ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[BigBallinStalin]

Interesting that you believe we should charge women so much more based on the chance that they can get pregnant @ 25 and not base their rates off of any actual individual medical needs. We're ignoring birth control and everything, it's just, NO YOU PAY DOUBLE.
Should we charge childless middle-aged women more for insurance because they're probably just desperate to have babies?

How did they calculate the rates, JB?

And who are they specifically?


Or, are you on another hunch? Reading bowels and what not?

[Juan_Bottom]

I'll let people judge this on their own. I've been messaged with the "slave to your body and society" argument, and it's pretty eloquent, but I'm still a man and I realize that my opinion as such isn't worth the same as any women's.

[PLAYER57832]

The Shriners also have state of the art burn units to treat children who have been badly burnt, free of charge

Shriners is a WONDERFUL organization.

But, if you think that model can supply health care for all children in need, you are seriously misguided. There are only so many people willing to donate $10,000 to march in a clown suit in a parade.

Volunteering is great, but when "volunteering" winds up taking 30 hours a week, AND you have to work for a living, AND you want to raise kids... it just does not work.

Also, while both Shriners and St Jude are wonderful and effective organizations, the truth about MOST volunteer groups is that they are far less efficient and far less effective than professional, paid groups. It tends to come with the whole idea of volunteering. The same is true for charities. It is far less effective to have 50 different organizations in a city doing the same thing, gathering food and supplies from thousands of people than it is to just have that money combined into one government led group. (and remember, that neither Shriners nor St Jude are truly volunteer organizations.. though they are supported by a good deal of volunteer labor and charitable donations).

ALSO.. I think you need to look into how much all of the above are funded by tax dollars. You seem to think that does not happen, when in fact, it constitutes a major portion of their funding.

[PLAYER57832]

They can't even keep the rates similar. WTF are healthy young women doing in Colorado that makes their lifestyle so much riskier than in Louisiana?

Probably governmental mandates of minimum care.

Yeah, because it is just so unreasonable for women to expect mammograms, gynecological care when they are pregnant.. just sooo, sooo wasteful and abusive to insist that insurance companies actually PAY for those things!

and, while we are about it, its also perfectly reasonable that women should only make 75% of what men make ... AND pay more for insurance, have to do the bulk of childcare work, etc.. etc. ...etc.

Yep, you poor, poor deprived men.

[Night Strike]

They can't even keep the rates similar. WTF are healthy young women doing in Colorado that makes their lifestyle so much riskier than in Louisiana?

Probably governmental mandates of minimum care.

Yeah, because it is just so unreasonable for women to expect mammograms, gynecological care when they are pregnant.. just sooo, sooo wasteful and abusive to insist that insurance companies actually PAY for those things!

and, while we are about it, its also perfectly reasonable that women should only make 75% of what men make ... AND pay more for insurance, have to do the bulk of childcare work, etc.. etc. ...etc.

Yep, you poor, poor deprived men.

No, it's perfectly reasonable to request those things in an insurance policy. It's also perfectly reasonable to ask women to pay more in premiums since they tend to use more health care. Instead, you're just demanding the first and decrying the second.

[Woodruff]

I haven't seen anything yet from the anti-ObamaCare groups as to how to deal with insurance companies who effectively cancel policies when something major happens to an individual, often through poring over the paperwork to find something niggling they can claim to be a pre-existing condition, so that they don't have to pay out on people who have been paying them for that service (thus, saving boatloads of money for the shareholders, which is of course their primary concern).

From my perspective, this is one of the greatest things that ObamaCare does...it corrects for that problem. And if you believe this isn't a serious and pretty frequent problem, you should pull your head out of the sand.

[john9blue]

there are good and bad parts of obamacare...

[BigBallinStalin]

I haven't seen anything yet from the anti-ObamaCare groups as to how to deal with insurance companies who effectively cancel policies when something major happens to an individual, often through poring over the paperwork to find something niggling they can claim to be a pre-existing condition, so that they don't have to pay out on people who have been paying them for that service (thus, saving boatloads of money for the shareholders, which is of course their primary concern).

From my perspective, this is one of the greatest things that ObamaCare does...it corrects for that problem. And if you believe this isn't a serious and pretty frequent problem, you should pull your head out of the sand.

I've talked to a few insurance lawyers about this, and they say it hardly happens. Nevertheless, when it happens, people scream about it; therefore, it SEEMS that it happens often.

[BigBallinStalin]

The Shriners also have state of the art burn units to treat children who have been badly burnt, free of charge

Shriners is a WONDERFUL organization.

