PDA

View Full Version : Some insurers stop writing new coverage for kids



BadUglyMagic
23rd July 10, 09:06 PM
It may come as a surprise to some that insurance companies will stop issuing new policies to some population segments. If I recall, we were told we could keep our existing policies and it would not cost more.

On a personal note, when I went through open enrollment this year, I did NOT get to keep my old policy. It was no longer issued. A new and improved policy that had over $200 in monthly premium increase and a $2000 annual deductible plus a 20 co-insurance (a percentage deductible) and I now have to pay for vision and dental. How much now? Just under $12,000.


But hey, a similar policy with a $100.00 lower monthly premium was available. It only had a $6,000.00 annual deductible.

On a positive note, at least I have insurance.

Lets hear it for Obamacare. The give the insurance companies higher profits legislation.

Link to article at bottom of cut and paste.



WASHINGTON – Some major health insurance companies will no longer issue certain types of policies for children, an unintended consequence of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law, state officials said Friday.
Florida Insurance Commissioner Kevin McCarty (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100724/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_overhaul_children_11#) said several big insurers in his state will stop issuing new policies that cover children individually. Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner Kim Holland said a couple of local insurers in her state are doing likewise.

In Florida, Blue Cross (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100724/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_overhaul_children_11#) and Blue Shield, Aetna, and Golden Rule — a subsidiary of UnitedHealthcare — notified the insurance commissioner that they will stop issuing individual policies for children, said Jack McDermott, a spokesman for McCarty.

The major types of coverage (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100724/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_overhaul_children_11#) for children — employer plans and government programs — are not be affected by the disruption. But a subset of policies — those that cover children as individuals — may run into problems. Even so, insurers are not canceling children's coverage already issued, but refusing to write new policies.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100724/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_overhaul_children_11



edit to add info about personal ins premiums

WarPhalange
23rd July 10, 09:11 PM
Good intentions + incompetence still = FAIL

The Obama people have balls to start reforms this big, but sadly not the brains to get it right. :(

Kein Haar
23rd July 10, 10:57 PM
He could have made a lot more hay if he went in a direction of insuring children, retards, old people and crazies.

The conservatives would have had a hard time not agreeing that able-minded/bodied adults still needed to work it out for themselves per usual.

fes_fsa
24th July 10, 04:02 PM
you know... obamacare is only in its infancy. it hasn't even been fully implemented yet.

i imagine that as it gets harder for employers to provide health coverage for their workers, they'll just opt to pay the tax... which is probably cheaper than paying for the health benefits of ALL your employees.

this is just a small step towards their ultimate goal: government run health care.

Shotgun Christening
24th July 10, 04:48 PM
you know... obamacare is only in its infancy. it hasn't even been fully implemented yet.

i imagine that as it gets harder for employers to provide health coverage for their workers, they'll just opt to pay the tax... which is probably cheaper than paying for the health benefits of ALL your employees.

this is just a small step towards their ultimate goal: government run health care.


This post is full of win. Obama wants Single Payor Healthcare. This is how it will be done.

fes_fsa
24th July 10, 05:01 PM
This post is full of win. Obama wants Single Payor Healthcare. This is how it will be done.

of course. they're already driving the privatized health insurance (that they celebrated--they want to run their model off the privatest of private health insurance, Kaiser, the Mayo Clinic, etc.,) out of business. more people are pissed off at the companies for making drastic cuts in coverage than they are the government policies that caused them to make the cuts in the first place.

under new law... insurance companies can't turn away pre-existing conditions. that means that you can just buy insurance on the way to the hospital. liberals don't seem to understand that insurance companies can afford to cover you, because everybody is paying into the insurance company for your health. if somebody can just get coverage without paying into it, there is less money to cover everybody else. that means higher premiums to make up for the cost.

so rather than take the risk of not being able to turn away a high cost customer, they'll either cut individual plans completely... or they'll require an open enrollment period so that the individual will have paid in enough to cover the costs. both actions are HORRIBLE for business.

