Health Insurers Must Write Policies Covering All Children In September

[NJ Stinks]

From the Washington Post website tonight:
_________________________________________

Obama administration has blunt message for insurers



Reuters
Monday, March 29, 2010; 7:54 PM


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration on Monday had a blunt message for health insurers -- the new healthcare law requires that they not drop coverage for children with certain pre-existing conditions.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius conveyed the message in a letter to Karen Ignagni, chair of America's Health Insurance Plans, a group that promotes the health insurance industry in Washington.

Her letter came after the New York Times reported that insurance companies are arguing that at least for now they do not have to provide one of the benefits of the new healthcare law, insurance coverage for certain sick children.

"Unfortunately, recent media accounts indicate that some insurance companies may be seeking to avoid or ignore a provision in the new law that prohibits insurance companies from excluding children with pre-existing conditions from coverage," Sebelius wrote.

More the the link below:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/29/AR2010032903029.html

[ArlJim78]

they screwed up big time, and now once again they try to make the insurance companies the bad guys. They have no one to blame but themselves. like everything else they either oversold what they were doing or were incompetent or both.

[NJ Stinks]

Regulations are written after bills are passed all the time. Nothing new here.

[newtothegame]

I will ask the same questions which went unanswered before,.....maybe you will give it a shot NJ????
How much will the insurance companies charge for premiums to cover that pre existing child??

Now you can make up your own pre existing condition...but lets say Kidney Dialysis...cost of an average patient per year is about 44,000 I believe. So would premiums be about 4 grand per month to cover that??? Or, is EVERYONE in that particuliar pool gonna be charged more to cover that existing condition?
How about the HIGH RISK pools.....anyone have any cost structure yet????
The one thing I can assure you all is that the private insurance companies will NOT lose money for any length of time.
So...this leads me to another original question.....you libs said that people would not be forced onto the government plan.....if the private insurance companies write policies that the premiums are too high to pay...how is that addressed? They obviously can't under charge for pre existing....its a losing proposition in which they will go out of business.
So people will be either dropped from their employers insurance due to rising cost, or will not be able to afford it. Either way, this puts them in a government run plan....and we all know where that leads....
AMTRAK...failure...
USPS.......failure....
SS..........failure....
Medicare....failure...
Medicaid.....Failure....

[ArlJim78]

hey the bullying worked, the insurance companies caved (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36090251/ns/health-health_care/) rather than be lambasted by the feds. as it stand they won't be around that long anyway.

[ArlJim78]

Regulations are written after bills are passed all the time. Nothing new here.
you are glossing over the fact that the bill had a giant loophole in it, that nobody seemed to notice. this was one of THE big selling points to this thing and they didn't even get it right.

of course we were warned that it was like a box of chocolates, and we didn't know what we were going to get until we opened it.

[boxcar]

hey the bullying worked, the insurance companies caved (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36090251/ns/health-health_care/) rather than be lambasted by the feds. as it stand they won't be around that long anyway.

No, they will not. That is part of the Dem(on)s' game plan. When this happens they will blame the evil, greedy insurance companies, declare another crisis and then welcome to one payer. All this will happens within the next few years. Everyone can see this except the steeped-in-denial libs on this forum.

Boxcar

[newtothegame]

No, they will not. That is part of the Dem(on)s' game plan. When this happens they will blame the evil, greedy insurance companies, declare another crisis and then welcome to one payer. All this will happens within the next few years. Everyone can see this except the steeped-in-denial libs on this forum.

Boxcar

Yep....if ya read my post...which NO lib can answer...it leads right to one payer system which will ultimately be government run. There is NO way around it. This will lead to higher taxes (of course, after as Box said, the government makes the BIg evil corporations out to be the bad guys). Private insurance companies will close due to a NON competitive market. More and more tax dollars will be required to pay for this entitlement.....
Viscious cycle downwards!!!!

[NJ Stinks]

I will ask the same questions which went unanswered before,.....maybe you will give it a shot NJ????
How much will the insurance companies charge for premiums to cover that pre existing child??



Don't know the answer. We'll find out soon enough. Hopefully, the premium cost will not be insanely high since the insurance companies are making a bundle off of insuring healthy kids.

