Obama Issues New Rules on Healthcare Coverage

[Guest]

http://www.newsmax.com/US/Obamacare-...o_code=10DA8-1

President Barack Obama's administration on Tuesday formally proposed new rules requiring insurers to cover people with preexisting conditions and set minimum health benefits to millions of others under U.S. healthcare reform law.

Two weeks after Obama's re-election ensured the survival of the 2010 law that Republicans have vowed to repeal, the proposal is the first in an expected deluge of rulemaking to implement the law in time for its Jan. 1, 2014, start date.

-excerpt-

Insurance rates are determined by a formular of how many people will get sick out of the general population...... by requireing insurance companies to give new policies to very sick people at the same cost as healthly people will quickly bankrupt the insurance companies and the hospitals.......

Obama Issues New Rules on Healthcare Coverage

Health insurance companies would be prohibited from denying coverage because of a pre-existing condition, or from charging higher premiums because of current or past health problems, gender, or occupation. The rules would ensure access to catastrophic coverage plans for young adults and others who could not afford coverage otherwise.

[Guest]

Re: Obama Issues New Rules on Healthcare Coverage

...... by requireing insurance companies to give new policies to very sick people at the same cost as healthly people will quickly bankrupt the insurance companies and the hospitals.......

Although I do agree with your sentiment, let me make sure -

This is your opinion, yes? I didn't see this stated explicitly, in the article you cited.

[Guest]

Re: Obama Issues New Rules on Healthcare Coverage

Its not opinion, its about the actuary insurance tables of income and cost of care.......

since Obamacare requires insurance companies to enroll people with hugely expensive illnesses without increases in premiums its a mathimatical certainty
that the companies cannot pay claims and will go bankrupt........

which, imho is the whole idea--or delusion.....

[Andy]

Re: Obama Issues New Rules on Healthcare Coverage

I've fixed the Title to reflect what the article actually says since the word, "Bankrupt" isn't anywhere in the subject/title of the article...as well as put an excerpt from the article into the post - thus separating the actual article from the comments on the article/situation.

Meantime, I don't know about anyone else on company health care but mine definitely changed this next year including a massive reduction in maximum amount allowed to take out on FSA - something that has really helped us over the years.

[cornerstone33]

Re: Obama Issues New Rules on Healthcare Coverage

I've fixed the Title to reflect what the article actually says since the word, "Bankrupt" isn't anywhere in the subject/title of the article...as well as put an excerpt from the article into the post - thus separating the actual article from the comments on the article/situation.

Meantime, I don't know about anyone else on company health care but mine definitely changed this next year including a massive reduction in maximum amount allowed to take out on FSA - something that has really helped us over the years.

Yes, me too, unfortunately.

[Andy]

Re: Obama Issues New Rules on Healthcare Coverage

Yes, me too, unfortunately.

It's the typical misleading to say that my rates didn't go up this year - that's true, the premium is the same...but, alas, that drop in FSA funds may result in a much higher out-of-pocket for us (unless we don't need as much this year).

[cornerstone33]

Re: Obama Issues New Rules on Healthcare Coverage

It's the typical misleading to say that my rates didn't go up this year - that's true, the premium is the same...but, alas, that drop in FSA funds may result in a much higher out-of-pocket for us (unless we don't need as much this year).

Yes, and you never know year to year, what can happen to any one of us. I pray good health for us all, to combat this o care. Gee, they had to pass it, to find out what was in it, unreal!!. Also, the big thing is smoking, and being overweight, these two things, will cost big time now. The nanny state is cracking down on us, and taking away our freedom bit by bit, thanks to the blinded who voted for him.

[M from M]

Re: Obama Issues New Rules on Healthcare Coverage

in my not so humble opinion ; Overweight has VEryyyy little to do with
" "OVEReating" .

I remember reading a Science *New* Potato-combo = A Potato combined
with Cells from a 'Jellyfish'.

End' result !
the *Potato-GLOWed-in-the-Dark* and we need this ; Why???

GMO-foods are a Scientific-Challenge. imo

[Andy]

Re: Obama Issues New Rules on Healthcare Coverage

Yes, and you never know year to year, what can happen to any one of us. I pray good health for us all, to combat this o care. Gee, they had to pass it, to find out what was in it, unreal!!. Also, the big thing is smoking, and being overweight, these two things, will cost big time now. The nanny state is cracking down on us, and taking away our freedom bit by bit, thanks to the blinded who voted for him.