Cullion
24th July 10, 05:32 PM
When America becomes the Evil Communist Empire, I am totally on-programme with having Free Orthodox Russian airbases on British soil to liberate us. Then we might get Sambo clubs.

Shotgun Christening
26th July 10, 05:27 AM
of course. they're already driving the privatized health insurance (that they celebrated--they want to run their model off the privatest of private health insurance, Kaiser, the Mayo Clinic, etc.,) out of business. more people are pissed off at the companies for making drastic cuts in coverage than they are the government policies that caused them to make the cuts in the first place.

under new law... insurance companies can't turn away pre-existing conditions. that means that you can just buy insurance on the way to the hospital. liberals don't seem to understand that insurance companies can afford to cover you, because everybody is paying into the insurance company for your health. if somebody can just get coverage without paying into it, there is less money to cover everybody else. that means higher premiums to make up for the cost.

so rather than take the risk of not being able to turn away a high cost customer, they'll either cut individual plans completely... or they'll require an open enrollment period so that the individual will have paid in enough to cover the costs. both actions are HORRIBLE for business.


A good real life example of this is my Unions Health plan. An individual is covered after six months of premiums payed (we pay so much per hour) and his family is then covered 6 months after that. In ana effort to organise more labor we (the United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters Journeymen and Apprentices) offered immediate healthcare coverage to the entiore family upon being accepted in.
These guys who had three kids and a wife took there kids to the doc rightaway. The money in the fund almost ran out. They had to up our premiums (how much we pay an hour) to cover it all. Once premiums go up, they never go down. Ever. They soon realised the folly of their ways and reinstated the old policy. (This is a very simplified version of how my insurance works but for times sake I condensed it)


Obama wants it to be horrible for business. He wants all competition out of the insurance business.

Quikfeet509
28th July 10, 07:52 PM
I want all profit out of the health insurance business.

Shotgun Christening
29th July 10, 05:37 AM
I want all profit out of the health insurance business.

You finish school yet?

WarPhalange
29th July 10, 12:05 PM
Nothing corrupts like the almighty dollar, either.

Kein Haar
29th July 10, 02:55 PM
I want all profit out of the health insurance business.

Cool.

You will be shackled to your chiro table and people will just line up.

If you have the ability to heal people, it should be free.

Or do you mean you would like to continue profiting, but some other people shouldn't...?

WarPhalange
29th July 10, 06:07 PM
Fixed. Nothing motivates like the almighty dollar. What an asinine statement.

Moreover, people motivated by the almighty dollar want to get more of those dollars in any way possible. This is NOT always by giving the customer the best service. You get more dollars when you deny someone who is paying for coverage their money because of some technical issue and just wait for them to die.

WarPhalange
29th July 10, 06:08 PM
Cool.

You will be shackled to your chiro table and people will just line up.

If you have the ability to heal people, it should be free.

Or do you mean you would like to continue profiting, but some other people shouldn't...?
Insurance =/= healthcare.

Ajamil
29th July 10, 07:47 PM
You get more dollars when you deny someone who is paying for coverage their money because of some technical issue and just wait for them to die.The people who die usually end up costing less than the people who live.

BadUglyMagic
29th July 10, 08:00 PM
The people who die usually end up costing less than the people who live.


Called cost containment.

Insurance companies are financial services companies.

Ajamil
29th July 10, 08:37 PM
Listen to the interview. (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128828629) Very interesting, and what my nurse mother has been ranting about for years.



Dr. Atul Gawande began researching hospice and end-of-life care options because he says he didn't know how to broach the subject of death with his terminally ill patients.

The surgeon and New Yorker staff writer writes about the difficulties faced by medical professionals who must decide when to stop medical interventions and focus on improving the final days of life in his article "Letting Go (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/02/100802fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=all)" in the Aug. 2 New Yorker.
Gawande tells Fresh Air's Terry Gross that physicians are hesitant to tell patients that there's nothing else they can do, even if statistics show procedures are unlikely to work.