But, if you think that model can supply health care for all children in need, you are seriously misguided. There are only so many people willing to donate $10,000 to march in a clown suit in a parade.

Volunteering is great, but when "volunteering" winds up taking 30 hours a week, AND you have to work for a living, AND you want to raise kids... it just does not work.

Also, while both Shriners and St Jude are wonderful and effective organizations, the truth about MOST volunteer groups is that they are far less efficient and far less effective than professional, paid groups. It tends to come with the whole idea of volunteering. The same is true for charities. It is far less effective to have 50 different organizations in a city doing the same thing, gathering food and supplies from thousands of people than it is to just have that money combined into one government led group. (and remember, that neither Shriners nor St Jude are truly volunteer organizations.. though they are supported by a good deal of volunteer labor and charitable donations).

ALSO.. I think you need to look into how much all of the above are funded by tax dollars. You seem to think that does not happen, when in fact, it constitutes a major portion of their funding.

The above issue is what's called an "empirical claim." Neither side really knows, and they can't argue that their position is correct until they can reveal the relevant data.

Even more troublesome is trying to predict the future costs and quality of institutions and business models. Neither can do this as well.

[Woodruff]

I haven't seen anything yet from the anti-ObamaCare groups as to how to deal with insurance companies who effectively cancel policies when something major happens to an individual, often through poring over the paperwork to find something niggling they can claim to be a pre-existing condition, so that they don't have to pay out on people who have been paying them for that service (thus, saving boatloads of money for the shareholders, which is of course their primary concern).

From my perspective, this is one of the greatest things that ObamaCare does...it corrects for that problem. And if you believe this isn't a serious and pretty frequent problem, you should pull your head out of the sand.

I've talked to a few insurance lawyers about this, and they say it hardly happens. Nevertheless, when it happens, people scream about it; therefore, it SEEMS that it happens often.

I would have to state that your anecdotal evidence isn't any stronger than mine. I know several (four families) personally who it has happened to since I left the military (2007). Given the very small number of people I know personally who aren't on TriCare (the military's health care plan for retirees), that ratio is far above "hardly happens". Three have been forced into bankruptcy and the fourth thinks he's eventually going to have to do so.

[thegreekdog]

I haven't seen anything yet from the anti-ObamaCare groups as to how to deal with insurance companies who effectively cancel policies when something major happens to an individual, often through poring over the paperwork to find something niggling they can claim to be a pre-existing condition, so that they don't have to pay out on people who have been paying them for that service (thus, saving boatloads of money for the shareholders, which is of course their primary concern).

From my perspective, this is one of the greatest things that ObamaCare does...it corrects for that problem. And if you believe this isn't a serious and pretty frequent problem, you should pull your head out of the sand.

I've talked to a few insurance lawyers about this, and they say it hardly happens. Nevertheless, when it happens, people scream about it; therefore, it SEEMS that it happens often.

I would have to state that your anecdotal evidence isn't any stronger than mine. I know several individuals personally who it has happened to since I left the military (2007). Given the very small number of people I know personally who aren't on TriCare (the military's health care plan for retirees), that ratio is far above "hardly happens".

This is a funny discussion. It reminds me of how there is a law against burglary, yet burglary still happens. There is a law against dropping coverage, yet dropping coverage still happens. What happens when a burgler burgles? Prosecution and imprisonment. What happens when an insurance company drops coverage? The Affordable Care Act gets passed. Seems dumb. Oh wait, sorry Player - BIG COMPANIES HAVE MONEY AND CAN DO THINGS!

[Woodruff]

I haven't seen anything yet from the anti-ObamaCare groups as to how to deal with insurance companies who effectively cancel policies when something major happens to an individual, often through poring over the paperwork to find something niggling they can claim to be a pre-existing condition, so that they don't have to pay out on people who have been paying them for that service (thus, saving boatloads of money for the shareholders, which is of course their primary concern).

From my perspective, this is one of the greatest things that ObamaCare does...it corrects for that problem. And if you believe this isn't a serious and pretty frequent problem, you should pull your head out of the sand.

I've talked to a few insurance lawyers about this, and they say it hardly happens. Nevertheless, when it happens, people scream about it; therefore, it SEEMS that it happens often.

I would have to state that your anecdotal evidence isn't any stronger than mine. I know several individuals personally who it has happened to since I left the military (2007). Given the very small number of people I know personally who aren't on TriCare (the military's health care plan for retirees), that ratio is far above "hardly happens".

