Insurers to drop child-only plans

posted at 8:48 am on September 21, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

As Glenn Reynolds sarcastically asks, “Who could have seen this coming?”  Most of us outside of the White House understood that by forcing insurers to take on more risk while pressuring them to keep prices down, we would either see insurers stop offering certain policies or go out of business altogether.  ObamaCare advocates kept insisting that we had to help the children by proceeding apace with their government takeover of the industry.  The result?  Suffer the children:

Some of the country’s most prominent health insurance companies have decided to stop offering new child-only plans, rather than comply with rules in the new health-care law that will require such plans to start accepting children with preexisting medical conditions after Sept. 23.

The companies will continue to cover children who already have child-only policies. They will also accept children with preexisting conditions in new family policies.

Critics blast the insurers for their “immoral” decision, but they had little choice.  The federal government mandate requires them to accept any child at any time, regardless of any pre-existing condition, but doesn’t yet require parents of healthy children to buy policies for them.  It sets up an incentive system where this scenario will unfold repeatedly:

Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for AHIP, noted that insurers will be accepting children with preexisting conditions in other types of plans.

But, he said, extending such coverage in child-only policies “provides a very powerful incentive for a parent to wait until their child becomes very sick before purchasing coverage.”

Zirkelbach added that in 2014, when similar protections kick in for all individuals with preexisting conditions, virtually all Americans will be required to get health insurance.

With no such mandate currently in place, however, the result over the next several years could be that the pool of children insured by child-only plans would rapidly skew toward those with expensive medical bills, either bankrupting the plans or forcing insurers to make up their losses by substantially increasing premiums for all customers. And Zirkelbach said the effect could be compounded if only a few plans remain in the market.

This should be Econ 101, or at the least Insurance 101.  However, it’s the problem that ObamaCare advocates not only refused to fix, they refuse to acknowledge.  No one will buy a $3000 plan for comprehensive insurance for a child who is healthy, not unless it comes as part of an insurance plan for the whole family.  They might buy a catastrophic insurance plan for a few hundred dollars for use just in case the child gets sick, but that kind of plan won’t exist any longer under ObamaCare.  Now that the mandates for coverage exist for pre-existing conditions, parents no longer need to bother with that, anyway, as they are now in a no-risk position.  They can just wait to see if their child gets sick enough to need insurance, and then buy it.

The real truth is that hardly anyone under 40 needs the kind of insurance policy mandated by ObamaCare.  They would be much better advised to buy catastrophic insurance and pay for their minimal use of the medical system through HSAs.  Most younger people take one visit to a clinic each year, which would cost arounbd $150, for a physical, a far cry from the thousands they will have to pay for ObamaCare exchange policies.  They are being used to subsidize older members of the risk pool in order to keep insurers from going bankrupt under the weight of ObamaCare mandates for coverage.

No one should be shocked at this decision.  When government intervenes in markets for social engineering and political outcomes, the outcomes are always skewed and irrational.  This time, it’s the children that will pay.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

November. November. November. 1/3/11. 1/3/11. 1/3/11. Defund. Defund. DEFUND!

redwhiteblue on September 21, 2010 at 10:39 AM

Not surprised, not shocked, but then…I have a rudimentary understanding of basic economics, which evidently nobody in the Obama administration seems to have.

Bob's Kid on September 21, 2010 at 10:52 AM

What’s forgotten in all this is that health insurance is a state matter. Each state regulates the insurers operating within its borders. Each state has requirements about capitalization, reserve requirements, etc., etc., etc., and can pull operating licenses for failure to maintain sufficient reserves to meet potential claims. If insurers can’t meet those requirements, they aren’t in the business any more. If the regulators see that a company asking for a rate increase needs it to meet the requirements, they are bound (except in Taxachusetts, it seems) to grant that increase.

It seems quite clear that if insurers leave the marketplace and no one else steps in, the gubmint will feel “compelled” to step in.

Single payer is the next step, as we all here know (well, most of us know. There are exceptions like drywall, ernesto, crr6, etc.).

either orr on September 21, 2010 at 11:00 AM

America is fast becoming exhausted of defending Obama. What a truly clueless, classless hack. He grew up with a racial, father-abandonment chip on his shoulder. He believed that everyone owed him everything, and the American electorate played right into the plot. And in his self-absorption Obama never hesitated to throw anyone who had helped him under the bus the moment the relationship could reveal to the public the fraud that he really is.

paul1149 on September 21, 2010 at 11:03 AM

Isaiah 10:1 Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees.

Akzed on September 21, 2010 at 11:04 AM

Psalm 94:20 Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law?

Akzed on September 21, 2010 at 11:05 AM

The elephant in the room, of course, is what this bill is doing to discourage people from going into the industry.

Fewer docs + More “insured” = RATIONING

labrat on September 21, 2010 at 10:36 AM

When this problem becomes acute, the liberal solution will be to open the floodgates of immigration to anyone with a medical degree. Your assigned GP will have a diploma from the University of Ooogabonga.

slickwillie2001 on September 21, 2010 at 11:12 AM

I think we need a new exercise,to go along with OOTD,like how many Obamateurisms we can find in one speech.This one had at least two,I remember one from awhile back where there were three.One a day is getting too easy.

DDT on September 21, 2010 at 11:22 AM

Ohh shoot,wrong thread.Maybe we should start looking for DDTeurisms while we wre at it.Sorry, guys.

DDT on September 21, 2010 at 11:25 AM

Your assigned GP will have a diploma from the University of Ooogabonga.

Dr. Mbogo?

The name of Addamses family doctor was a so-called witch doctor named Dr. Mbogo.

orbitalair on September 21, 2010 at 11:53 AM

I was wondering, how are all of the unemployed people and the destitute covered by ObamaCare if they can’t pay any premiums? If you don’t have the money, you don’t have the money.

Canadian Infidel on September 21, 2010 at 8:53 AM

Exactamundo, Infidel.

Then again, paraphrasing Stretch Piglosi, the bill had to be passed to find out what’s in it.

Death Panels all around!

