4 ms·

It's illegal? Or it doesn't meet the minimum qualifications for the tax benefit, because those are quite different. https://www.healthcare.gov/private-plan-exc

It's illegal? Or it doesn't meet the minimum qualifications for the tax benefit, because those are quite different. https://www.healthcare.gov/private-plan-exceptions-outside-open-enrollment/ https://www.healthcare.gov/private-plan-exceptions-outside-o... As to costs, those vary widely by state. This recent article in the NYTimes was a fairly good overview of how policy decisions can affect the premiums: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/21/health/how-gop-in-2-states-coaxed-the-health-law-to-success-or-crisis.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/21/health/how-gop-in-2-state...

valuearb 10y ago
Illegal. The reason my families health insurance was $400 a month was because the insurer could exclude pre-existing conditions. That's no longer allowed. And I'm self employed. The ban on pre-existing conditions was done either because the drafters of Obamacare have no clue what insurance actually is, or they actually wanted to destroy health insurance. No one is going to pay for coverage when healthy if they can sign up when sick. Our first year of Obamacare was $1,100 a month for the same level of coverage as our banned $400 plan. The second year was $1,400 a month. This year the only available plan had the same $5k a year deductible, and was $1,800 month. So we don't have medical insurance any more. The NY Times link is LOL, I notice how it didn't track how exchange prices have exploded. New Mexico's exchange is going to get crushed like all the others, it can't stop rational behavior. It will soon have to subsidize everyone or all self employed people will be out.
- stinkytaco 10y ago
  > The ban on pre-existing conditions was done either because the drafters of Obamacare have no clue what insurance actually is, or they actually wanted to destroy health insurance. No one is going to pay for coverage when healthy if they can sign up when sick. This is what the tax penalty was meant to prevent, correct? I'm curious, what is your solution to insuring people with pre-existing conditions?
  - burfog 10y ago
    If is to be insurance then people with pre-existing conditions should get coverage for everything that isn't related to the condition. Got cancer? Fine, we'll still cover breaking your leg, as long as the break isn't from cancer invading the bone or from cancer drugs weakening your bones. You're on your own for the cancer.
    - astrange 10y ago
      You want a useless product that will guarantee your death because it meets the dictionary definition of insurance? This is why the real policy issue is lack of healthcare, not lack of "health insurance", which is a fake benefit invented to maybe get you healthcare.
      - burfog 10y ago
        Real insurance involves a gamble. You pay a small amount to get what is essentially a lottery ticket. You win if disaster happens, giving you money to deal with the disaster. Would you buy a lottery ticket if it was known to be a winner? Sure! Would anybody want to sell it? No! That isn't a viable business model. What you are looking for is more like welfare. You have a problem, there is no gamble, you don't have the money, and you expect "society" to pay. That definitely isn't insurance. Those are the options: insurance, welfare, self-pay Imposing a duty to handle pre-existing conditions on "insurance" companies is forcing a business to provide welfare. Obviously, people will switch from the cheap company (or none) to the high-quality company when they get a problem. The tax on people without "insurance" is intended to discourage this, but it is ineffective because "insurance" costs more and because people will still switch from cheap to fancy. In any case, we've invented some pretty fancy health care. Giving it to everybody would exceed our GDP. This is obviously unworkable. The situation only worsens as we invent more. How do you propose to limit usage, if not by price? Would you just promise everything, but let people die on waiting lists? Would you rate and rank people, perhaps on a point system with extra points for politically-connected people?
        stinkytaco 10y ago
- FireBeyond 10y ago
  > The ban on pre-existing conditions was done either because the drafters of Obamacare have no clue what insurance actually is, or they actually wanted to destroy health insurance. No one is going to pay for coverage when healthy if they can sign up when sick. Oh good, so the alternative is a market where you'll never get coverage again once you are diagnosed with a condition - or even before, given that insurers have been sued for attempting to cancel coverage when a condition is diagnosed by going back and looking at previous physician visits. "Oh, we know you weren't diagnosed with cancer back then, but you went to the doctor a bit, and the things you went for are consistent with that, so we determined you had cancer when you got coverage, and as a result are canceling your policy for this". Health insurance is not insurance in any definition of the word. Insurers want as many of the benefits of insurance as possible while wanting to assume as few of the risks as possible, things they shouldn't be able to do as an insurer. I've watched it for a long time (hint: one of my jobs is designing claims adjudication and management systems for health insurers). Go your way, where insurers can exclude, and in very short order, everyone will. And then the only ones who offer coverage that support pre-existing conditions will be the ones willing to gouge those people. But you won't care, as long as _your_ premium is $400/mo, right? Or at least until someone in your family gets sick. Here's the dirty little secret: actuaries and statisticians working for the insurers factor in all these conditions (in the medical sense) into their premium accounting. What percentage of what demographic is likely to get an illness or disease, etc. They have to. Or they'd go bankrupt. So they do. And then they work feverishly to cover as few of those people as possible, to increase their profit profile, reduce their exposure and risk. If that's what people "wanting to destroy health insurance" want to be rid of? I entirely support them.