This is a funny discussion. It reminds me of how there is a law against burglary, yet burglary still happens. There is a law against dropping coverage, yet dropping coverage still happens. What happens when a burgler burgles? Prosecution and imprisonment. What happens when an insurance company drops coverage? The Affordable Care Act gets passed. Seems dumb. Oh wait, sorry Player - BIG COMPANIES HAVE MONEY AND CAN DO THINGS!

The problem is that while what the insurance companies are doing IS illegal, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim (as it should be), which allows the companies to drag things out as long as possible in the court system...eventually draining the claimant of money and inevitably forcing them to give up on the claim. You seem to be under the misimpression that it's easy to pin this on the insurance companies. The Affordable Care Act DOES change this capability on their part in reality.

[thegreekdog]

The problem is that while what the insurance companies are doing IS illegal, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim (as it should be), which allows the companies to drag things out as long as possible in the court system...eventually draining the claimant of money and inevitably forcing them to give up on the claim. You seem to be under the misimpression that it's easy to pin this on the insurance companies. The Affordable Care Act DOES change this capability on their part in reality.

First, the law doesn't work the way it is portrayed in movies. You don't go bankrupt suing an insurance company because you don't have to spend any money suing an insurance company. Anecdotal evidence aside, that's not how the court system works. Your acquiantances likely have shitty attorneys or didn't try to do anything about it. I have a lot more anecdotal evidence than you (a lot of my acquiantances, and my wife, are attorneys FOR insurance companies) that says insurance companies don't even bring up the issue! It's a perception that is completely not based in fact at all.

Second, the Affordable Care Act does a lot more than "fix" the perceived problem with insurance companies denying coverage.

[Woodruff]

The problem is that while what the insurance companies are doing IS illegal, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim (as it should be), which allows the companies to drag things out as long as possible in the court system...eventually draining the claimant of money and inevitably forcing them to give up on the claim. You seem to be under the misimpression that it's easy to pin this on the insurance companies. The Affordable Care Act DOES change this capability on their part in reality.

First, the law doesn't work the way it is portrayed in movies. You don't go bankrupt suing an insurance company because you don't have to spend any money suing an insurance company.

This has nothing to do with "portrayed in movies"...I am speaking of real life, but thanks for the complete dismissal of that possibility. And actually, that is precisely what is happening with the individual fighting it right now. He has been forced into suing Blue Cross and Blue Shield because they dropped his wife from their policy when she was diagnosed with breast cancer because of some weird non-cancer-nor-breast-related thing in their paperwork. He has literally spent almost his entire life savings in trying to tackle this. He's almost done in, as his teacher's salary isn't going to give him much relief (his wife doesn't work). I don't believe it is a case of his lawyers being idiots, no.

Second, the Affordable Care Act does a lot more than "fix" the perceived problem with insurance companies denying coverage.

Please don't pretend I think the Affordable Care Act is some miracle drug. I frankly don't like it, for the most part. But it absolutely does protect people who otherwise had little protection.

[PLAYER57832]

The problem is that while what the insurance companies are doing IS illegal, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim (as it should be), which allows the companies to drag things out as long as possible in the court system...eventually draining the claimant of money and inevitably forcing them to give up on the claim. You seem to be under the misimpression that it's easy to pin this on the insurance companies. The Affordable Care Act DOES change this capability on their part in reality.

First, the law doesn't work the way it is portrayed in movies. You don't go bankrupt suing an insurance company because you don't have to spend any money suing an insurance company. Anecdotal evidence aside, that's not how the court system works. Your acquiantances likely have shitty attorneys or didn't try to do anything about it. I have a lot more anecdotal evidence than you (a lot of my acquiantances, and my wife, are attorneys FOR insurance companies) that says insurance companies don't even bring up the issue! It's a perception that is completely not based in fact at all.

Second, the Affordable Care Act does a lot more than "fix" the perceived problem with insurance companies denying coverage.

Its not a "perceived" problem. You are grossly mistaken there. Insurance companies were required to keep covering people who transferred from one plan to another .. that was a relatively recent change, because not so long ago just changing plans meant you could be denied coverage for "pre-existing conditions".. and was something keeping people from changing jobs.

They could, and very much did drop anyone who has a gap of coverage. Cobra was supposed to be the "fix"..a nd does help, except that cobra benefits are often around $1000 or more. (our rate would have been $1300 a month).

Kids tend to get moved onto CHIP or Medicaid programs, so more adults than kids are denied coverage.