GrannyDee on September 21, 2010 at 11:55 AM

Single payer is the next step, as we all here know (well, most of us know. There are exceptions like drywall, ernesto, crr6, etc.).

either orr on September 21, 2010 at 11:00 AM

The trolls understand this perfectly well (tho I probably wouldn’t put in ernesto in the troll category), and it’s what they want. They’re just being disingenuous to pretend they don’t know this was the plan all along. They are disciples of Marx, they believe in redistribution of wealth. It’s “unfair,” you see, if someone else is healthier than another person or has more money. We must ensure mediocrity for all!

NoLeftTurn on September 21, 2010 at 12:03 PM

Aren’t these problems directly related to illegal immigration?

Tommy_G on September 21, 2010 at 9:12 AM

My ex-husband was working as a temp LPN in the AIDS & TB wards down in San Antonio in the early 90′s.
The TB ward was pretty much ONLY illegals.
It was a full blown problem back then & I’m sure it hasn’t gotten any better, probably worse.
At that time, the medication took a full year to dispense & these illegals were kept almost a prisoner on these wards bcs the state was afraid if they left they’d stop taking their meds & infect more of our population.
And who paid for it-we did.

Badger40 on September 21, 2010 at 12:04 PM

Critics blast the insurers for their “immoral” decision, but they had little choice. The federal government mandate requires them to accept any child at any time, regardless of any pre-existing condition, but doesn’t yet require parents of healthy children to buy policies for them

They did have a choice. They could have priced their product with the new requirements, rather than stopped offering it altogether. It was a political act to stop offering the product, not a rational commercial act.

Jimbo3 on September 21, 2010 at 12:14 PM

Critics blast the insurers for their “immoral” decision, but they had little choice. The federal government mandate requires them to accept any child at any time, regardless of any pre-existing condition, but doesn’t yet require parents of healthy children to buy policies for them
They did have a choice. They could have priced their product with the new requirements, rather than stopped offering it altogether. It was a political act to stop offering the product, not a rational commercial act.

Jimbo3 on September 21, 2010 at 12:14 PM

Employers have generally said that this mandate may increase their costs by around three percent. Granted that this is a different market, but it suggests that the possible increases were not as extreme as the insurers are making them out to be.

Jimbo3 on September 21, 2010 at 12:15 PM

Granted that this is a different market, but it suggests that the possible increases were not as extreme as the insurers are making them out to be.

Jimbo3 on September 21, 2010 at 12:15 PM

That’s why you are getting insurance rates going up 20-30% in CA and other states right now.

Please, consider the chickens.

lorien1973 on September 21, 2010 at 12:25 PM

Are you exhausted yet?

dragondrop on September 21, 2010 at 12:28 PM

I am shocked, shocked, to know that I can’t go to the Rou‍lette table at a casino and wait to see what number comes up before placing my bet!

The Monster on September 21, 2010 at 12:35 PM

I am shocked, shocked, to know that I can’t go to the Rou‍lette table at a cas‍ino and wait to see what number comes up before placing my bet!

The Monster on September 21, 2010 at 12:35 PM

They did have a choice. They could have priced their product with the new requirements, rather than stopped offering it altogether. It was a political act to stop offering the product, not a rational commercial act.

Jimbo3 on September 21, 2010 at 12:14 PM

No its not. As another poster (either orr on September 21, 2010 at 11:00 AM) mentioned, insurance companies have to get any increases approved by the state insurance boards.

Since this was a relatively new product offering, which is now incurring a high (but unknown) variable risk from Obamacare requirements, it would make sense to cut losses and drop the product. With a potential for very high variable risk, and low profitability on a new product offering, they’d be better off halting the product entirely.

There are state requirements for capitalization and reserve requirements, to ensure that claims can be paid out. Why run the risk that one product offering undermining the entire company? (Keep in mind that since reserves are invested, they’ve already incurred losses from the stock market.)

I point this out as an employee of a P&C insurance company, that self-insures employee healthcare.

dominigan on September 21, 2010 at 12:36 PM

Jimbo3 on September 21, 2010 at 12:15 PM

Please cite references.

dominigan on September 21, 2010 at 12:38 PM

When this problem becomes acute, the liberal solution will be to open the floodgates of immigration to anyone with a medical degree. Your assigned GP will have a diploma from the University of Ooogabonga.

slickwillie2001 on September 21, 2010 at 11:12 AM

Exactly.

labrat on September 21, 2010 at 12:53 PM

This is just the government setting up another Ponzi scheme wherein the young must subsidize the elderly (something that the “young” used to do VOLUNTARILY for their relatives and loved ones, within the confines of that dinosaur formerly known as the “family”). So, the young and healthy MUST be forced to buy policies in order to keep the costs of policies within reason.

P.S. The reason an Insurance company would altogether stop offering a child-only policy for those with pre-existing conditions instead of offering it at a price that would allow them to meet the new requirements is one of P.R. and perception. Can you just imagine calling your insurance company to buy a policy for your seriously ill child and being told that its cost was nearly the same as the cost of treatment (which is what would be required to prevent the company from going bankrupt)?

How do you think those folks would react? Would they be understanding and continue to have a good opinion regarding the company, continue doing business with it, continue recommending it to their friends? Or would they feel sticker shock, anger, revulsion and just generally be pissed-off to find that the “cost” of such a policy was so outrageous that it wouldn’t make sense to purchase it?

So, any company with half a brain, would be much smarter to simply not offer such a policy and maintain their good-will with the public rather than offer something that is almost guaranteed to upset anyone considering buying it.

Fatal on September 21, 2010 at 1:08 PM

Employers have generally said that this mandate may increase their costs by around three percent. Granted that this is a different market, but it suggests that the possible increases were not as extreme as the insurers are making them out to be.

Jimbo3 on September 21, 2010 at 12:15 PM

It’s a completely different market, Jim. It’s apples and oranges. Disproportionately adding those with preexisting conditions will dramatically increase the costs for any insurer. And since no one knows just how many kids with preexisting conditions are out there with parents willing to buy policies, the unknown is enough of a scare in this economy climate to convince companies what the proper action is.

The only way these people make money is if they have more healthy than sick people, i.e., healthy people who can spread their wealth around. That’s it. Otherwise, they’re a charity.

