4 ms·

Group plans were/are always forced to cover pre-existing conditions. It's only if you have a pre-existing condition and no group insurance that you will see yo

by swamp40 13y ago

Group plans were/are always forced to cover pre-existing conditions. It's only if you have a pre-existing condition and no group insurance that you will see your prices drop. This is also exactly what is going to eventually bring down the existing US privatized health system, btw. The accounting doesn't add up when you force a cap on premiums and allow unlimited ~10M treatments. People will pay the yearly fine until they have a major health problem, and then join up after the fact. Imagine if you only had to buy car insurance after you had an accident. Absolute disaster for insurance companies - monthly incoming way down while claims go thru the roof.

muzz 13y ago
The markets appear to disagree with your hypothesis. Market valuations of the health insurance companies have zoomed to new highs.
- swamp40 13y ago
  The markets see millions of forced new customers about to come in. A massive gov mandated increase in market cap. There are two possible outcomes. 1) They find a way to cap the hi-money costs (approvals, delays, mandated procedures that are below today's level of care, etc.) 2) Eat the costs, then cry for a (I'm too big to fail) bailout.
mjn 13y ago
People will pay the yearly fine until they have a major health problem, and then join up after the fact. There are some limitations on this, though not airtight ones. If you don't enroll in the initial open-enrollment period from October 1, 2013 — March 31, 2014, you can't enroll completely freely after that. Subsequent enrollments are allowed only when you have a "qualifying life event", such as a change in employment situation, or a move between states. The main one that's clearly health-linked is that you can enroll upon pregnancy or childbirth (the argument for that appears to be based on the desirability of the child having health coverage, even if the father and mother were previously remiss on the subject). But it doesn't appear to be the case that you could just wait until you have a motorcycle accident, and then enroll for treatment.
gcb0 13y ago
Stop. Never compare health market with anything else. This is the error that the country has to fix.
FireBeyond 13y ago
"monthly incoming way down while claims go thru the roof" Claims wouldn't go through the roof - the availability of "retroactive" insurance wouldn't increase the number of car accidents.
- swamp40 13y ago
  Right now each individual hospital eats and writes off a massive amount of indigent claims. A lot of that is about to be shifted onto the insurance companies. Also, there are a lot of people out there today who are suffering, but don't have the insurance to pay for their operations, medication, etc. If it's not life threatening and they aren't on medicare, etc, right now they are unserved. I hope people don't get the wrong impression that I feel sorry for the insurance companies. My perspectives are purely from an accounting point of view. Companies will make their money first. You can count on that, even if it leaves the average American with a poorer health-care experience than they enjoy today.

by swamp40 13y ago

muzz 13y ago

The markets appear to disagree with your hypothesis. Market valuations of the health insurance companies have zoomed to new highs.

swamp40 13y ago
The markets see millions of forced new customers about to come in. A massive gov mandated increase in market cap. There are two possible outcomes. 1) They find a way to cap the hi-money costs (approvals, delays, mandated procedures that are below today's level of care, etc.) 2) Eat the costs, then cry for a (I'm too big to fail) bailout.

mjn 13y ago

People will pay the yearly fine until they have a major health problem, and then join up after the fact. There are some limitations on this, though not airtight ones. If you don't enroll in the initial open-enrollment period from October 1, 2013 — March 31, 2014, you can't enroll completely freely after that. Subsequent enrollments are allowed only when you have a "qualifying life event", such as a change in employment situation, or a move between states. The main one that's clearly health-linked is that you can enroll upon pregnancy or childbirth (the argument for that appears to be based on the desirability of the child having health coverage, even if the father and mother were previously remiss on the subject). But it doesn't appear to be the case that you could just wait until you have a motorcycle accident, and then enroll for treatment.

gcb0 13y ago

Stop. Never compare health market with anything else. This is the error that the country has to fix.

FireBeyond 13y ago

"monthly incoming way down while claims go thru the roof" Claims wouldn't go through the roof - the availability of "retroactive" insurance wouldn't increase the number of car accidents.

swamp40 13y ago
Right now each individual hospital eats and writes off a massive amount of indigent claims. A lot of that is about to be shifted onto the insurance companies. Also, there are a lot of people out there today who are suffering, but don't have the insurance to pay for their operations, medication, etc. If it's not life threatening and they aren't on medicare, etc, right now they are unserved. I hope people don't get the wrong impression that I feel sorry for the insurance companies. My perspectives are purely from an accounting point of view. Companies will make their money first. You can count on that, even if it leaves the average American with a poorer health-care experience than they enjoy today.