Well, Cornerstone, this is an interesting discussion. You see, I happen to think it may not be such a bad idea to pass on the cost of increased risk to those that are making a conscious choice to hurt their health thereby reducing the cost for those that choose healthy lifestyles. Have we not charged higher auto insurance rates for teenage drivers for decades?

If someone wants to increase their medical costs (statistically) by smoking or being morbidly obese should they not pay more for their insurance premiums? We generally speak against the fact that no one seems to be willing to take responsibility for their choices, right?

Just providing my HO on this as I've had quite a conversation about this very subject recently with a coworker that smokes. She complained she can't afford the increase in premiums - I wanted to say, "Think about how much you'd save if you quit smoking!" I didn't say it because I know that's insensitive and I'm sorry if that is hurtful to the reading audience that chooses to smoke or use any other form of tobacco. Fact is: Tobacco use of ANY sort increases the healthcare costs of the majority of individuals. Should non-tobacco users pay more for their premiums to help cover those that do? Note: I am definitely overweight and if I don't lose some of this I will likely have to pay higher premiums in 2014 - and I totally understand and 'get' that. Someone that is the right weight, doesn't smoke and has a healthy lifestyle in general shouldn't have to pay for my lack of self control with my eating habits.

ALL of this is just my humble opinion on the subject and I know it's controversial.

[Issachar]

Re: Obama Issues New Rules on Healthcare Coverage

I've mentioned in the past, and still believe, there should be no insurance of any kind. Insurance only creates a pool of money to pull from and will always cause prices to increase. In fact, it is equally as bad as prices increasing because of inflation .. i.e. inflating the money supply, which the government/Fed do quite handily. (Side note: Within the past few days, Geitner, no less than the Treasury Secretary of the Untied States of America, following Greenspan's belief, stated that the debt ceiling should be eliminated because it allows Congress some say in the matter of inflating. He need not worry his little head any though since Congress will always raise it. He just didn't want any delay. He wants the blank check philosophy of sinking things to be more instant.) Free Market Econ 101 teaches us that prices will rise to what the market can bear. Insurance totally distorts that.

Being though, that insurance does exist and will continue to, whether government sponsored or "private" (heavily regulated by government anyway), I think if people are partaking in behavior (using the above examples of smoking and obesity) that is known to be detrimental to one's health, they should pay more than one that takes care of their health. (Not likely to happen at a significant enough level). BUT .. I don't think government should have ANY involvement in any of this matter of insurance, state of health, etc. Leave the lunches and the kids that bring them, alone, at school. Michelle .. go get a duster and some lemon fresh spray and take care of your own house. You're not the president. You weren't elected. You're a tag along. Go take some community college classes or something .. volunteer at a local homeless shelter .. but stay away from politics. (that won't happen either. )

Being though, that insurance exists and will continue to, via government .. increasingly .. until it dominates it .. we'll just have to continue on about our Father's business and hope for the conversion of souls before it's too late.

Issachar, strongly believes that a very important reason to stay as healthy as one is able, is because it will be needed to help, rather than needing help, when things get truly weird. Go ahead .. you can eek out one more push up tomorrow morning ..

[Glorify Him]

Re: Obama Issues New Rules on Healthcare Coverage

This is not really new news, imho. This was one of the ramifications of Obamacare from the beginning. The bankrupting of private insurance companies is very likely. Which will lead to socialized medicine, which was the goal from the get go.

Insofar as Michelle Obama, I am not a fan. However, when you have a huge group of kids in this country who are morbidly obese and hypertensive at the age of 10, I support her efforts in trying to educate them and their parents on healthy eating. Should the govt have to be involved in this? In an ideal world where people actually use their brains and actively understand what "parenting" involves, it wouldn't be needed. However, look at the out of wedlock birth rate. Do any of you seriously think a 14 year old knows anything about being a parent?

For me all of these issues come down to the same basic thing. A lack of a moral compass. His name is Jesus. Without him, it is all bound to wind up in a massive mess and failure, which is what we are currently witnessing.

[Issachar]

Re: Obama Issues New Rules on Healthcare Coverage

His name is Jesus. Without him, it is all bound to wind up in a massive mess and failure, which is what we are currently witnessing.

Amen Glorify Him.

As far as the "Michelle" thing goes .. I talk to lots of children; often. K-12 ... they complain of leaving lunch hungry which makes them just want to eat more. One girl complained that she was reprimanded for having a packet of salt with her lunch because there is no longer a salt shaker available. I don't know how wide spread that may be ... but the real problem here, is that children are not getting healthier because of what you mentioned about irresponsible parenting and they have full access to the junk at home and elsewhere. But, government now has it's continual increase in 'say' over people's lives. But that is not going to change either. Unfortunately, when government oversteps it's bounds .. by leaps and bounds .. we don't get to pick and choose what leaping is "ok" .. or not. They either do .. or don't.