Esthier on September 21, 2010 at 1:15 PM

Hillary and “Cousin Eddie” have the EAST BUTTON don’t forget, just NATIONALIZE those evil, profit motivated INSURANCE COS.

They are after all for killin those children that the Demrat rulers haven’t already killed before they got sick or even took a breath of air!

Oh I can hear the outrage and caterwallin now! We must do it for the chillin, the ones that survived the abortion docs that is!

dhunter on September 21, 2010 at 1:21 PM

They could have priced their product with the new requirements, rather than stopped offering it altogether. It was a political act to stop offering the product, not a rational commercial act.

Jimbo3 on September 21, 2010 at 12:14 PM

Yes they could have…but here’s the thing: this is only one cut of a thousand that is going to leave the industry bled to death before very long.

The insurers simply can’t adjust to the whole of Obamacare, nor to what it will spawn in the next decade. So either they make some hard choices now and tick off the public – which JUST MIGHT lead to the mess being fixed – or their business model becomes “dodge icebergs for as long as we can.”

Dark-Star on September 21, 2010 at 1:21 PM

They did have a choice. They could have priced their product with the new requirements, rather than stopped offering it altogether. It was a political act to stop offering the product, not a rational commercial act.

Jimbo3 on September 21, 2010 at 12:14 PM

How do you price a product to pay all medical bills for an extremely sick child who is only enrolled when he finds out he is sick? There is simply too much financial risk for the carrier to continue this coverage. For you not to see that is simply more pie-in-the-sky liberal blindness to reality.

Why should any company offer a product that says that if jimmy gets sick – he can simply go sign up and then company x will pay all the bills. That’s idiotic. The fact that anyone thinks that is smart or makes any sense is frightening. Why allow the insurance carriers to decide what to offer or not offer at all? Why not simply pass a law that any citizen can take a bill to the insurance carrier and the carrier has to pay it.

I am amazed at people who have no understanding whatsoever of the difference between the concept of “insurance” and the concept of “hey, let’s make them pay for that”.

Monkeytoe on September 21, 2010 at 1:39 PM

Isaiah 10:1 Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees.
Akzed on September 21, 2010 at 11:04 AM

1000
Oh yeah, keeping that one in the vault for sure.

It does seem to be a theme that has resonated throughout history doesn’t it:

The Federalist No. 39: Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles

‘It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans, and claim for their government the honorable title of republic’

Chip on September 21, 2010 at 1:40 PM

Why should any company offer a product that says that if jimmy gets sick – he can simply go sign up and then company x will pay all the bills. That’s idiotic. The fact that anyone thinks that is smart or makes any sense is frightening.Monkeytoe on September 21, 2010 at 1:39 PM

Very apt description of an Oblabla voter!

dhunter on September 21, 2010 at 1:42 PM

How do you price a product to pay all medical bills for an extremely sick child who is only enrolled when he finds out he is sick? There is simply too much financial risk for the carrier to continue this coverage. For you not to see that is simply more pie-in-the-sky liberal blindness to reality.

In other words, yes they could price it – but the price offered would be so high nobody would purchase it except those with really sick kids. Meannig, they would never recoup even a fraction of what they pay out, or else they would have to price it even higher, to the point that it makes no sense to bother to offer it.

Monkeytoe on September 21, 2010 at 1:51 PM

If you have to “insure” someone after the casualty, it is not insurance, it is a transfer of payment – you are becoming obligated to pay someone else’s bills.

Monkeytoe on September 21, 2010 at 1:53 PM

aleatory contract
Type of contract (1) whose execution or performance depends on a contingency or an uncertain (random) event beyond the control of either party, and/or (2) under which the sums paid by the parties to each other are unequal. Most insurance policies are aleatory contracts because the insured may collect a large amount or nothing in return for the premiums paid. From French ‘alea,’ a game of dice. See also unilateral contract.

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/aleatory-contract.html#ixzz10BiJTl7K

dhunter on September 21, 2010 at 1:57 PM

http://blogs.courant.com/connecticut_insurance/2010/09/rate-hikes-of-as-much-as-20-pe.html.

See above. Anthem said that the pre-existing coverage elimination raised rates by 4.8% (that’s compared to the 20% increase it asked for).

Jimbo3 on September 21, 2010 at 1:57 PM

No its not. As another poster (either orr on September 21, 2010 at 11:00 AM) mentioned, insurance companies have to get any increases approved by the state insurance boards.

Since this was a relatively new product offering, which is now incurring a high (but unknown) variable risk from Obamacare requirements, it would make sense to cut losses and drop the product. With a potential for very high variable risk, and low profitability on a new product offering, they’d be better off halting the product entirely.

There are state requirements for capitalization and reserve requirements, to ensure that claims can be paid out. Why run the risk that one product offering undermining the entire company? (Keep in mind that since reserves are invested, they’ve already incurred losses from the stock market.)

I point this out as an employee of a P&C insurance company, that self-insures employee healthcare.

dominigan on September 21, 2010 at 12:36 PM</blockquote

Funny. Other insurance companies were apparently able to quantify the risk. If you thought the risk was significant, than why not increase the premiums by an additional percent to take a account of the risk

Jimbo3 on September 21, 2010 at 2:00 PM

It’s a completely different market, Jim. It’s apples and oranges. Disproportionately adding those with preexisting conditions will dramatically increase the costs for any insurer. And since no one knows just how many kids with preexisting conditions are out there with parents willing to buy policies, the unknown is enough of a scare in this economy climate to convince companies what the proper action is.

The only way these people make money is if they have more healthy than sick people, i.e., healthy people who can spread their wealth around. That’s it. Otherwise, they’re a charity.

Esthier on September 21, 2010 at 1:15 PM

It may not be as dramatic as you think. Some people without coverage through work buy child-only insurance for their kids through a program offered by the schools or colleges.

So what’s your solution to the problem? Let people or children with pre-existing conditions die or bankrupt themselves and their families? What about situations where people are laid off at work and no longer have access to employer health insurance plans after COBRA runs out. Require everyone to have insurance or pay a fine? I haven’t seen one Republican plan (with the possible exception of one proposal to federally fund state high risk pools) with a solution that is at all workable. And this is a real problem.