Illegally refusing coverage is perhaps rare, though you have to get technical there because Blue Cross (other than highmark, higher end Blue Cross plans) has a way of stone-walling and delaying approvals in such a manner that they are not technically denying coverage, but... they might as well be denying it.

These things all very much DID change. And far from what the Republicans are trying to claim, most doctors and hospitals are very happy about the healthcare reform act.

BUT.. it is far from perfect. We need true universal coverage.

[BigBallinStalin]

I haven't seen anything yet from the anti-ObamaCare groups as to how to deal with insurance companies who effectively cancel policies when something major happens to an individual, often through poring over the paperwork to find something niggling they can claim to be a pre-existing condition, so that they don't have to pay out on people who have been paying them for that service (thus, saving boatloads of money for the shareholders, which is of course their primary concern).

From my perspective, this is one of the greatest things that ObamaCare does...it corrects for that problem. And if you believe this isn't a serious and pretty frequent problem, you should pull your head out of the sand.

I've talked to a few insurance lawyers about this, and they say it hardly happens. Nevertheless, when it happens, people scream about it; therefore, it SEEMS that it happens often.

I would have to state that your anecdotal evidence isn't any stronger than mine. I know several (four families) personally who it has happened to since I left the military (2007). Given the very small number of people I know personally who aren't on TriCare (the military's health care plan for retirees), that ratio is far above "hardly happens". Three have been forced into bankruptcy and the fourth thinks he's eventually going to have to do so.

So, your anecdotal evidence of four families versus a few insurance lawyers who defend and litigate against insurance companies?

Even though anecdotal evidence is lacking, I'll still side with the experience of the lawyers who would deal with more of these cases than the story about four families.

[Woodruff]

I haven't seen anything yet from the anti-ObamaCare groups as to how to deal with insurance companies who effectively cancel policies when something major happens to an individual, often through poring over the paperwork to find something niggling they can claim to be a pre-existing condition, so that they don't have to pay out on people who have been paying them for that service (thus, saving boatloads of money for the shareholders, which is of course their primary concern).

From my perspective, this is one of the greatest things that ObamaCare does...it corrects for that problem. And if you believe this isn't a serious and pretty frequent problem, you should pull your head out of the sand.

I've talked to a few insurance lawyers about this, and they say it hardly happens. Nevertheless, when it happens, people scream about it; therefore, it SEEMS that it happens often.

I would have to state that your anecdotal evidence isn't any stronger than mine. I know several (four families) personally who it has happened to since I left the military (2007). Given the very small number of people I know personally who aren't on TriCare (the military's health care plan for retirees), that ratio is far above "hardly happens". Three have been forced into bankruptcy and the fourth thinks he's eventually going to have to do so.

So, your anecdotal evidence of four families versus a few insurance lawyers who defend and litigate against insurance companies?

Even though anecdotal evidence is lacking, I'll still side with the experience of the lawyers who would deal with more of these cases than the story about four families.

Of course you will, because it fits your desires. Just as I will accept mine for the same reasons. Just don't pretend that there's any other reason why you're doing so.

[BigBallinStalin]

Hey, just saying. The aggregated experience of a few lawyers who handle insurance claims is more reliable than the stories of four families.

[PLAYER57832]

Hey, just saying. The aggregated experience of a few lawyers who handle insurance claims is more reliable than the stories of four families.

Not when the attorneys have an extreme vested interest in seeing that malpractice suits and the like continue....

Seriously, I am not just talking about a fw unethical jerks. Just like the evidence showing that when there is increased competition in medicine, doctors tend to order more expensive tests, more tests, those involved will flat out deny any influence. Its just that when you have more attorneys, they tend to talk each other into realizing that there is more "need" for their services.

If you want an independent source.. its not the attorneys representing malpractice and fraud clients.

[Night Strike]

Not when the attorneys have an extreme vested interest in seeing that malpractice suits and the like continue....

But you don't want tort reform....

[thegreekdog]

Hey, just saying. The aggregated experience of a few lawyers who handle insurance claims is more reliable than the stories of four families.

Not when the attorneys have an extreme vested interest in seeing that malpractice suits and the like continue....

Seriously, I am not just talking about a fw unethical jerks. Just like the evidence showing that when there is increased competition in medicine, doctors tend to order more expensive tests, more tests, those involved will flat out deny any influence. Its just that when you have more attorneys, they tend to talk each other into realizing that there is more "need" for their services.

If you want an independent source.. its not the attorneys representing malpractice and fraud clients.

