Pre Existing Conditions Vs Sub Prime Mortgages

[Patranus]

A Subprime mortgage is one where the lendee is high risk, which adds instability to the system if legions of sub-prime mortgagees start to default. We know that the instability can cause major problems.

We now will have sub-prime policyholders that add cost because they can step right in with a costly pre-existing, they cannot be charged more than 2x the base premium and that represents a loss for the insurance company which cannot be re-couped by any other means than increasing the premiums on the prime policyholders who are healthy and can pay.

The government plans will be able to subsidize these increased costs through taxpayer money. Why would anyone pay a higher premium for private and pay higher taxes to subsidize the public? They won't so everyone will be on public within 5 years.

 

[Harvey]

And you don't see any difference between allowing dubious realestate ventures that that risk the solvency of our financial institutions and underwriting saving human lives? :shocked:

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: Harvey
And you don't see any difference between allowing dubious realestate ventures that that risk the solvency of our financial institutions and underwriting saving human lives? :shocked:

The current legislation has nothing to do with "saving lives". Anyone can walk into a hospital and receive care regardless of their age, race, religion, immigration status, or ability to pay.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Patranus
A Subprime mortgage is one where the lendee is high risk, which adds instability to the system if legions of sub-prime mortgagees start to default. We know that the instability can cause major problems.

We now will have sub-prime policyholders that add cost because they can step right in with a costly pre-existing, they cannot be charged more than 2x the base premium and that represents a loss for the insurance company which cannot be re-couped by any other means than increasing the premiums on the prime policyholders who are healthy and can pay.

The government plans will be able to subsidize these increased costs through taxpayer money. Why would anyone pay a higher premium for private and pay higher taxes to subsidize the public? They won't so everyone will be on public within 5 years.

I like your plan, good going. Was there some problem you were trying to point out?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Patranus
A Subprime mortgage is one where the lendee is high risk, which adds instability to the system if legions of sub-prime mortgagees start to default. We know that the instability can cause major problems.

We now will have sub-prime policyholders that add cost because they can step right in with a costly pre-existing, they cannot be charged more than 2x the base premium and that represents a loss for the insurance company which cannot be re-couped by any other means than increasing the premiums on the prime policyholders who are healthy and can pay.

The government plans will be able to subsidize these increased costs through taxpayer money. Why would anyone pay a higher premium for private and pay higher taxes to subsidize the public? They won't so everyone will be on public within 5 years.

I touched on this is the other thread. It's where I asked if the pubic option was prohibited from running an operational deficit. I.e., will it be subsidized by taxpayer funds?

If the public option cannot run at a deficit, then I believe "No" taxpayer money will be used to make up for those increased costs. Instead, public option 'customers' would bear the increased costs of those with pre-existing conditions via higher premiums. And I think it needs to work that way, because private plans will no longer be able to discriminate against them, and will therefore be increasing the premiums of the others; they can't get a government/taxpayer subsidy.

If the public option is taxpayer subsidized, IMO private plans will not be able to compete. They will only be viable in the areas of insurance ('gold-plated' policy add-ons for dental and the like) not covered by the public option.

Fern

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Harvey
And you don't see any difference between allowing dubious realestate ventures that that risk the solvency of our financial institutions and underwriting saving human lives? :shocked:

The current legislation has nothing to do with "saving lives". Anyone can walk into a hospital and receive care regardless of their age, race, religion, immigration status, or ability to pay.

Studies showing many thousands of people annually losing their lives in the US solely for the lack of insurance show you wrong. 'Stabilize and refer out' is the emergency room rule.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Patranus

The current legislation has nothing to do with "saving lives". Anyone can walk into a hospital and receive care regardless of their age, race, religion, immigration status, or ability to pay.

As well they should. It has EVERYTHING to do with saving lives.

I'll put it another way -- What qualifies YOU to determine which case is or is not life threatening, or which patient is or is not infected with a communicable disease?

That's the whole point of a good single payer program. Basic health and survival should NOT be a privilege subject to who can pay for it. How and when we can afford to implement it are valid questions. Whether or not we should is a question asked only by those who have shed their humanity.

Originally posted by: Fern

If the public option is taxpayer subsidized, IMO private plans will not be able to compete.

Good! There is something intrinsically wrong with paying greedy insurance execs mega-buck salaries, bonuses and golden parachutes based on how many loopholes they can find, and how many claims they can reject and how much human suffering they can cause.

