Talk of insurance mandate growing - page 7

Talk of insurance mandate growing Source:... Read More

  1. by   Junebugfairy
    it's likely they could not get coverage for their regular, common pre-existing conditions or the premiums would be sky high with substandard coverage. they are genuinely ignorant of just how vulnerable they are.

    i am unsure of the laws and regulations in other states.. but here in nc if you were on employer insurance and needed to later buy individual insurance, you qualify for a policy without medical underwriting, and all pre existing conditions are covered...
  2. by   Multicollinearity
    Quote from fairycari
    it's likely they could not get coverage for their regular, common pre-existing conditions or the premiums would be sky high with substandard coverage. they are genuinely ignorant of just how vulnerable they are.

    i am unsure of the laws and regulations in other states.. but here in nc if you were on employer insurance and needed to later buy individual insurance, you qualify for a policy without medical underwriting, and all pre existing conditions are covered...
    right. at double and triple the rates. remember my post from the first page of this thread where i posted the bcbs brochure showing the only coverage i could get in my state under this provision and how would be about $1200 per month?

    http://www.azblue.com/pdfs/health-pl...abilitycvg.pdf

    twelve hundred dollars per month for health insurance for a single 34 year old female is not a solution.
  3. by   VICEDRN
    Quote from fairycari
    it's likely they could not get coverage for their regular, common pre-existing conditions or the premiums would be sky high with substandard coverage. they are genuinely ignorant of just how vulnerable they are.

    i am unsure of the laws and regulations in other states.. but here in nc if you were on employer insurance and needed to later buy individual insurance, you qualify for a policy without medical underwriting, and all pre existing conditions are covered...

    this is very true here as well. of course, they get to charge you the associated premium. the last time i looked into cobra, my family's costs were $735.00/month. this was the coverage i had when i was pregnant and gave birth to my daughter in 2005.

    don't worry though. i did the math after the bills came. bcbs broke even on my c-section. between my deductibles and copays (me and baby) and the premiums, the cost of all of my care ended up being covered so bcbs of georgia was out nothing. (bcbs told me that this was because they have a contracted rate for the facility that makes it so my surgery was less then $2500 and yet my deductible is still calculated off of the facility's charge for the service, so i paid 1800 of it.) i joked to my ex-husband that i am so glad the insurance companies have created convenient lay away plans for us.

  4. by   Multicollinearity
    Quote from rn2tobeatlanta

    Don't worry though. I did the math after the bills came. BCBS broke even on my C-section. Between my deductibles and copays (me and baby) and the premiums, the cost of all of my care ended up being covered so BCBS of Georgia was out NOTHING. (BCBS told me that this was because they have a contracted rate for the facility that makes it so my surgery was less then $2500 and yet my deductible is still calculated off of the facility's charge for the service, so I paid 1800 of it.) I joked to my ex-husband that I am so glad the insurance companies have created convenient lay away plans for us.

    Actually you're on to something with maternity and the "layaway" plan. Several of the individual health plans I used to sell offered maternity riders with tiered waiting periods for an additional premium. For example, you could choose a $4000 maternity benefit. You'd have to pay the additional premium for 12 months before you were eligible for the maternity benefit. Guess how much the maternity rider cost? About $333 per month. This means you were just prepaying the benefit on a "layaway" of sorts because $333 * 12 months equals the total maximum payout of $4000. Considering the fact that few women get pregnant with complete predictability, the insurance company was making a little money if it took longer to get pregnant, or if a woman got pregnant before the 12 month waiting period.

    Here's an enlightening link about maternity coverage in my state:

    http://en.allexperts.com/q/Life-Heal...y-coverage.htm

    More of the same: you're on your own.
    Last edit by Multicollinearity on May 22, '09
  5. by   herring_RN
    President Obama does NOT support a single payer plan at this time. He supports a "public option" such as Governor Romney did in Massachusetts. It can only decrease healthcare or increase the cost to taxpayers.
    Rx and the single payer

    Americans may want single-payer healthcare, but that doesn't mean they're going to get it.

    In 2003, a young Illinois state senator named Barack Obama told an AFL-CIO meeting, "I am a proponent of a single-payer universal healthcare program."
    Single payer. Universal. That's health coverage, like Medicare, but for everyone who wants it. Single payer eliminates insurance companies as pricey middlemen. The government pays care providers directly. It's a system that polls consistently have shown the American people favoring by as much as 2-to-1....