Jimbo3 on September 21, 2010 at 2:06 PM

Jimbo3 on September 21, 2010 at 2:00 PM

How much fun do you think it’s going to be when the only people who buy health insurance are sick people? Healthy people might as well opt out now and keep their money.

You can complain about the prices all you want. But, as it has been pointed out, over and over and over and over, in the end, you can’t force a doctor to treat you.

j_galt on September 21, 2010 at 2:09 PM

See above. Anthem said that the pre-existing coverage elimination raised rates by 4.8% (that’s compared to the 20% increase it asked for).

Jimbo3 on September 21, 2010 at 1:57 PM

That is that reporter’s understanding of that insurer’s analysis as told that that reporter by the CT Dept of Insurance. Having had reporters report on cases I work on, I would not take any of the info in that article as true.

And, it does not alter my point nor does it strengthen yours. Show me the underlying numbers, the plans involved, and the demographics of CT. I would need to know who they analyzed it and came to that number. And, the fact that some companies feel they can continue to offer the coverage shows that this is not “political” but a business decision. By the way – I thought Obamacare would not increase premiums? Just another of the many lies your side was willing to push. How is anyone supposed to believe anything anyone on your side says?

You based your belief that these insurers are doing this for politics. That fits into your worldview that corporations are evil. But, the reality is, the companies are making business decisions.

Monkeytoe on September 21, 2010 at 2:09 PM

So what’s your solution to the problem? Let people or children with pre-existing conditions die or bankrupt themselves and their families? What about situations where people are laid off at work and no longer have access to employer health insurance plans after COBRA runs out. Require everyone to have insurance or pay a fine? I haven’t seen one Republican plan (with the possible exception of one proposal to federally fund state high risk pools) with a solution that is at all workable. And this is a real problem.

Jimbo3 on September 21, 2010 at 2:06 PM

Dying isn’t a choice we get to make. We all get to die. Welcome to reality.

j_galt on September 21, 2010 at 2:10 PM

You based your belief that these insurers are doing this for politics. That fits into your worldview that corporations are evil. But, the reality is, the companies are making business decisions.

Monkeytoe on September 21, 2010 at 2:09 PM

I don’t think all companies are evil. I do, however, think that insurance companies by and large are unethical. They are making business decisions, to be sure. Just like the companies that sell cigarettes are making business decisions. The insurance companies hope this will scare people into trying to repeal ObamaCare.

Jimbo3 on September 21, 2010 at 2:13 PM

Dying isn’t a choice we get to make. We all get to die. Welcome to reality.

j_galt on September 21, 2010 at 2:10 PM

–So your solution is to let people die and/or go bankrupt? Epic fail, mr. galt.

Jimbo3 on September 21, 2010 at 2:16 PM

Jimbo3 on September 21, 2010 at 2:13 PM

Yes, but for once they’ve actually got a valid point.

The economics of Obamacare are totally unworkable.

Dark-Star on September 21, 2010 at 2:19 PM

I don’t think all companies are evil. I do, however, think that insurance companies by and large are unethical. They are making business decisions, to be sure. Just like the companies that sell cigarettes are making business decisions. The insurance companies hope this will scare people into trying to repeal ObamaCare.

They are “unethical”, meaning what? That they don’t give their money away? So it’s “ethical” for the state to take over and force them to spend money on this, that or the other thing?

Interesting that any company you disagree with is “unethical”. Or any decision you disagree with. You really are a caricature of a lefty.

People should want Obamacare repealed. It is a horrible, horrible piece of legislation that will destroy health care in america. We will end up waiting in lines like in Canada or Europe. Our fees will go up. Certain procedures will be unavailable to us like in Canada or Europe.

When you have to lie to get a bill passed. And then have to continue lying to defend the bill, don’t you ever stop and think that maybe it’s not a good bill?

Monkeytoe on September 21, 2010 at 2:24 PM

Monkeytoe, more information:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703720004575478200948908976.html?KEYWORDS=employer+health+insurance+premiums

Aetna and other insurers in the employer health insurance market are saying that the increase for the costs of all the Obamacare mandates in 2011 (which is more than the pre-existing condition limits) are around 3-9%, which is less than half of the overall increases.

Jimbo3 on September 21, 2010 at 2:26 PM

So your solution is to let people die and/or go bankrupt? Epic fail, mr. galt.

Jimbo3 on September 21, 2010 at 2:16 PM

Is it the state’s responsibility to provide healthcare for everyone?

is it the state’s responsibility to make sure people don’t go bankrupt?

Epic fail jimbo.

Monkeytoe on September 21, 2010 at 2:27 PM

People should want Obamacare repealed. It is a horrible, horrible piece of legislation that will destroy health care in america. We will end up waiting in lines like in Canada or Europe. Our fees will go up. Certain procedures will be unavailable to us like in Canada or Europe.

When you have to lie to get a bill passed. And then have to continue lying to defend the bill, don’t you ever stop and think that maybe it’s not a good bill?

Monkeytoe on September 21, 2010 at 2:24 PM

–I’m all in favor of Obamacare because it solves the pre-existing condition problem for people who lose coverage because they’re fired/laid off/leave their jobs. Come back to me with a workable alternative and I’d consider it. But I haven’t seen one yet. So, yes, I do think it’s a good bill.

Jimbo3 on September 21, 2010 at 2:28 PM

Interesting that any company you disagree with is “unethical”. Or any decision you disagree with. You really are a caricature of a lefty.

I’ve seen insurance companies try to deny coverage for tests and treatments and only give up when the ERISA appeal process was used and it was clear that the original claim processor was totally in the wrong. I also have been told that insurance companies incentivize employees to do these sorts of things, without having countervailing penalties if processors incorrectly deny coverage or treatment.

Jimbo3 on September 21, 2010 at 2:31 PM

Aetna and other insurers in the employer health insurance market are saying that the increase for the costs of all the Obamacare mandates in 2011 (which is more than the pre-existing condition limits) are around 3-9%, which is less than half of the overall increases.