95% of Medicare's budget goes to patient care while 5% goes to overhead. 80% of medical insurance companies' budgets goes to patient care while 20% goes to overhead, and that doesn't include the bloat to cover the execs' compensation.

That is intollerable and inexcusable.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Patranus

The current legislation has nothing to do with "saving lives". Anyone can walk into a hospital and receive care regardless of their age, race, religion, immigration status, or ability to pay.

As well they should. It has EVERYTHING to do with saving lives.

I'll put it another way -- What qualifies YOU to determine which case is or is not life threatening, or which patient is or is not infected with a communicable disease?

That's the whole point of a good single payer program. Basic health and survival should NOT be a privilege subject to who can pay for it. How and when we can afford to implement it are valid questions. Whether or not we should is a question asked only by those who have shed their humanity.

Emotion has no place in the rule of law.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Patranus

The current legislation has nothing to do with "saving lives". Anyone can walk into a hospital and receive care regardless of their age, race, religion, immigration status, or ability to pay.

As well they should. It has EVERYTHING to do with saving lives.

I'll put it another way -- What qualifies YOU to determine which case is or is not life threatening, or which patient is or is not infected with a communicable disease?

That's the whole point of a good single payer program. Basic health and survival should NOT be a privilege subject to who can pay for it. How and when we can afford to implement it are valid questions. Whether or not we should is a question asked only by those who have shed their humanity.

Emotion has no place in the rule of law.

You are saying saving lives is not an issue for public policy because it's an emotional issue?

You are trying to equate moral conviction with 'emotion' and ignore it.

Without a moral basis for public policy, what's left? Why is freedom good, without any moral element? WHy is slavery wrong, without any moral issue?

Shouldn't we instead judge slavery simply by its economic effects?

You did not make a sensible argument, arguing against the providing of healthcare for people by calling it 'emotion'.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Emotion has no place in the rule of law.

You couldn't be more wrong! The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America says:

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.

Providing publicly funded health care would specifically address insuring domestic tranquility and promoting the general welfare.

A healthy nation would also be far more able to provide for the common defense, and doing so would definitely be an example of securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

I repeat -- You couldn't be more wrong! :thumbsdown:

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Patranus
A Subprime mortgage is one where the lendee is high risk, which adds instability to the system if legions of sub-prime mortgagees start to default. We know that the instability can cause major problems.

We now will have sub-prime policyholders that add cost because they can step right in with a costly pre-existing, they cannot be charged more than 2x the base premium and that represents a loss for the insurance company which cannot be re-couped by any other means than increasing the premiums on the prime policyholders who are healthy and can pay.

The government plans will be able to subsidize these increased costs through taxpayer money. Why would anyone pay a higher premium for private and pay higher taxes to subsidize the public? They won't so everyone will be on public within 5 years.

If you did a little reading, you'd understand that this issue has much broader implications than just saving lives.

The current system forces many people who might want to start their own businesses and help the economy grow - but who have pre-existing conditions and cannot therefore get private insurance policies - STAY with their existing jobs because they can't afford to be without good medical insurance. Similarly, people on HIPPA continuation-coverage plans (federally-mandated state-sponsored insurance pools) often cannot move to other states because they'd lose their coverage.

Finally, there are MANY people that don't currently have insurance and cannot obtain it at any price because of pre-existing conditions. To force such people and their families to be a serious illness away from bankruptcy - through no fault of their own - is horribly unjust.

This is a huge issue, and making insurance easy to obtain, affordable, and portable is in all our interests. It might surprise you to know that this appears to be the single insurance-reform issue that the left and the right agree on, because the current system with respect to pre-existing conditions causes so many problems.

 

[sactoking]

The OP didn't really make much of an argument for or against anything. It's really nothing more than offering an inelegantly articulated opinion in an attempt to troll/bait the forums.

Originally posted by: Harvey
95% of Medicare's budget goes to patient care while 5% goes to overhead. 80% of medical insurance companies' budgets goes to patient care while 20% goes to overhead

An economies of scale argument that has been debunked time and time again.

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: shira
If you did a little reading, you'd understand that this issue has much broader implications than just saving lives.