I agree with Player (lawyers have a vested interest). But I don't think my wife and my friends are trying to sell me legal services in the form of insurance defense litigation; so I'm still going to side with them. I also think Woodruff's friends (or anyone else affected by insurance company fraud) have more of a vested interest.

[thegreekdog]

The problem is that while what the insurance companies are doing IS illegal, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim (as it should be), which allows the companies to drag things out as long as possible in the court system...eventually draining the claimant of money and inevitably forcing them to give up on the claim. You seem to be under the misimpression that it's easy to pin this on the insurance companies. The Affordable Care Act DOES change this capability on their part in reality.

First, the law doesn't work the way it is portrayed in movies. You don't go bankrupt suing an insurance company because you don't have to spend any money suing an insurance company.

This has nothing to do with "portrayed in movies"...I am speaking of real life, but thanks for the complete dismissal of that possibility. And actually, that is precisely what is happening with the individual fighting it right now. He has been forced into suing Blue Cross and Blue Shield because they dropped his wife from their policy when she was diagnosed with breast cancer because of some weird non-cancer-nor-breast-related thing in their paperwork. He has literally spent almost his entire life savings in trying to tackle this. He's almost done in, as his teacher's salary isn't going to give him much relief (his wife doesn't work). I don't believe it is a case of his lawyers being idiots, no.

Second, the Affordable Care Act does a lot more than "fix" the perceived problem with insurance companies denying coverage.

Please don't pretend I think the Affordable Care Act is some miracle drug. I frankly don't like it, for the most part. But it absolutely does protect people who otherwise had little protection.

I don't know what state your friend is in, but I clearly do not know how tort law or contract law is practiced in that jurisdiction given that your friend has used his entire life savings to attempt to get treatment from the insurance company for his wife. It also sounds like there may be a legal reason why the insurance company is not providing benefits (namely something in the paperwork) that would perhaps not be solved by the Affordable Care Act.

I don't think the Affordable Care Act means to protect people. I think it exists to help insurance companies. We shall see how that bears out in the next ten years (assuming the next Congress doesn't repeal the law).

[thegreekdog]

And far from what the Republicans are trying to claim, most doctors and hospitals are very happy about the healthcare reform act.

Provide proof of this statement within 48 hours or I'm calling this a bald-faced lie. Acceptable proof does not include the group of guys in lab coats with President Obama in the oval office when he signed the bill.

[Juan_Bottom]

And far from what the Republicans are trying to claim, most doctors and hospitals are very happy about the healthcare reform act.

Provide proof of this statement within 48 hours or I'm calling this a bald-faced lie. Acceptable proof does not include the group of guys in lab coats with President Obama in the oval office when he signed the bill.

Player and I listen to NPR.
Like a couple of Bosses.

Poll Finds Most Doctors Support Public Option



http://cmhmd.blogspot.com/2010/02/organ ... again.html
Below are the largest physicians organization, in order, with estimated membership numbers based on their own websites (or other sources when the Web Site didn't have them). Previously we had the AOA, American Osteopathic Association, as number 5 because their web site had previously said they "represent" 67,000 Osteopaths. Alice sent me actual numbers indicating they have about 40,000 members, still keeping them in the top ten, just not as high up.

All are YES on reform with Public Option and supporting the House Bill, with some points of contention, but generally have endorsed it.
1. AMA 240,000
2. ACP 126,ooo (Internists and many medical subspecialists)
3. AAFP 94,000 (Family Practice)
4. ACS 76,000 (surgeons)
5. AAP 60,000 (pediatricians)
6. ACOG 52,000 (ob-gyn)
7. ASA 43,000 (Anesthesiology!)
8. AOA 40,000 (osteopaths)
9. APA 38,000 (psychiatry)
10. ACC 37,000 (cardiology)

[BigBallinStalin]

Hey, just saying. The aggregated experience of a few lawyers who handle insurance claims is more reliable than the stories of four families.

Not when the attorneys have an extreme vested interest in seeing that malpractice suits and the like continue....

Seriously, I am not just talking about a fw unethical jerks. Just like the evidence showing that when there is increased competition in medicine, doctors tend to order more expensive tests, more tests, those involved will flat out deny any influence. Its just that when you have more attorneys, they tend to talk each other into realizing that there is more "need" for their services.

If you want an independent source.. its not the attorneys representing malpractice and fraud clients.

Oh, amazing! I didn't know that you knew that the lawyers which I've talked to only cover "malpractice and fraud clients"--even though I stated otherwise. Your ability to restructure reality is impressive!

Shall I ask for you to support your claim about competition in medicine? Or should I decline since I'd expect you to restructure reality again?