Jimbo3 on September 21, 2010 at 2:26 PM

The EMPLOYER health insurance market. Individual children’s policies are different.

Again, some insurers believe it won’t cost them that much, other insurers disagree.

Why is it you believe the “unethical” insurance companies when it suits you but can’t believe the other “unethical” insurance companies when it disagrees with you?

there is no obligation for any company to provide any service. In your socialist worldview, I realize you believe that the company has a duty to do what you or the state wants it to do. That is not how it works when people are free. Which is why leftism is never compatible with freedom.

Monkeytoe on September 21, 2010 at 2:31 PM

Is it the state’s responsibility to provide healthcare for everyone?

is it the state’s responsibility to make sure people don’t go bankrupt?

Epic fail jimbo.

Monkeytoe on September 21, 2010 at 2:27 PM

So you think it’s fine for someone to lose coverage through work because they’re laid off and are unable to find private coverage once COBRA ends? Do you want to explain why?

Jimbo3 on September 21, 2010 at 2:32 PM

there is no obligation for any company to provide any service. In your socialist worldview, I realize you believe that the company has a duty to do what you or the state wants it to do. That is not how it works when people are free. Which is why leftism is never compatible with freedom.

Monkeytoe on September 21, 2010 at 2:31 PM

The problem I have is that insurance companies, which are regulated by the states, are already required to be socialist to a significant extent. They’re required to offeer insurance for a set period once the offering is approved. If you were really interested in being free, you’d never want to be part of a seriously regulated industry.

Jimbo3 on September 21, 2010 at 2:35 PM

Jimbo3 on September 21, 2010 at 2:06 PM

Jimbo-The real problem here is that the Federal Govt is the one that has made medical costs sky rocket by being the ‘consumer’ who SETS the price of all medical services.
Everytime the govt gets itself involved as a competitor in an industry, it distorts the price.
It has done this with agriculture.
For instance, I compete against the govt for pasture rent.
Since the govt can afford to pay more to put land into CRP (Conservation Reserve Program-paying farmers not to farm erodable land & news flash: all land is erodable)the cash rent price of land therefore goes up artificially.
The govt has done this to medical care by telling providers that this is what that service is worth & that’s all we’ll pay. Nevermind the fact that the service in question may cost more to provide.
And that’s where we who are not on the govt dole come in.
We make up the rest of what the govt won’t pay in inflated prices for services.
This is the only reason many Americans go to other countries for operations & stuff.
It isn’t bcs of new innovations (unless you’re looking at the slow approval process of the FDA on experimental drugs for life threatening conditions).
Business IS profit.
Many hospitals are non-profit & still struggle to provide services & it’s bcs the govt is setting the price.
Poverty kills lots of people indirectly.
So by that reasoning are we going to insist NO ONE in the ENTIRE COUNTRY or WORLD should be subjected to lviing in poverty?
This is ridiculous. And so is saying that everyone should have = access to all kinds of medical services & levels of care.
If you can’t have equal access to all kinds of food products, cars, etc, then medical care is in the same boat.
And yes, inferior products, like cars, food, etc do contribute to earlier & untimely deaths in the poverty stricken populations of this country.
Life is FULL of risk.
So stop equating health care with the right to access Oxygen in order to breath.

Badger40 on September 21, 2010 at 2:35 PM

So you think it’s fine for someone to lose coverage through work because they’re laid off and are unable to find private coverage once COBRA ends? Do you want to explain why?

Jimbo3 on September 21, 2010 at 2:32 PM

Insurance wouldn’t be so expensive if medical services were priced by the govt.
And BTW-there are catastrophic coverage plans available that are quite reasonable that you can take from place to place, like AFLAC.
And why does everyone always need insurance?
I don’t have collision on my cars bcs in ND, collision is ridiculously expensive bcs of the weather related damage that always occurs.
I’m better off saving my $$ case of accidents in the futre & pay for the damage mself if it happens rather than pay $1500/yr for a car that isn’t even worth that.

Badger40 on September 21, 2010 at 2:41 PM

Life is FULL of risk.
So stop equating health care with the right to access Oxygen in order to breath.

Badger40 on September 21, 2010 at 2:35 PM

Good to talk to you again, Badger. The only situation where the federal government sets prices in the medical area is Medicare. I think Obamacare has a loss ratio requirement, and has someone to review exorbitant price increases. but Obamacare (as far as I can tell) doesn’t set prices. And doctors are not required to take Medicare patients.

Jimbo3 on September 21, 2010 at 2:42 PM

if medical services were weren’t priced by the govt

Badger40 on September 21, 2010 at 2:46 PM

Imagine that, a business that is “making business decisions”. Outrageous.

slickwillie2001 on September 21, 2010 at 2:56 PM

And doctors are not required to take Medicare patients.

Jimbo3 on September 21, 2010 at 2:42 PM

And you’ll notice they are taking less & less of them.
But we are STILL paying for those people because the entire industry + insurance companies are going off of this price schedule that is ultimately set by the govt.
Just like cash price land rents in agriculture, milk prices (bcs milk is subsidized by the govt), wool (bcs that’s subsidized), I could go on, but maybe you get the point.
No one has the God goven RIGHT to access all things in society like a Roll’s Royce, stellar medical care, the latest drugs to provide comfort to the dying, breast implants, sex change operations, blah blah blah.
Paying a $1000/month for medical insurance, I could take that $$ & invest it saving for a medical disaster & purchase a catastrophic covg plan which I do through AFLAC & if cancer were to strike, I’d have a financial plan ready.
And if I didn’t, that’s what CHARITY organizations are for.
The charity of Americans is HUGE.
If medical svcs were out of reach bcs of poverty ( & NOT bcs the govt inadvertantly set the price too high for all of us) then neighbors would help neighbors, etc.
It DOES happen.
People DO get the medicare care they need if they didn’t have the $$ bcs of charity & family.
But you shouldn’t expect to keep your house & car & stuff if you run into financial problems, for whatever reason.
That is life & it’s risky.

Badger40 on September 21, 2010 at 2:56 PM

Jimbo3 on September 21, 2010 at 2:42 PM

I should be sociable here-Do hope you are getting on well in the DFW area.