The current system forces many people who might want to start their own businesses and help the economy grow - but who have pre-existing conditions and cannot therefore get private insurance policies - STAY with their existing jobs because they can't afford to be without good medical insurance. Similarly, people on HIPPA continuation-coverage plans (federally-mandated state-sponsored insurance pools) often cannot move to other states because they'd lose their coverage.

Finally, there are MANY people that don't currently have insurance and cannot obtain it at any price because of pre-existing conditions. To force such people and their families to be a serious illness away from bankruptcy - through no fault of their own - is horribly unjust.

This is a huge issue, and making insurance easy to obtain, affordable, and portable is in all our interests. It might surprise you to know that this appears to be the single insurance-reform issue that the left and the right agree on, because the current system with respect to pre-existing conditions causes so many problems.

Currently, there is a consequence to pay if your lifestyle is unhealthy. Your insurance company can base your premium on the risk they take to insure you (unless you are part of a large employer plan). Under this bill, you can get into any plan, anytime, and the difference in premiums charged will be limited. Now there won't be consequences to your neighbor, but to you because the premiums will go up for everyone.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: sactoking

The OP didn't really make much of an argument for or against anything. It's really nothing more than offering an inelegantly articulated opinion in an attempt to troll/bait the forums.

Originally posted by: Harvey

95% of Medicare's budget goes to patient care while 5% goes to overhead. 80% of medical insurance companies' budgets goes to patient care while 20% goes to overhead

An economies of scale argument that has been debunked time and time again.

Bullshit! The economies come from NOT having to support the greedy excessive executive compensation, NOT being responsible to show a profit for share holders, none of whom deserves a freaking penny while patients are suffering and dying.

Do you understand the principles of the Hippocratic Oath?

Modern translation of the English:

I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods, and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfil according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:

To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art?if they desire to learn it?without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken the oath according to medical law, but to no one else.

I will apply dietic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.

Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.

What I may see or hear in the course of treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep myself holding such things shameful to be spoken about.

If I fulfil this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot.

The second half of that last paragraph describes exactly what your friendly neighborhood health insurance monoliths are doing -- transgressing the Hippocratic Oath and swearing falsely to the American people to defeat good health care legislation. There is no ethical or moral defense for putting profit ahead of human health and survival. :|

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: shira
If you did a little reading, you'd understand that this issue has much broader implications than just saving lives.

The current system forces many people who might want to start their own businesses and help the economy grow - but who have pre-existing conditions and cannot therefore get private insurance policies - STAY with their existing jobs because they can't afford to be without good medical insurance. Similarly, people on HIPPA continuation-coverage plans (federally-mandated state-sponsored insurance pools) often cannot move to other states because they'd lose their coverage.

Finally, there are MANY people that don't currently have insurance and cannot obtain it at any price because of pre-existing conditions. To force such people and their families to be a serious illness away from bankruptcy - through no fault of their own - is horribly unjust.

This is a huge issue, and making insurance easy to obtain, affordable, and portable is in all our interests. It might surprise you to know that this appears to be the single insurance-reform issue that the left and the right agree on, because the current system with respect to pre-existing conditions causes so many problems.

Currently, there is a consequence to pay if your lifestyle is unhealthy. Your insurance company can base your premium on the risk they take to insure you (unless you are part of a large employer plan). Under this bill, you can get into any plan, anytime, and the difference in premiums charged will be limited. Now there won't be consequences to your neighbor, but to you because the premiums will go up for everyone.

Sorry, you will just have to limit the incentives to people to their own health benefits, instead of getting to leave them without healthcare as you prefer.

Of course, if they find it's cost effective to offer financial incentives to make lifestyle chages, they can consider doing that.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Patranus
A Subprime mortgage is one where the lendee is high risk, which adds instability to the system if legions of sub-prime mortgagees start to default. We know that the instability can cause major problems.

We now will have sub-prime policyholders that add cost because they can step right in with a costly pre-existing, they cannot be charged more than 2x the base premium and that represents a loss for the insurance company which cannot be re-couped by any other means than increasing the premiums on the prime policyholders who are healthy and can pay.

The government plans will be able to subsidize these increased costs through taxpayer money. Why would anyone pay a higher premium for private and pay higher taxes to subsidize the public? They won't so everyone will be on public within 5 years.

I touched on this is the other thread. It's where I asked if the pubic option was prohibited from running an operational deficit. I.e., will it be subsidized by taxpayer funds?

