been falling every year, especially in the private sector:
"Last year, for example, private insurance spending climbed just 1.3 percent. Medicare spending, in contrast, climbed 7.9 percent."
I think the pre-existing conditions part of the new law is great. My concerns are whether the government will be able to keep costs down.
The government, specifically this administration doesn't want cost to go down. If they did, they wouldn't have artificially increased demand by requiring all to buy insurance. Certainly forcing insurance companies to pay for pre-existing conditions is not going to reduce cost.
Pre-existing! How can something exist before it exists?
Of course insurance companies would never manipulate prices to prejudice people against Obama's moves on health care.
Don't be silly. You know exactly what that means. It means that the physical condition pre-dates or pre-exists the purchase of your current health care plan.
Our rates went up roughly 30% three years ago, 60-ish% two years ago, 80% last year, and I believe we will be seeing another 40-60% in the next month or two for this year. I'm not sure how good people are at doing compounding in their heads, but it is astronomical what is going on.
Nobody in their right mind is going to pay $2,000-$3000 a month for health care insurance for their family. (So we'll let the government pay for it, and we won't have to pay any premiums. Our taxes will go up by $15-$20k a year over the next few years, but hey, you won't be able to prove it was health care that caused it).
Presumably Medicare/Medicaid are going up in line with higher levels of unemployment? If insurance companies are increasing their premiums it'll no doubt be to recoup their perceived losses from having to take on clients with pre-existing conditions. Oh and to cover the cost of all the lobbying they've been doing to try and prevent changes to the status quo.
How do you explain Blue Shield raising premiums by 59%
They are a non-profit.
It is going to cost more so they charge more.
Frankly, I'm astounded that Jim would suggest Blue Shield is a non-profit.
Anthem BCBS is a mega-company out for mega profit. Here's the profile information. Look it up under WPT - that's Wellpoint, who merged with Anthem Blue Cross. You will see Anthem and/or WellPoint in company releases. In 2009 the company had gross profits of 18 million - sorry -18 BILLION dollars. Not revenue - PROFIT.
Jim has touted his expertise in the medical field as a nurse practitioner. Perhaps he never had occasion to discover the financial end of medicine. Still, it's a hell of a mistake, assuming it was, to say BCBS is non- profit as a reply to rates getting jacked up 59%.
Yeah, they've made a total mess of health care with this bill. We're going to get raped by the insurance companies even harder for premiums and the government is going to end up raising taxes to cover all the free-riders. Hope it doesn't tank the economy for good this time. We'll all be speaking Chinese by 2050.
i have bcbs and waiting for my renewal; i am sure it will be higher!
I have thousands of dollars in medical debt, because I can not get coverage because of many pre-existing conditions. Even though, I am paying on my debt, because I still have to go to the Dr every 3 months or whenever I have problems with asthma or I go to the emergency room;the debt never goes away.
"This morning is the tale of two headlines. From the New York Times, Health Spending Rose in ’09, but at Low Rate, we learn that “total national health spending grew by 4 percent in 2009, the slowest rate of increase in 50 years.”
From the Los Angeles Times, Blue Shield of California seeks rate hikes of as much as 59% for individuals, We find out that Blue Shield of California seeks massive rate hikes on individual policy holders because BSC claims the cost of health care has risen rapidly.
Another big California health insurer has stunned individual policyholders with huge rate increases — this time it’s Blue Shield of California seeking cumulative hikes of as much as 59% for tens of thousands of customers March 1...
These two articles just don’t add up; they’re completely at odds with each other..."
from http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2011/0 … -spending/
What a huge opportunity this mess presents for one of America's philanthropic billionaires to start a real not-for-profit medical insurance company.
Amanda, I think there is a huge misunderstanding about "not-for-profit" businesses. It does not mean, as you seem to imply, that there is cost-cutting involved in a non-profit, because the profits are cut out. Instead, it usually means that the business is involved in an endeavor in which there couldn't possibly be a profit, because the market does not have a demand for this service. In a non-profit, all the money tends to end up being spent on salaries, without a return for investors.
Already the GOP is gunning to repeal the new health care. Why? I have not met a Republican representative who is Not owned by big insurance companies.
The point is that any medical insurance company coming into your market offering affordable health-care coverage would surely have people queuing round the block to join. Once again I find myself extremely grateful to be here in the UK in this regard.
by Cowboy Coasters6 years ago
....for immigrants and very lazy poor people.
by lauravan6 months ago
What, if any, role should the government play in determining individuals' adoption of health insurance? If you think everyone should be required to have some form of health insurance, why? If you don't think it's...
by ElSeductor3 years ago
Why are some people so eager to take away healthcare for people with pre-existing conditions?
by Holle Abee4 years ago
According to ABC, 67% of Americans polled want to kill the law completely or kill the individual mandate. Could the law work without the mandate? Any ideas?http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 … l-mandate/
by qwark5 years ago
what a waste of time!It will never be "repealed."Read it damnit! All 2000+ pages and make, in bi-partisan manner, the necessary changes that will improve it!Qwark
by Holle Abee4 years ago
I like most of Obamacare, although I still have reservations about the individual mandate. On one hand, I don't like the idea of people being forced to buy a product, but on the other hand, I don't like having to help...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.