Badger40 on September 21, 2010 at 2:58 PM

Jimbo apparently wants a “solution” to an unsolvable problem.

Bottom line, someone is going to have to pay, the only question is, who?

Should it be insurance companies?

Which means, ALL of those who buy insurance from that company, because the company itself does not create money from some mystical source, they can only get it from their customers = sky high prices for insurance. To cover the pre-existing conditions problem, this means everyone must pay more than their fair share of the risk. Since people are unlikely to want to do that, the only solution is to “FORCE THEM”!

Or, perhaps government should pay?

Of course, just like with the insurance company, this means all of the citizens of that government have to pay. To cover those with pre-existing conditions, those who do not have an immediate need for the services are going to have to pay more than their fair share. Since folks are unlikely to willingly pay more than their fair-share, the only solution is to “FORCE THEM”!

Or, perhaps the hospitals themselves should pay?

Same problem – this means all of their customers have to pay more than the cost of the services they personally receive, since most people are unlikely to willingly pay more than their fair-share, the only solution is to “FORCE THEM”!

Or, maybe, just maybe, those actually receiving the services should pay the full cost of those services?

Yes, this means some people may end up not able to get the services, or may end up paying themselves into poverty, etc. Not a good choice, but unfortunatly, life isn’t fair.

There are really only 2 choices.

1. Everyone is FORCED to pay to cover everyone else (socialism/communism)

2. People who get sick have to pay for their own treatments, meaning less disposable income, poverty, or, unfortunately, they don’t get the service.

Life is cruel, so its up to us to decide who the cruelty desends upon.

All of us, or those of us unfortunate enough to get sick, etc i.e. – some of us?

You see, Jimbo, life isn’t fair and no amount of government, or legislation, or even free-markets, is going to make it magically become fair.

Fatal on September 21, 2010 at 3:02 PM

Fatal on September 21, 2010 at 3:02 PM

Well stated. And of course this is what common sense minded people have been shouting for decades & centuries & we still have people who think that a government can still socially engineer ‘fairness’ so that every human being lives a happy & fullfilling life with no poverty, no sickness, no bad things ever happening to anyone ever bcs we are all one big happy commune family.
Kum Bay Ah.
This is a fantasy that will never play out anywhere except for heaven.
And if you don’t believe in heaven, then life REALLY sucks.

Badger40 on September 21, 2010 at 3:10 PM

I would like to add that being free is a really risky thing.
It’s so much easier to let others make decisions for you.
Hence the cowardly portion of the American populace that gives up control of their lives willingly to the Federal Govt AKA Democrats & some Independents.

Badger40 on September 21, 2010 at 3:19 PM

Monkeytoe on September 21, 2010 at 2:24 PM

In the past, Jimbo has advocated for having charity enforced by law.

Count to 10 on September 21, 2010 at 3:45 PM

Fatal on September 21, 2010 at 3:02 PM

Don’t forget that, in your #2, people are free to chip in to pay for the care of others voluntarily.

Count to 10 on September 21, 2010 at 3:47 PM

Don’t forget that, in your #2, people are free to chip in to pay for the care of others voluntarily.

Count to 10 on September 21, 2010 at 3:47 PM

Yes, thanks. There are a couple of other options. Families or groups can voluntarily bond together to pay for the costs and, of course, there are charities. Unfortunately, I doubt there is enough charitable giving even amongst the most generous people to cover the costs for everyone who might need help.

Fatal on September 21, 2010 at 4:22 PM

The fact of the matter is the Obama Health Care bill is unconstitutional.

The Federal Government is explicitly prohibited from charging you a tax just for being alive.

Tyranny like this, and worse, is the natural result of secularism and Liberalism.

scotash on September 21, 2010 at 5:12 PM

When my husband and I were young, living paycheck to paycheck, we bought health care policies for our children with $1000 deductibles. Which meant we had to pay for all the routine care, but were covered for catastrophies. It was what we had to do, and it worked for us. Now thanks to Obamacare, young families in the same position we were in 25 years ago will not have that same choice. Great job, democrats.

JustTruth101 on September 21, 2010 at 5:42 PM

Good grief, Jimbo3 is clueless.

Employer health care has open enrollment once a year, or elsewise only for a qualifying event such as marriage or birth.

A child — or anyone — diagnosed with an illness can’t enroll once they receive the diagnosis. And still this will drive up costs 9%.

Waiting to enroll once someone is diagnosed as ill is exactly what can happen on the individual market. Which is the coverage insurance companies are dropping.

I’m convinced a good portion of our country truly does not understand insurance, and thinks health care is free.

byepartisan on September 21, 2010 at 7:30 PM

Or, to clarify, thinks that their insurance premium covers the cost of their care.

byepartisan on September 21, 2010 at 7:36 PM

Obamacare… the gift that keeps on giving…

Thanks, Democrats!!

Khun Joe on September 21, 2010 at 8:15 PM

Don’t all Universities and Colleges require proof of health insurance of their students? Many parents purchase the child-only option offered by the schools, which keeps the schools rate lower by having so many young people on their plan. I expect their premiums will skyrocket.

TN Mom on September 21, 2010 at 9:53 PM

The new logo that the democrats have, with D in the circle is fitting. D means Destroy- they have destroyed the economy with their policies and they are destroying health care. Now they are working on destroying the Military. D could also stand for – Depression- which we all are in.
Guess now, we can call them- the party of destruction.

flintstone on September 21, 2010 at 10:13 PM

They did have a choice. They could have priced their product with the new requirements, rather than stopped offering it altogether. It was a political act to stop offering the product, not a rational commercial act.

Jimbo3 on September 21, 2010 at 12:14 PM

How do you re-price something when the only price check possible was a pre-existing condition. With that removed, you can’t have Child-Only plans. The only reason you can still have adult plans is because they are subsidized by the companies that purchase group plans. Expect in the next year or so for adult ones to start being eliminated too.

Tim Burton on September 22, 2010 at 1:08 AM

Want medical prices to decline: have everyone pay the cost of their medical expenses out of pocket and outlaw health insurance, both public and private.