If the public option cannot run at a deficit, then I believe "No" taxpayer money will be used to make up for those increased costs. Instead, public option 'customers' would bear the increased costs of those with pre-existing conditions via higher premiums. And I think it needs to work that way, because private plans will no longer be able to discriminate against them, and will therefore be increasing the premiums of the others; they can't get a government/taxpayer subsidy.

If the public option is taxpayer subsidized, IMO private plans will not be able to compete. They will only be viable in the areas of insurance ('gold-plated' policy add-ons for dental and the like) not covered by the public option.

Fern

I agree the 'core' of the public option must be self-funded but I don't think you can draw a 'bright line'.

I think Medicare for the elderly must be 'fire-walled' away from the 'core'. Same with SCHIP.

For the sake of medicaid it starts to get a little blurry. I think everyone should be required to provide a 'co-pay' but there are some medical services that should be covered. This may not be a good example but something like pre-natal care (if it is not covered under SCHIP) and some mental health services.

I think the idea of a co-pay (even if it's means-tested) is very important. It's like a social contract where nothing is free even if the actual contribution through the co-pay is minimal.

 

[Engineer]

And you think that you're not already paying for them now? Really? There is a reason that costs are so high right now and that we spend 1/6th the GDP of the US on healthcare.

You'll pay for them either way...and inside, you already know that.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: shira
If you did a little reading, you'd understand that this issue has much broader implications than just saving lives.

The current system forces many people who might want to start their own businesses and help the economy grow - but who have pre-existing conditions and cannot therefore get private insurance policies - STAY with their existing jobs because they can't afford to be without good medical insurance. Similarly, people on HIPPA continuation-coverage plans (federally-mandated state-sponsored insurance pools) often cannot move to other states because they'd lose their coverage.

Finally, there are MANY people that don't currently have insurance and cannot obtain it at any price because of pre-existing conditions. To force such people and their families to be a serious illness away from bankruptcy - through no fault of their own - is horribly unjust.

This is a huge issue, and making insurance easy to obtain, affordable, and portable is in all our interests. It might surprise you to know that this appears to be the single insurance-reform issue that the left and the right agree on, because the current system with respect to pre-existing conditions causes so many problems.

Currently, there is a consequence to pay if your lifestyle is unhealthy. Your insurance company can base your premium on the risk they take to insure you (unless you are part of a large employer plan). Under this bill, you can get into any plan, anytime, and the difference in premiums charged will be limited. Now there won't be consequences to your neighbor, but to you because the premiums will go up for everyone.

You're assumptions and arguments are wrong or beside the point or short-sighted in so many ways, as usual, that I find it pointless to try to educate you. I do take pleasure, however, in the knowledge that one virtually guaranteed change we'll see in health care - regardless of what else is or isn't passed - is that insurance companies will be required to cover those with pre-existing conditions, at a reasonable premium.

Guess you're going to be very unhappy.

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Bullshit! The economies come from NOT having to support the greedy excessive executive compensation, NOT being responsible to show a profit for share holders, none of whom deserves a freaking penny while patients are suffering and dying.

Incorrect, sir. The "Overhead Argument" comes from statistical manipulation. The 5%/20% numbers are administrative costs as a percentage of total dollar outlay. Since Medicare covers primarily the elderly and indigent, what you have is an abnormally high occurrence of benefit dollars spent per person. These extra benefit dollars have the behavior of lowering the "Overhead as a measure of Dollars" figure, since it inflates the denominator of the ratio.

If you look at administrative costs PER PERSON COVERED, Medicare is typically between 30-50% more inefficient than private insurers.

As an example:

Medicare covers 10 people who average $10,000 in annual expenses. It takes $5000 to cover those subscribers, administratively. Private insurance covers 50 people who average $5,000 in annual expenses. It takes $20000 to cover those subscribers, administratively.

What you're being told is that the inefficiency of Medicare, 5% in my example ($5000 for administration divided by $100000 in coverage costs) is lower than that for private markets, or 8% in my example ($20000 for administration divided by $250000 in coverage costs). What you're not being told is that Medicare pays $500 per subscriber in administrative costs and that private insurers pay $400 per subscriber. Simple statistical manipulation to obscure the truth.

Do you understand the principles of the Hippocratic Oath?