[newtothegame]

And here in lies the problem that I, and most other cons, was screaming about.
YOUR CBO scores that were touted to get this bill passed.......WRONG? Cause as you said, NO ONE KNOWS. We passed a bill in which the primary reason for it wasnt even included and had to be remedied. Secondly, we still have no idea how it will work...be implemented...or cost.
Yep...sounds like a good bill to me :lol:

[johnhannibalsmith]

...since the insurance companies are making a bundle off of insuring healthy kids.

Yes, now you begin to understand how it works. Not quite though. In order to provide coverage for those that need it and use more resources than they contribute, those expenses need to be offset by those that provide more resources than they receive as benefits.

Your presumption that they "make a bundle" off of healthy kids ignores the reality of how it is that insurance magically covers the non-healthy.

And as a disclaimer, I will again invoke my mantra that I detest the way insurance is offered and used, but let's be real about the relationships between concepts here.

[NJ Stinks]

And here in lies the problem that I, and most other cons, was screaming about.
YOUR CBO scores that were touted to get this bill passed.......WRONG? Cause as you said, NO ONE KNOWS. We passed a bill in which the primary reason for it wasnt even included and had to be remedied. Secondly, we still have no idea how it will work...be implemented...or cost.
Yep...sounds like a good bill to me :lol:

Maybe I should have said "I don't know the answer." :)

[Robert Goren]

If I own stock in a health insurance company, I would sell it and buy stock in health care providers. Than seems to be what the market is doing. As in all things time will tell. JMO

[newtothegame]

Maybe I should have said "I don't know the answer." :)

You can twist it anyway you like. But you can't change the facts. The facts are this....NO ONE knows.....
You...mosty...hcap....pelosi...reid....Obama.....N O ONE!
And if you want some more insight as to what will happen...you need not look much further then our neighbors to the north.....
Hey zil......in terms of population...., how many are now on the government system versus the non government system??? (oh this ought to be fun) lol

And how has That great efficient healthcare system worked in term of controlling prices over say the last twenty years???

Here, let me help with some of those answers.......

The amount Canadians spend on health care in 1997 dollars has increased every year between 1975 and 2009 from $39.7 billion to $137.3 billion or a more than doubling of per capita spending from $1,715 to $4089.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada#cite_note-16) In 2009 dollars spending is expected to reach $183.1 billion ( a more than five percent increase over the previous year ) or $5,452 per person.[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada#cite_note-CBC2009-17) Most of this increase in health care costs has been covered by public funds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada

Wait wait wait.......!!! I thought we were supposed to be CONTROLLING healthcare cost!!!!!!!!!!! EVERY year in Canada...it has gone up!!!!!!!!
Maybe that is controlling it!!!! :lol:

Next, as per the same article from wikepedia......over 70% of all cost are publicly paid. The other thirty percent if I read it right are self paid )meaning by the individual).
So to relate that, The U.S total healthcare cost is what??? Times 70% would equal what???

In 2008 it was about 2.3 TRILLION.......(x's 70%) Ummmm 1.6 TRILLION .......
Now how will the government pay for this...mosty...NJ...cap....sec....horses...????

[Tom]

Hey NJ, since you seem to know all about the insurance companies, could your post the percent of profit margins for the top 10 companies? You must have the info readily available, since you just posted that they are making a bundle. I know you woudl make baseless calim that you caould not back up.

Thank you for your support.

[boxcar]

You can twist it anyway you like. But you can't change the facts. The facts are this....NO ONE knows.....
You...mosty...hcap....pelosi...reid....Obama.....N O ONE!
And if you want some more insight as to what will happen...you need not look much further then our neighbors to the north.....
Hey zil......in terms of population...., how many are now on the government system versus the non government system??? (oh this ought to be fun) lol

And how has That great efficient healthcare system worked in term of controlling prices over say the last twenty years???

Here, let me help with some of those answers.......