No deep pockets means the cost will drop.

Bubba Redneck on September 22, 2010 at 1:19 AM

Rationing is the only way such a plan as Obamacare can possibly hope to hold costs down to a level even liberals would accept. There is no other choice. And once they destroy the private health insurance industry, there will literally be no other choice.
`
`
Repeal this crap sandwich, or learn to love Big Brother.

Adjoran on September 22, 2010 at 4:44 AM

“They could have priced their product with the new requirements”

No, Jimbo, they have to go to the state to request price increases, an act that in itself increases their overhead, with unlikely chance of success.

Although insurers in either RI or CT (can’t remember which state it was) just recently got massive price increases approved to cover their new Obamunistcare requirements.

dogsoldier on September 22, 2010 at 8:44 AM

“They could have priced their product with the new requirements”

No, Jimbo, they have to go to the state to request price increases, an act that in itself increases their overhead, with unlikely chance of success.

Although insurers in either RI or CT (can’t remember which state it was) just recently got massive price increases approved to cover their new Obamunistcare requirements.

dogsoldier on September 22, 2010 at 8:44 AM

Go back and look at one of the two links I posted. It was a link to the CT increase. Most of the increase had nothing to do with Obamacare. And, in most states (not Texas) the state always needs to approve any increases, so asking for increases is a normal cost of business and not something additional required by Obamacare.

Jimbo3 on September 22, 2010 at 10:11 AM

So much pissy complaining and finger pointing but no solutions about how to provide health insurance for children.

Dave Rywall on September 22, 2010 at 10:14 AM

How do you re-price something when the only price check possible was a pre-existing condition. With that removed, you can’t have Child-Only plans. The only reason you can still have adult plans is because they are subsidized by the companies that purchase group plans. Expect in the next year or so for adult ones to start being eliminated too.

Tim Burton on September 22, 2010 at 1:08 AM

So why can employer health insurance plans price the elimination of the pre-existing condition? And why can insurance companies price life insurance plans, which don’t have any checks against people dying? Many company plans are self-insured, so they don’t subsidize other group plans, by the way.

Jimbo3 on September 22, 2010 at 10:28 AM

So much pissy complaining and finger pointing but no solutions about how to provide health insurance for children.

Dave Rywall on September 22, 2010 at 10:14 AM

Thank you, Major Lee Obvious.

Wonder how long it will be until we get ‘solutions’ that don’t amount to “F.O.A.D.” and “bankrupt ourselves to pay for everyone who gets the sniffles.”

Maybe it’s just time to come clean and admit there always has been rationing of healthcare and there will probably always be rationing of healthcare. About all we’ve ever done (like now) is argue bitterly over who does it and how.

But good luck getting the public to swallow that…

Dark-Star on September 22, 2010 at 10:48 AM

Thank you, Major Lee Obvious.

Wonder how long it will be until we get ‘solutions’ that don’t amount to “F.O.A.D.” and “bankrupt ourselves to pay for everyone who gets the sniffles.”

Maybe it’s just time to come clean and admit there always has been rationing of healthcare and there will probably always be rationing of healthcare. About all we’ve ever done (like now) is argue bitterly over who does it and how.

But good luck getting the public to swallow that…

Dark-Star on September 22, 2010 at 10:48 AM
——

America says veterans are precious and they served their country so they deserve the best healthcare and it will be on everybody else’s dime (socialism anyone) but then when it comes to children, everybody says fu*k you they’re your children you figure out how to deal with them when they’re born with a fu(king hole in their heart. And there’s no feeling of moral obligation for everybody to ensure the health of a child who has no control over the fu(king preconditions he’s BORN WITH? You would rather the insurance companies make 59 billion dollars profit than 52 billion. What a heartless and sh1tty country that is.

Dave Rywall on September 22, 2010 at 11:06 AM

What a heartless and sh1tty country world this is.

Dave Rywall on September 22, 2010 at 11:06 AM

Unlimited needs, limited resources.

If you figure out a way around that, for the love of God, please tell the world.

Dark-Star on September 22, 2010 at 11:09 AM

Unlimited needs, limited resources.

If you figure out a way around that, for the love of God, please tell the world.

Dark-Star on September 22, 2010 at 11:09 AM
—–

Americans say: healthcare is a privilege, so suck it up and use your own dime, and lots of you won’t be able to afford it, so lots of you will fall through the cracks but who gives a sh*t

Sweden says: everybody agrees healthcare is a right, so everybody suck it up and fork over the dime to cover everybody so nobody falls through the cracks

Dave Rywall on September 22, 2010 at 11:18 AM

Americans say: You are a free individual, live your life as you decide. You are responsible for yourself

Sweeded says: You are merely a member of the State, you will live your life in the manner the State directs and your only responsibility is to the State.

You choose.

P.S. You’re perfectly free to move to Sweeden, (and good riddance)

Fatal on September 22, 2010 at 11:48 AM

So why can employer health insurance plans price the elimination of the pre-existing condition?

Jimbo, read my above explanation. Employers have open enrollment only once a year. A family can’t wait to sign up until someone gets sick.

With each post you show you really are dumb.

byepartisan on September 22, 2010 at 12:01 PM

LOL! Drywall-since you hate America so much, why do you care what happens here?
Or are you just in it for the children? Hmm?
The Declaration of Independence, an American document, states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