valuearb 10y ago

Illegal. The reason my families health insurance was $400 a month was because the insurer could exclude pre-existing conditions. That's no longer allowed. And I'm self employed. The ban on pre-existing conditions was done either because the drafters of Obamacare have no clue what insurance actually is, or they actually wanted to destroy health insurance. No one is going to pay for coverage when healthy if they can sign up when sick. Our first year of Obamacare was $1,100 a month for the same level of coverage as our banned $400 plan. The second year was $1,400 a month. This year the only available plan had the same $5k a year deductible, and was $1,800 month. So we don't have medical insurance any more. The NY Times link is LOL, I notice how it didn't track how exchange prices have exploded. New Mexico's exchange is going to get crushed like all the others, it can't stop rational behavior. It will soon have to subsidize everyone or all self employed people will be out.

stinkytaco 10y ago
> The ban on pre-existing conditions was done either because the drafters of Obamacare have no clue what insurance actually is, or they actually wanted to destroy health insurance. No one is going to pay for coverage when healthy if they can sign up when sick. This is what the tax penalty was meant to prevent, correct? I'm curious, what is your solution to insuring people with pre-existing conditions?
- burfog 10y ago
  If is to be insurance then people with pre-existing conditions should get coverage for everything that isn't related to the condition. Got cancer? Fine, we'll still cover breaking your leg, as long as the break isn't from cancer invading the bone or from cancer drugs weakening your bones. You're on your own for the cancer.
  - astrange 10y ago
    You want a useless product that will guarantee your death because it meets the dictionary definition of insurance? This is why the real policy issue is lack of healthcare, not lack of "health insurance", which is a fake benefit invented to maybe get you healthcare.
    - burfog 10y ago
      Real insurance involves a gamble. You pay a small amount to get what is essentially a lottery ticket. You win if disaster happens, giving you money to deal with the disaster. Would you buy a lottery ticket if it was known to be a winner? Sure! Would anybody want to sell it? No! That isn't a viable business model. What you are looking for is more like welfare. You have a problem, there is no gamble, you don't have the money, and you expect "society" to pay. That definitely isn't insurance. Those are the options: insurance, welfare, self-pay Imposing a duty to handle pre-existing conditions on "insurance" companies is forcing a business to provide welfare. Obviously, people will switch from the cheap company (or none) to the high-quality company when they get a problem. The tax on people without "insurance" is intended to discourage this, but it is ineffective because "insurance" costs more and because people will still switch from cheap to fancy. In any case, we've invented some pretty fancy health care. Giving it to everybody would exceed our GDP. This is obviously unworkable. The situation only worsens as we invent more. How do you propose to limit usage, if not by price? Would you just promise everything, but let people die on waiting lists? Would you rate and rank people, perhaps on a point system with extra points for politically-connected people?
      - stinkytaco 10y ago
FireBeyond 10y ago
> The ban on pre-existing conditions was done either because the drafters of Obamacare have no clue what insurance actually is, or they actually wanted to destroy health insurance. No one is going to pay for coverage when healthy if they can sign up when sick. Oh good, so the alternative is a market where you'll never get coverage again once you are diagnosed with a condition - or even before, given that insurers have been sued for attempting to cancel coverage when a condition is diagnosed by going back and looking at previous physician visits. "Oh, we know you weren't diagnosed with cancer back then, but you went to the doctor a bit, and the things you went for are consistent with that, so we determined you had cancer when you got coverage, and as a result are canceling your policy for this". Health insurance is not insurance in any definition of the word. Insurers want as many of the benefits of insurance as possible while wanting to assume as few of the risks as possible, things they shouldn't be able to do as an insurer. I've watched it for a long time (hint: one of my jobs is designing claims adjudication and management systems for health insurers). Go your way, where insurers can exclude, and in very short order, everyone will. And then the only ones who offer coverage that support pre-existing conditions will be the ones willing to gouge those people. But you won't care, as long as _your_ premium is $400/mo, right? Or at least until someone in your family gets sick. Here's the dirty little secret: actuaries and statisticians working for the insurers factor in all these conditions (in the medical sense) into their premium accounting. What percentage of what demographic is likely to get an illness or disease, etc. They have to. Or they'd go bankrupt. So they do. And then they work feverishly to cover as few of those people as possible, to increase their profit profile, reduce their exposure and risk. If that's what people "wanting to destroy health insurance" want to be rid of? I entirely support them.