The amount Canadians spend on health care in 1997 dollars has increased every year between 1975 and 2009 from $39.7 billion to $137.3 billion or a more than doubling of per capita spending from $1,715 to $4089.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada#cite_note-16) In 2009 dollars spending is expected to reach $183.1 billion ( a more than five percent increase over the previous year ) or $5,452 per person.[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada#cite_note-CBC2009-17) Most of this increase in health care costs has been covered by public funds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada

Wait wait wait.......!!! I thought we were supposed to be CONTROLLING healthcare cost!!!!!!!!!!! EVERY year in Canada...it has gone up!!!!!!!!
Maybe that is controlling it!!!! :lol:

Next, as per the same article from wikepedia......over 70% of all cost are publicly paid. The other thirty percent if I read it right are self paid )meaning by the individual).
So to relate that, The U.S total healthcare cost is what??? Times 70% would equal what???

In 2008 it was about 2.3 TRILLION.......(x's 70%) Ummmm 1.6 TRILLION .......
Now how will the government pay for this...mosty...NJ...cap....sec....horses...????

Yeah, but look at the bright side: At least it hasn't gone up 3,000%...yet.

Boxcar

[46zilzal]

You forgot a relevant stat., every year the population as gone up as well as this country has a very active immigration policy.

The only non-govt plans of ANYONE I know are all about dentistry and pharmaceuticals.

[NJ Stinks]

Hey NJ, since you seem to know all about the insurance companies, could your post the percent of profit margins for the top 10 companies? You must have the info readily available, since you just posted that they are making a bundle. I know you woudl make baseless calim that you caould not back up.

Thank you for your support.

Are you in some way implying that insurance companies are, in fact, losing money insuring healthy kids? If not, what's your point?

[NJ Stinks]

Yes, now you begin to understand how it works. Not quite though. In order to provide coverage for those that need it and use more resources than they contribute, those expenses need to be offset by those that provide more resources than they receive as benefits.

Your presumption that they "make a bundle" off of healthy kids ignores the reality of how it is that insurance magically covers the non-healthy.

And as a disclaimer, I will again invoke my mantra that I detest the way insurance is offered and used, but let's be real about the relationships between concepts here.

The idea of insurance is to pool the risks in order to spread the risks. It's not rocket science.

[johnhannibalsmith]

The idea of insurance is to pool the risks in order to spread the risks. It's not rocket science.

Then we agree that you were deliberately mischaracterizing relationships for dramatic effect?

[NJ Stinks]

Then we agree that you were deliberately mischaracterizing relationships for dramatic effect?

I'm missing your point. If insurance companies are dropping sick kids or just not writing policies for sick kids but are writing policies covering healthy kids, insurance companies are "making a bundle".

If the above is not true, why the need to mandate all kids be covered?

[johnhannibalsmith]

I'm missing your point. If insurance companies are dropping sick kids or just not writing policies for sick kids but are writing policies covering healthy kids, insurance companies are "making a bundle".

If the above is not true, why the need to mandate all kids be covered?

Maybe I'm missing your point... your original statement read as though you were implying that every dollar that went to covering the healthy was essentially pure profit - as though those that made significant claims well in excess of their premiums were not part of that relationship to the revenue generated by the healthy.

I can't trivialize the reality that the sick are too often dropped, but it seems a little naive, or maybe self-serving, to imply that none of these policies are effective in meeting the obligation to provide the services that are expected.

Again, this is why the one thing that I can object to more than a government run single payer system is a government administered mandate to facilitate the folly of the private system. It has always seemed to me that the approach of the latter is the long route to the former, so I don't see the benefit.

[Tom]

Are you in some way implying that insurance companies are, in fact, losing money insuring healthy kids? If not, what's your point?

YOU said they were making tons of money. I asked you to qualify that statement. What is a ton? What is a fair percentage of profit for them to make? What companies are making too much, and what exactly is too much?

I want, NJ, more that a vague, undefined statement presented like it were coming down from the Mount on a stone tablet carried by a guy in sandles.

I want a little accountability - if YOU say they are making too much money, then you have to know what they are really making and have a definition of too much. Do you have either bit of info, or were you just parroting, too?