I support her efforts in trying to educate them and their parents on healthy eating. Should the govt have to be involved in this?

The real question should be .. why are her efforts needed in this regard? Why does the First Lady have to do that? The children .. and their parents .. and their's .. all went to (mostly) government schools. They all had several courses .. maybe starting in 3rd or 4th grade .. on nutrition and eating healthy. But knowledge doesn't work. People have LOTS of knowledge of what is good for them and what isn't, but it is ignored to satisfy the desires (at the moment) of the flesh (e.g. smoking, drunkeness, illicit sexual activity, stupid pranks, etc.). So now, with Michelle, the government is no longer relying on education to help, they are physically getting involved (always the next step) and forcing what is allowed to be eaten. What if government decided it wasn't good to pray at school or before a football game or before a city council meeting or for military chaplains to mention the name, Jesus? That would place us in the position of choosing for it to be ok for government to dictate what we consume in our bodies, but not ok for them to dictate who can pray where .. or when.

What if government said K-12 will be mandated to be taught that homosexuality is "normal?" (now law in California) Or that salt is so bad for you, that we'll physically take it away .. or your Hostess Twinkie. But boys; girls .. want to have "sex" with people of the same gender? Go for it. Woe to any who oppose that!

No, government (as you said (GH), "In and ideal world ..") should stick to the bounds set by the constitution. They won't. They aren't. It won't go back. Once out of those bounds, it gets so big, it won't fit back into those bounds.

Issachar .. just using some rare downtime to let my mind wander

[Issachar]

Re: Obama Issues New Rules on Healthcare Coverage

Interesting (to me) thought from last post ...

Government wants to dictate what we can eat and drink "in the name of health", which I'm sure is related to healthcare costs, but that same government, is telling children that ultra-dangerous sexual behavior is ok, normal, good .. The former (poor diet) affects the individual. The latter, affects the whole society.

And a repeat of something that will never happen .. down with insurance, governmemt or (so called) private.

Issachar, not of this world .. so, continuing with the only real solution to all of this .. according to the One who created all things .. the preaching of the gospel ..

[cornerstone33]

Re: Obama Issues New Rules on Healthcare Coverage

Well, Cornerstone, this is an interesting discussion. You see, I happen to think it may not be such a bad idea to pass on the cost of increased risk to those that are making a conscious choice to hurt their health thereby reducing the cost for those that choose healthy lifestyles. Have we not charged higher auto insurance rates for teenage drivers for decades?

If someone wants to increase their medical costs (statistically) by smoking or being morbidly obese should they not pay more for their insurance premiums? We generally speak against the fact that no one seems to be willing to take responsibility for their choices, right?

Just providing my HO on this as I've had quite a conversation about this very subject recently with a coworker that smokes. She complained she can't afford the increase in premiums - I wanted to say, "Think about how much you'd save if you quit smoking!" I didn't say it because I know that's insensitive and I'm sorry if that is hurtful to the reading audience that chooses to smoke or use any other form of tobacco. Fact is: Tobacco use of ANY sort increases the healthcare costs of the majority of individuals. Should non-tobacco users pay more for their premiums to help cover those that do? Note: I am definitely overweight and if I don't lose some of this I will likely have to pay higher premiums in 2014 - and I totally understand and 'get' that. Someone that is the right weight, doesn't smoke and has a healthy lifestyle in general shouldn't have to pay for my lack of self control with my eating habits.

ALL of this is just my humble opinion on the subject and I know it's controversial.

I absolutely agree with you, but again, these are the people that are going to pay big time like never before, for being overweight and smoking. It's already happenning anyway, and will continue that way. The freedom that we always had, people were able to do whatever they wanted, but now, they are being watched. People should make good choices on how they eat, and take good care of themselves, but because the nanny state is now in place it seems, they are going to be dictated to, in lieu of making their own choices.

[cornerstone33]

Re: Obama Issues New Rules on Healthcare Coverage

in my not so humble opinion ; Overweight has VEryyyy little to do with
" "OVEReating" .

I remember reading a Science *New* Potato-combo = A Potato combined
with Cells from a 'Jellyfish'.

End' result !
the *Potato-GLOWed-in-the-Dark* and we need this ; Why???

GMO-foods are a Scientific-Challenge. imo

Your so right, it could be in the genes that they are overweight, and have to work harder than the next person. Also, they could have an underactive thyroid gland that causes it. So many things, can cause it, other than overeating.