And the Constitution, yet another American document states:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Pursuit of happiness does not indicate that those pursuing it will find it. And whatever makes you happy, may not necessarily be legal.
The General Welfare statement is not talking about giving people free health care, saving them from being poor, or making sure there’s a chicken in every pot.
But that’s what so many have twisted it to mean & that’s why we are going broke trying to make everybody happy and DEPENDENT upon the govt for their ‘happiness’.
America is a place you can succeed & fail.
If you don’t want the risk of ‘failing’, then by all means, stay in Canada (we prefer it), go to Sweden, etc.
Americans are not heartless.
We have wonderful charities that help the children you say we care nothing about.
I am a recipient of help from the Shriner’s Hospital in Dallas.
I am also a recipient from charity from a church once.
But what I have I have earned on my own.
And I addressed above why healthcare is so expensive here compared to other countries. It is the GOVERNMENT who has directly & indirectly set the price for healthcare through their Medicaid, Medicare, Veteran, & SCHIP programs etc.
Through their meddling, along with their meddling in the health insurance arena (look at how competitive car insurance is), & you will no longer wonder why all this stuff has sky rocketed in price.
If you ELIMINATE government influence & control in these arenas, we will have more reasonable prices for things.
But just like a Rolls Royce or huge flat screen plasma TV is expensive bcs they are not purchased in large amounts & are luxurious items, expect some things to remain expensive like some drugs for rare diseases.
Drug companies, medical companies making innovative equipment do not do this to LOSE MONEY.
And if there is no incentive at all, people will not do these things.
You have only to look at the rotten incentives in the vaccine market to see what this has done to vaccine manufaturers.
It is how human beings operate.
And nothing short of entering a utopian fantasy world, or heaven, is going to make it any different.

Badger40 on September 22, 2010 at 12:05 PM

Go back and look at one of the two links I posted. It was a link to the CT increase. Most of the increase had nothing to do with Obamacare. And, in most states (not Texas) the state always needs to approve any increases, so asking for increases is a normal cost of business and not something additional required by Obamacare.

Jimbo3 on September 22, 2010 at 10:11 AM

But according to Obama, there would be NO increases as a result of obamacare becoming law. You just admitted he lied about that. In fact, he claimed repeatedly that the price of insurance would fall.

But that’s a sideshow here. The fact is, no matter how heartless you want to think I am, I have no obligation under the Constitution to provide health insurance for anyone but myself, and to dictate otherwise is tyranny, plain and simple.

runawayyyy on September 22, 2010 at 12:34 PM

runawayyyy on September 22, 2010 at 12:34 PM

Notice the normal cost of doing business as an insurance company is complying with federal & state mandates in the industry.
Insurance companies ARE a pain in the butt when you need something from them, & always happy when they’re taking your $$.
But us healthy folks pooling together to reduce risk blah blah blah is what the notion of insurance is all about & has been since it’s been sold for hundreds of years, if not more than that.
If you want to take a risk on your own without buying insurance, that’s your decision.
But I shouldn’t have to subsidize your decisions, whether it’s your life at stake or your nice house on some highly erodable beach being subsidized by the feds through flood insurance or disaster payments.
It’s ALL about life & death.

Badger40 on September 22, 2010 at 2:08 PM

Oh & do notice that Veterans go to their OWN hospitals & clinics when they need care.
I know the VA does sometimes contract out some services to the private sector.
Does anyone know how often this occurs?
I wonder if veteran care actually affects the price of services much in the health care industry.

Badger40 on September 22, 2010 at 2:12 PM

So why can employer health insurance plans price the elimination of the pre-existing condition?
Jimbo, read my above explanation. Employers have open enrollment only once a year. A family can’t wait to sign up until someone gets sick.

With each post you show you really are dumb.

byepartisan on September 22, 2010 at 12:01 PM

They can enroll children once a year (subject to no change in family condition, which allows it to occur at other times). But they can enroll their kids at that time. So at most you get a one year delay.

Jimbo3 on September 22, 2010 at 2:55 PM

But that’s a sideshow here. The fact is, no matter how heartless you want to think I am, I have no obligation under the Constitution to provide health insurance for anyone but myself, and to dictate otherwise is tyranny, plain and simple.

runawayyyy on September 22, 2010 at 12:34 PM

You also have no obligation under the Constitution to provide for Social Security, Medicare, public education and probably a bunch of other things. You also technically don’t have to actually have an army or navy, even though the Constitution provides for those. So I’m assuming you are already being subject to tyranny.

Jimbo3 on September 22, 2010 at 2:57 PM

Oh, one other thing, runawayy. You actually don’t even have an obligation under the Constitution to provide health care for yourself.

Jimbo3 on September 22, 2010 at 2:58 PM

You also have no obligation under the Constitution to provide for Social Security, Medicare, public education and probably a bunch of other things. You also technically don’t have to actually have an army or navy, even though the Constitution provides for those. So I’m assuming you are already being subject to tyranny.

Jimbo3 on September 22, 2010 at 2:57 PM

So curiously, why am I forced to pay SS & Medicare?
My husband as a self employed individual does not pay it.
Will he be arrested?
BTW-what was that court case that said we basically don’t have a right to the $$ we paid into the system & that SS & Medicare $$ were just taxes?
Public education is another tax bcs no one is OWED an education in this country, & yet many of us believe we are owed not just a K-12 education, but now a college one as well.
Are we all OWED a chicken in every pot?
Many believe that is true & so taxes go toward food programs for ‘poor’ people like WIC & Food Stamps & Commodities food programs for veterans & such.
Are we all OWED a CAR?
Perhaps there should be a tax for that so that ‘poor’ people who live in areas without public transportation can have their own car.
Jimbo it’s gotten insane, these social programs.
And none of us should be forced to subsidize others’ poverty no matter what the case.
No one is OWED health insurance or medical care courtesy of the govt.
That is not the govt’s job.
It is the individual’s job, or their family.
And if by some chance you’ve got a kid who’s an orphan, then you’ve got charities (who can receive govt grants for helping people BTW) that would help them.
There are other ways of caring for people in need without getting the FEDERAL govt involved.
The Federal govt has been making us do things that are clearly not within their realm of power & yet they are allowed to continuously get away with it.
SCOTUS has abetted them & state govts have sold their souls for federal cash.
The answer is not in providing people health insurance.
The answer in getting the govt’s mitts out of everything & allowing people to control their own lives, make their own decisions, and live by the consequences of those actions.
And as a society, a community, a state, we can all band together to help care for the unfortunate.
That is not the govt’s job.
It is the individual’s.

Badger40 on September 22, 2010 at 3:12 PM

GOP’s ‘Pledge To America’

“We will make it illegal for an insurance company to deny coverage to someone with prior coverage on the basis of a pre- ‐existing condition.” (p. 15)

————-

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Dave Rywall on September 23, 2010 at 11:36 AM

Comment pages: 1 2