[mostpost]

You can twist it anyway you like. But you can't change the facts. The facts are this....NO ONE knows.....
You...mosty...hcap....pelosi...reid....Obama.....N O ONE!
And if you want some more insight as to what will happen...you need not look much further then our neighbors to the north.....
Hey zil......in terms of population...., how many are now on the government system versus the non government system??? (oh this ought to be fun) lol

And how has That great efficient healthcare system worked in term of controlling prices over say the last twenty years???

Here, let me help with some of those answers.......

The amount Canadians spend on health care in 1997 dollars has increased every year between 1975 and 2009 from $39.7 billion to $137.3 billion or a more than doubling of per capita spending from $1,715 to $4089.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada#cite_note-16) In 2009 dollars spending is expected to reach $183.1 billion ( a more than five percent increase over the previous year ) or $5,452 per person.[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada#cite_note-CBC2009-17) Most of this increase in health care costs has been covered by public funds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada

Wait wait wait.......!!! I thought we were supposed to be CONTROLLING healthcare cost!!!!!!!!!!! EVERY year in Canada...it has gone up!!!!!!!!
Maybe that is controlling it!!!! :lol:

Next, as per the same article from wikepedia......over 70% of all cost are publicly paid. The other thirty percent if I read it right are self paid )meaning by the individual).
So to relate that, The U.S total healthcare cost is what??? Times 70% would equal what???

In 2008 it was about 2.3 TRILLION.......(x's 70%) Ummmm 1.6 TRILLION .......
Now how will the government pay for this...mosty...NJ...cap....sec....horses...????
So you are saying that the costs of health care have gone up every year in Canada, and since Canada has what you consider to be a Socialist health Care system that is the cause of the increase. Conversely the United States has a capitalist Health Care system and we all know the free market keeps costs down.
EXCEPT
http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm
Scroll down to exihibit 2
You can do the math yourself if you don't believe me.
From 1970 to 1980 costs in Canada increased 161.8% In the United States they increased 204.5%
From 1980 t0 1990 it was 121.8% in Canada and 156.7% in the US
From 1990 to 2003 72.5% in Canada vs. 107.5% in the USA
Another way to look at it:
In the 70s costs in the United States increased 47.7% more than they did in Canada.
In the 80s that figure was 34.9% and it was 35% from 1990 to 2003.
This was all per capita.
And we started out with higher costs in 1970.
Now scroll down to exhibit 5 and you will see that the United States spends a much greater perxentage of GDP on health care than any other country.

[Tom]

You know why the US spend so much more money?
The high cost of postage.

[NJ Stinks]

YOU said they were making tons of money. I asked you to qualify that statement. What is a ton? What is a fair percentage of profit for them to make? What companies are making too much, and what exactly is too much?

I want, NJ, more that a vague, undefined statement presented like it were coming down from the Mount on a stone tablet carried by a guy in sandles.

I want a little accountability - if YOU say they are making too much money, then you have to know what they are really making and have a definition of too much. Do you have either bit of info, or were you just parroting, too?

If you are only insuring healthy kids, you have limited exposure to claims being filed. Hence, you are making a bundle.

Your idea of vague and my idea of vague are obviously not the same. I get the point you have made repeatedly here. Insurance company profit margins are small. So what? What accounting tricks are used to get down to the small profit margins?

The fact remains that the game was rigged in favor of the insurers. It's no longer rigged. I think that's a great thing.

[mostpost]

You know why the US spend so much more money?
The high cost of postage.
Some guys knock it out of the park. You foul it into the dugout.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...
The fact remains that the game was rigged in favor of the insurers. It's no longer rigged. I think that's a great thing.

It's not a game. It's a business. Of course it is "rigged" in favor of the business or there would be no business. It's now "rigged" to disadvantage the insurers, which means that countermeasures will result from those changes. I agree it is wonderful to only dwell on the amazing benefit, but all of those changes will come at a price and simply ignoring that to bolster the case of the benefit is a tough sell.

