The misunderstanding about health insurance

[kraft-t]

I listened to Jan Mikelson for a while this morning and his rant was about end of life coverage. The implication being that an 85 year old covered under medicare or a supplement was costing him more for his coverage.

What he fails to recognize is the 85 year old has been buying insuirance both medicare and private insurance for many decades. Fortunately the insured may have had few calaims during their life span and I would include them with those that havepaid dues.

Mr Mikelson may well be driving a fancy toyota as is his preference. I on the other hand might be driving a ford fiesta. Jans $40K toyota may be totaled out by an unfortunate accident. No way would I assume that I am paying his loss for his opulant automobile. I assume that he bnought and paid for risk protection  as I have done with mine. I am not paying the cost of his insurance nor is he paying mine. WE both share our risk with other insured and share their risk as well.

Just because a patient has bought medicare coverage, that doesn't make him a welfare case. In fact he is buying risk protection as is any intelligent policy holder that buys a private policy.

Included in his rant was the suggestion that adults in their early twenties can in trude on the families insurance policy. I would like to have a clarification of the rules involved in that. Can a young adult demand to be covered by the parents policy even against thew wishes of the parents?  Is the parent's employer furnished policy premiums required to accept the young man with out additional premiums?  The point being is that the insurer may well have to cover the young adult but I don't think it will be free gratis.

Thus I think that the distortion about health care policy is not yet over. I don't think the right even wants to discuss the facts of the matter. I think they are commited to an all out negative campaign and they don't care about the facts at all.

BTW, the insurers accept the risk in return for the premiums. That is a contract which they fully agreed to. They would like to limit the claims and put artificial bountries on what the aged can recieve in treatmemnt. Make no mistake about it, the only purpose is to increase profits at the expense of policy6 holders.

It's somewhat amazing that the right ranted at the possibility of death panels but here is one of your advocating denying coverage to those nearing the end of the line. And you thought we were going to pull the plug on grandma!

[r3020]

It has started. This is nothing but a stepping stone to a single payer system, controlled by the health secretary, who will decide what treatments are acceptable and what are not. So much for the lie "if you like your plan you can keep it."

snip-

Well, it’s official: President Obama has destroyed my health plan and those of two dozen of my employees.

Several media outlets are reporting this morning that Principal Financial, which sells health plans to the John Locke Foundation and nearly a million Americans, will exit the health-insurance marketplace. The company is responding to the new costs and incentives created by Obamacare, which (of course) favor large firms over smaller competitors, as the New York Times explains:

At the Principal Financial Group, the company’s decision reflected its assessment of its ability to compete in the environment created by the new law. “Now scale really matters,” said Daniel J. Houston, a senior executive at Principal, which is headquartered in Des Moines. “We don’t have a significant concentration in any one market.”

United HealthCare is reportedly going to offer health plans to former Principal subscribers, including me, but we have no idea what those plans will look like. As competition shrinks, they’ll certainly be more expensive and less flexible.

 At JLF, we had carefully designed two consumer-driven options — one based around health savings accounts and the other around health reimbursement accounts — and experienced excellent results, including several years of nearly level premiums. Now, we’ll just have to see what administration ideologues and federal bureaucrats will permit us to purchase.

All the more reason why we and other Americans are not simply going to comply with a federal takeover of the health-care market. Litigation, agitation, and legislation are in store.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/248467/gee-thanks-mr-president-john-hood

[Red Steele]

The guy is not going to listen, so why waste time ?

Anyone that thinks that there is a "social security trust fund" will surely believe that Medicare premiums...the $96.80 per month that is levied on the elderly each month more than pays for grandma's care, and in fact generates a surplus so that the ample premiums have been stored away...in the "medicare trust fund".

How do you debate someone with facts as clear as these?

[r3020]

snip-

McDonald's Corp. has warned federal regulators that it could drop its health insurance plan for nearly 30,000 hourly restaurant workers unless regulators waive a new requirement of the U.S. health overhaul.

The move is one of the clearest indications that new rules may disrupt workers' health plans as the law ripples through the real world.

Trade groups representing restaurants and retailers say low-wage employers might halt their coverage if the government doesn't loosen a requirement for "mini-med" plans, which offer limited benefits to some 1.4 million Americans.