    ...Speaking up for single payer is Geri Jenkins, a president of the California Nurses Association and National Nurses Organizing Committee -- a registered nurse with literal hands-on experience.
    "We're there around the clock," she told our colleague Jessica Wang. "So we feel a real sense of obligation to advocate for the best interests of our patients and the public. Now, you can talk about policy but when you're staring at a human face it's a whole different story."...

    http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature...pinion/feature
  6. by   herring_RN
    We didn't have insurance when I had my daughter 41 years ago. A local hospital had a clinic where you paid every month for six months while receiving prenatal care from interns and residents.
    Then your hospital expenses were covered regardless of the cost.
    I was in a 32 bed ward for three days while my DD was in the nursery and brought to me every four hours for about an hour for breast feeding and bonding.
    A friend I made in the clinic had her baby early so he was in the NICU. Our costs were the same.
    It was like a lay away plan. If we hadn't paid every month it would have been county hospital and embarrasing charity care.
  7. by   msteeleart
    I think it is wrong to create a mandate to force people to pay insurance to a corporation who earns a profit. Personally, I think companies who provide health insurance should be forced to be a non-profit organization. Corporations should not be allowed to profit off of health related services.

    If the government wants everyone to have health insurance then they should provide health insurance to people that can not get it for whatever reason it is. The private health insurance companies can stay and people can still keep their company provided health insurance but they should be forced to conduct health insurance business on a non profit basis. I really don't care what happens to the CEO of the health care insurance companies, do they really need to make $20 million dollars a year while people lose their houses because they can't afford their medical bills, even with insurance? Who needs 5 vacation houses anyway?

    Of course, this will probably never happen because half the country does not want the government to help out when it comes to health-care but they do think it is okay to tell someone what they can and cannot do with their bodies, whether it be euthanasia, abortion or birth control. They want personal choice when it comes to health insurance but not the other items.

    Yes, I do fully support government supported healthcare because I would rather pay higher taxes and know that I will not be on the brink of bankruptcy if I have to get a $250,000 operation when I can't afford the 20%. I trust the gov't more with my health than a corporation who just wants to make a profit and pad their executives pockets.
  8. by   jmr.sc
    where do you live? my insurance is 675.00 per month for MY PART at work.
    I understand your point - but that was a bad analogy - insurance costs are ridiculous! We need another way. I'm going to ask the creator for one....oops he already planned for that! .... don't feel bad, I'm working on getting onto his plan 100% too. "by His stripes we are healed............................
  9. by   jmr.sc
    Wow! I'm speechless.....
  10. by   mwboswell
    My bottom line on all this "single payor", "universal health insurance" stuff....

    1) You want an example of a single payor system in place in USA already = go check the VA system and see what you think!

    2) If single payor/govt mandated health insurance comes to pass; who is going to pay for it?

    3) If I start paying for other people's "universal health insurance" that can't afford it on their own - I'll be p1ssed

    4) follow up to #3 - Yes, I know I'm already footing some of the bill for Mcare/Mcaid; so don't rip into me on that one.

    5) With "single payor", "universal health insurance" and the ilk - what will happen to my salary? How will we maintain the same labor salaries for health care workers?
  11. by   Agrippa
    Quote from mwboswell
    My bottom line on all this "single payor", "universal health insurance" stuff....

    1) You want an example of a single payor system in place in USA already = go check the VA system and see what you think!

    2) If single payor/govt mandated health insurance comes to pass; who is going to pay for it?

    3) If I start paying for other people's "universal health insurance" that can't afford it on their own - I'll be p1ssed

    4) follow up to #3 - Yes, I know I'm already footing some of the bill for Mcare/Mcaid; so don't rip into me on that one.

    5) With "single payor", "universal health insurance" and the ilk - what will happen to my salary? How will we maintain the same labor salaries for health care workers?

    I don't think you understand the concept of how insurance principles work. VA is a bad example and so is medicare. The population cohort of patients in those programs is not representative of that of what a whole country's would be. The people in the VA are veterans/soldiers who are by majority male and who may have been through combat. Medicare is 65 or older, or disabled citizens. Therefore the great majority of people in these systems are sick and costly.

    They are the one's with "pre-existing conditions" who are denied coverage by private healthcare or are quoted prices that are more than what they make in a year salary. The government is then in effect subsidizing the private healthcare industry by paying for the care of these uninsurable people through these programs or through emergency room care.

    If we had a single payer system, the population cohort would be representative of everyone in the county. Young, healthy, low risk (the ones the private industry see as profitable) as well as the old, sick, more costly citizens. Risk would be well hedged.

    Simply put, a single payer, universal healthcare is more efficient no matter how you cut it, compared to the hodge-podge system we have now.
  12. by   CMCRN
    I think it is telling that the private insurance companies think that now that Obama is working on this they can voluntarily find 2 trillion dollars to cut from their profits to help make the mandated insurance affordable. What does that say about their actual profits if they are willing to voluntarily give up 2 trillion...
  13. by   Multicollinearity
    What I find revealing is how the private for-profit health insurance companies are fighting the public (government) insurance option under Obama's plan. Perhaps they know they can't compete with a profit-less system that offers to cover those with pre-existing conditions.

close