The second half of that last paragraph describes exactly what your friendly neighborhood health insurance monoliths are doing -- transgressing the Hippocratic Oath and swearing falsely to the American people to defeat good health care legislation. There is no ethical or moral defense for putting profit ahead of human health and survival. :|

Do you understand that health insurers are not bound by the Hippocratic Oath? That's about as relevant here as the Marine Oath of Enlistment or the Mission Statement of Ben & Jerry's.

 

[spidey07]

Pre-existing conditions clauses are needed as a way to make insurance/healthcare not be so much more expensive than it already is. Without them people would only get insurance when they were sick.

I don't like it one bit, but that is the reason for them. Take them away and watch your insurance costs skyrocket.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Do you understand that health insurers are not bound by the Hippocratic Oath? That's about as relevant here as the Marine Oath of Enlistment or the Mission Statement of Ben & Jerry's.

Bullshit! The health insurance industry's "mission statement" and their sole reason for existing on this planet is to provide financial service to those who are bound by the Hippocratic Oath... You remember... They're called... DOCTORS OF MEDICINE.

Anything they do that impares or impedes THAT "mission" is counterproductive to the prime directives of the practice of medicine as spelled out in the Hippocratic Oath.

I'll say it again -- There is no ethical or moral defense for putting profit ahead of human health and survival. Any health insurance company that can't live with that should be driven out of business and off the planet.

Single Payer Health Care NOW! Pass Teddy-Care.

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: sactoking

Do you understand that health insurers are not bound by the Hippocratic Oath? That's about as relevant here as the Marine Oath of Enlistment or the Mission Statement of Ben & Jerry's.

Bullshit! The health insurance industry's "mission statement" and their sole reason for existing on this planet is to provide financial service to those who are bound by the Hippocratic Oath... You remember... They're called... DOCTORS OF MEDICINE.

Anything they do that impares or impedes THAT "mission" is counterproductive to the prime directives of the practice of medicine as spelled out in the Hippocratic Oath.

Again, irrelevant. An oath cannot bind those that do not take it. Just like Ben & Jerry's suppliers are not bound by B&J's mission statement, just like the Air Force is not bound by the Marine Oath of Enlistment, HEALTH INSURERS ARE NOT BOUND BY THE HIPPOCRATIC OATH. Health insurers are not bound to the "prime directives of the practice of medicine". You can argue until you're blue in the face, but it won't change the fact that you're insisting that insurers are held to a standard that they are not.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Again, irrelevant. An oath cannot bind those that do not take it. Just like Ben & Jerry's suppliers are not bound by B&J's mission statement, just like the Air Force is not bound by the Marine Oath of Enlistment, HEALTH INSURERS ARE NOT BOUND BY THE HIPPOCRATIC OATH. Health insurers are not bound to the "prime directives of the practice of medicine". You can argue until you're blue in the face, but it won't change the fact that you're insisting that insurers are held to a standard that they are not.

But they SHOULD be, or they should get out of the business of health care. If they won't leave voluntarily, they should be driven out.

Who paid for the surgury to remove your conscience and your humanity? :|

Or did you ever have either? :roll:

There is no ethical or moral defense for putting profit ahead of human health and survival. Any health insurance company that can't live with that should be driven out of business and off the planet.

Single Payer Health Care NOW! Pass Teddy-Care.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Harvey
And you don't see any difference between allowing dubious realestate ventures that that risk the solvency of our financial institutions and underwriting saving human lives? :shocked:

The current legislation has nothing to do with "saving lives". Anyone can walk into a hospital and receive care regardless of their age, race, religion, immigration status, or ability to pay.

Your understanding of health care is really poor.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Patranus

The current legislation has nothing to do with "saving lives". Anyone can walk into a hospital and receive care regardless of their age, race, religion, immigration status, or ability to pay.

As well they should. It has EVERYTHING to do with saving lives.

I'll put it another way -- What qualifies YOU to determine which case is or is not life threatening, or which patient is or is not infected with a communicable disease?

That's the whole point of a good single payer program. Basic health and survival should NOT be a privilege subject to who can pay for it. How and when we can afford to implement it are valid questions. Whether or not we should is a question asked only by those who have shed their humanity.

what constitutes basic care? is it going in for a routine checkup, or getting some crazy quadruple heart bypass, reconstructive surgery, or any other number of life-saving treatments? they may be relatively routine, but that doesn't necessarily make them basic (and therefore, inexpensive)

i'm curious, because my impression is that people expect "basic care" to include damn near everything, when really what happens is extraordinary care in many instances.