Pipe dream? Obamacare

[scottwerden]

[isobars]

[coboardhead]

Scott

We had a topic last year that Feuser started titled "is insurance coverage for pre existing conditions welfare?" The first page may be of interest to you...before the thread fell apart for the usual reasons.

[scottwerden]

I have no idea what the heck isobars is talking about, or anyone else who associates insuring pre-existing condition to welfare. All I am saying is that (a) I have what insurance companies consider to be a so-called pre-existing condition, (b) I could not get insurance until ACA came along. This has nothing to do with the government or welfare. This is between me and the insurance company.

The astute reader might ask - "so who is paying for insuring a pre-existing condition?". The short answer is the insurance company. The long answer, is well, the insurance company.

Consider this: My company's premium for group coverage for me when I was working was about $500/month. The plan I am offered through the exchange which is close to my former company plan is about $800/month in premiums. Two conclusions from this: (a) Since group plans insure pre-existing conditions, and since an insurer is not going to sell a plan that loses money, obviously insurance companies still make money when they insure pre-existing conditions. And (b), since I am paying more for the exchange plan, than my former group plan, there is no government subsidy involved to make this economically feasible through private insurance.

The only reason insurance companies do not want to cover pre-existing, is because they make a lot more money by not doing so. ACA is forcing insurance companies to insure the masses in the same way they insure business-group workers. That is all. It has nothing to do with welfare.

People who do not want to help get insurance to those for whom it was previously inaccessible are beyond the pale, IMO. I really do not get how someone can be so mean spirited. Good health is a basic human right, again, IMO.

[scottwerden]

I might add that it is easy for someone to be sanctimonious about others when they do not have to pay a nickle for insurance because they are covered for life by the VA. That smells to me like a form of "welfare" that is being railed about here.

[coboardhead]

Exactly! In my case, I have paid six figures more in insurance premiums over the years than I have received in benefits. Without the ACA I could get cancelled by my insurer if I get sick or have premiums become unaffordable. I do not understand how anyone with any knowledge of self employment would consider requiring insurance companies to treat me like an employee of a large corporation to be welfare.

[feuser]

Well, I think Isobars does have a point, although he gets it wrong:

Coverage for pre-existing conditions is welfare - as is coverage for conditions diagnosed shortly after becoming a contributing member to the insurance pool. Both are unearned benefits.

Where Iso gets it wrong are: a.: his lack of understanding of non-portable, employer-based insurance - where one, through completely unlreated life circumstances, can be left hanging after contributing a quarter million in premiums over a decade and b.: the fact that those with a pre-existing condition are fighting for their right to contribute to the pool - not just draw from it. And c.: that the real drain are the non-participants in the system and e.: that we get to pay for the treatment of the uninsured anyway through our taxes and f.: that the primary goal of the ACA is to reduce voluntary non-participation in the risk pool.

But he does have a point.

[scottwerden]

Isobars has no point. Insurance is a means to ameliorate risk among a pool of people. Welfare is not risk sharing, it is the government providing assistance to those who cannot afford the basics of living. Isobars knows that but like any good Republican, he considers "welfare" to be a pejorative, handy for flinging around in one of his bitter, sanctimonious diatribes.

[swchandler]

If I wasn't covered by a healthcare plan through my past employer, I wouldn't have had a chance in hell of getting health insurance since I retired in 2004. Fortunately, I was one of the lucky ones that made it to retirement without losing my job and my insurance along with it. Now, with the ACA, many folks don't have to be paranoid about losing their insurance because they're laid off, particularly those who could be construed as having a pre-existing condition.

With regard to the comments from our character from the Great Northwest, he easily shows the hate and the lack of caring that fills his being. We should be used to it by now, but I have to admit that I still find it unsettling to hear such nonsense.

[feuser]