"Our system of medical care has successfully created a multitrillion-dollar system for dispensing lottery tickets the lottery ticket that you could get this longer life," Gawande says. But he says it has not prepared people for the likelihood that physicians aren't good at preparing patients whose lives will not be prolonged by medical treatment. "So we've failed to meet the other needs people have, other than just prolonging life."

Atul Gawande is a staff member of Brigham and Women's Hospital and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. His books include Better and Complications.

Fred Field Atul Gawande is a staff member of Brigham and Women's Hospital and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. His books include Better and Complications.

Gawande says medical professionals need to build a system that focuses on how to help dying patients achieve what's most important to them at the end of their lives.
"We want to be with others and family. We'd like to be mentally alert as much as possible. We'd like to avoid suffering, and we'd like to spend our last time doing stuff we care about and not just taking in treatments that make us suffer," he says. "As we face an incurable disease, what can we do to make it more likely that you've identified what's important to you how you want those final months to go and then help you achieve it?"

Atul Gawande is a staff member of Brigham and Women's Hospital and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. He is also a staff writer for The New Yorker. His books include Better, Complications and The Checklist Manifesto: How to Get Things Right.

Quikfeet509
29th July 10, 10:30 PM
You finish school yet?

40 or so weeks.


Fixed. Nothing motivates like the almighty dollar. What an asinine statement.


Motivates insurances companies to do what, exactly?




Cool.

You will be shackled to your chiro table and people will just line up.

If you have the ability to heal people, it should be free.



I have nothing to do with chiro and eliminating the profit motive from the insurance industry does not equal making providers work for free...which we already do.


Actually if all you fucks that don't work in healthcare got paid like we do, you would riot.

How about you work 40 [which is great for healthcare] hours a week. You will get paid for 10 up front, waste 10 hours talking on the phone to get paid for another 10, get under-reimbursed for another 10 hours, then get jack for the final 10.


The main problem with "gubment-run healthcare" is crappy reimbursements, which is why most providers DON'T hate on the insurance companies.



Or do you mean you would like to continue profiting, but some other people shouldn't...?


No, I'm fine with them functioning as nonprofits, complete with recockulous salaries for upper level administrators.

Quikfeet509
29th July 10, 10:56 PM
Oh, and when I said you fucks, I meant those of you without guns.

Stick
29th July 10, 11:21 PM
Paying for a necessary service should not be a service unto itself, period.

Health care is required to live; car insurance, home insurance, insurance on your guitar or collection of vintage cock rings is not- people can insure plenty of things, but in every single instance you are paying for protection in the hope that it will be there when you need it, and ultimatly you hope you never need it. Hell, I may at some point choose to insure my camera equipment, but just because it's insured doesn't mean I suddenly won't give a shit if it falls out a window- and chances are it never will. To live a full, productive, modern life you MUST get health care; if you intend to live to 80, you WILL see doctors... a lot.

The insurance industry, as vile as it is- don't pretend it isn't, they maximize profits by doing their damnedest to avoid providing the service they claim to offer when they get you to purchase their plan in the first place-, does not have to die. People need to be able to prepare for the possibility of a fire or flood, but they should by no means expect to have several floods and fires every year- fuck, for most people it will NEVER happen. However, a for profit insurance system on something every single person needs to survive is unacceptable and frankly a fucking disgrace to this nation.

And people wonder why we are losing our competitive edge; all our profit is being pulled out of our asses: entire industries of middle men and middle men between more middle men, investments in garbage speculation and ethereal shit that produces precisely nothing. Somewhere in the 20th century we really fucked ourselves, and we need to pull our collective dick out of our ass soon if we expect to be worth anything in 50 years.

Ragout
30th July 10, 09:31 AM
Then we might get Sambo clubs.

They are bringing Sambo's back?!? Man, they made the best pancakces.

http://www.sambosrestaurant.com/shopsam/skin1/images/50-logo2.gif