The requirement concerns the percentage of premiums that must be spent on benefits.

While many restaurants don't offer health coverage, McDonald's provides mini-med plans for workers at 10,500 U.S. locations, most of them franchised. A single worker can pay $14 a week for a plan that caps annual benefits at $2,000, or about $32 a week to get coverage up to $10,000 a year.

Last week, a senior McDonald's official informed the Department of Health and Human Services that the restaurant chain's insurer won't meet a 2011 requirement to spend at least 80% to 85% of its premium revenue on medical care.

snip-

Benefit consultants anticipate that, by 2014, most employers will stop offering mini-med plans. Such plans likely wouldn't meet the definition of adequate coverage for full-time workers. Under the law, midsize and large employers that fail to offer such coverage will have to pay a fine.

Until 2014, workers on mini-med plans would have few affordable alternatives for coverage. According to a survey by the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, workers without health insurance were three times as likely to visit the emergency room without being able to pay as their counterparts with health insurance.

"The packages maybe could be better, but for a start, they're quite good," said Jerry Newman, a professor at State University of New York at Buffalo, who worked under cover at McDonald's to write "My Secret Life on the McJob." He added: "For those who didn't have health insurance through their spouse, it was a life saver."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703431604575522413101063070.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTWhats...

[kraft-t]

Be aware that Obama did not ruin your healthy care. It is insurance companies and employers that are resisting this change. Could it be that Jesse James was upset when they put time clocks on the bank vault?

[kraft-t]

Do you think that insurance COMPANIES  LEAVE THEIR EXCESS CASH LAYING IN A VAULT SOME WHERE? oR DO YTOUY THINK THEY INVEST THE EXCESS CAPITAL IN INVESTMENT VEHICLES?

Just to clarify matters, my deposits in the local bank are not sitting there molding in the vault.  They are loaned out to borrowers or lent to the government or invested in securities or stocks. Why do you think SS funds should be any different.

Your a bit off in the medicare trust fund. For the most part medicare is financed by retirees premiums and taxpayer contributions via FICA taxes. Yes sir you and I are paying into that fund because we care about our elders and widows,orphans and those with disability. We particapate because we are intelligent enough to share the risk with each other with the premise that one day we will recieve a benefit should we need it.

I don't know why the right wingers insit on getting their own money back. They buyt health insurance from private insurers and many of you do not recieve a dime in benefits. I cannot under stand why the righties begrudge someone else getting a "free" colonostopy when they ought to be thankful that they don't need one.

So when you declare what you think I might think, you could just simply ask me. Instead you would rather offer stupid rhetoric.

[kraft-t]

So You choose to blame the governments attempt to improve availability of health coverage rather than blaming those that try to obstruct any attempt to improve the situation for the common man.  Obviously, you repubs refused to cooperate in any facet of health insurance reform and then you complain because the final result is a less than ideal product.

You are the ones that stayed at home and campaigned vigorously against any improvement.. Do you really think you delivered any positive in the governing process. You are obstructionists and you think you were wise to do so. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

[kraft-t]

If indeed you think that end of life expenses needs to be cut, then would you deny coverage for those younger than seniors if you think it's a risky endevour with a high probability of failure?

Or if it was a high risk procedure would you expect the patient and his family to pay the bill even if the patient has paid into medicare and a supplement for decades. You do understand that insirance policies are amethod to share risk. You pay for that benefit when you pay the premiums. Insurance companies are willing to accept that risk  because the odds are that more money will come in than goes out

In effect Mr. Mikelson is suggesting that the insurance contract be voided once one reaches an age that he considers not worthy of the expense. It seems like they expect an insurance plan that ignores higher risk patients in hope that they can buy their own personal policy for a discount. If there were no sick people, what would be the purpose of buying insurance?

[r3020]

We need market reform of health care, not government dictates.

[SouthWestOhio]

The US spends 18% of the GDP on healthcare.  The next highest is France at 11%.  Market reform will not be able to reign that number in.  And left to its own devices the 18% spent in the us will grow and soon we will be paying more in healthcare than we do in taxes.