[bigmack]

It's no longer rigged. I think that's a great thing.
That's why InsCo stocks are up, up, up? One week before the Mass election Coakley was at a major fund raising event teaming with InsCo donors to her campaign. How odd :rolleyes:

Cause & effect. It's all so wonderful that those of your party run around claiming to champion causes for the little guy and sick children. It makes sense to a 9 year old. Darn shame things are more complicated than just a Neanderthal view, "InsCo makem too much money, sick kid now get insurance", we do good thing."

NEWSBREAK: Things are more complicated than that.

[NJ Stinks]

That's why InsCo stocks are up, up, up? One week before the Mass election Coakley was at a major fund raising event teaming with InsCo donors to her campaign. How odd :rolleyes:

Cause & effect. It's all so wonderful that those of your party run around claiming to champion causes for the little guy and sick children. It makes sense to a 9 year old. Darn shame things are more complicated than just a Neanderthal view, "InsCo makem too much money, sick kid now get insurance", we do good thing."

NEWSBREAK: Things are more complicated than that.

First off, I was talking about kids. Period. Secondly, I don't care that it's going to cost more money. I'd rather spend my money on healthcare for other Americans than Iraqis any day. And third, I could care less that you are afraid it might cost you a few bucks. Too bad. Write your Congressman.

[Tom]

The fact remains that the game was rigged in favor of the insurers. It's no longer rigged. I think that's a great thing.

The fact remains...you have no proof of anything you posted - just your opinion, with no data, no nothing. You can't even tell what YOUR definition of too much profit is or what acceptable profit is. Bwaaaaak!

[bigmack]

First off, I was talking about kids. Period. Secondly, I don't care that it's going to cost more money. I'd rather spend my money on healthcare for other Americans than Iraqis any day. And third, I could care less that you are afraid it might cost you a few bucks. Too bad. Write your Congressman.
You don't get it. Typical simpleton Dem. Have you heard anything about AT&T, John Deere, & on...? If 100,000 people loose their jobs, tough titties, sick children are now covered? :D

It could have been done so much better without all the fallout.

What's 'too bad' is that your clowns pushed this rubbish through and the consequences are forthcoming.

[NJ Stinks]

You don't get it. Typical simpleton Dem. Have you heard anything about AT&T, John Deere, & on...? If 100,000 people loose their jobs, tough titties, sick children are now covered? :D

It could have been done so much better without all the fallout.

What's 'too bad' is that your clowns pushed this rubbish through and the consequences are forthcoming.

Like I said, write your Congressman.

Meanwhile, I'll wait and see how this whole thing plays out.

[newtothegame]

So you are saying that the costs of health care have gone up every year in Canada, and since Canada has what you consider to be a Socialist health Care system that is the cause of the increase. Conversely the United States has a capitalist Health Care system and we all know the free market keeps costs down.
EXCEPT
http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm
Scroll down to exihibit 2
You can do the math yourself if you don't believe me.
From 1970 to 1980 costs in Canada increased 161.8% In the United States they increased 204.5%
From 1980 t0 1990 it was 121.8% in Canada and 156.7% in the US
From 1990 to 2003 72.5% in Canada vs. 107.5% in the USA
Another way to look at it:
In the 70s costs in the United States increased 47.7% more than they did in Canada.
In the 80s that figure was 34.9% and it was 35% from 1990 to 2003.
This was all per capita.
And we started out with higher costs in 1970.
Now scroll down to exhibit 5 and you will see that the United States spends a much greater perxentage of GDP on health care than any other country.

Finally...an answer...even though you thought I was looking for something else. I knew it would come along.
Stay with me here....in this healthcare plan, everyone will be able to CHOOSE to keep their own plan if the want right??? Thats what you and the rest of the libs have been screaming and us on the right said Bull****. They may have a choice on paper, but the companies wouldnt go that route and the people would ultimately be forced into a single payer, government run system.
Look up at what our resident expert from Canada said...( Thanks zil) ...he does not know ANYONE that is not on the government system unless is for dentistry or pharmacuetical.
Wait...how can this be if everyone has a choice?. You mean to tell me no one liked their current provider??? Now if ya just take this a little further....how are those PRIVATE (non government run) health insurance companies doing in canada??? They maintaining and competing well against the government run plans???
And you say I am hard to reach??? lol
Course now you will probably come back and say zilly mispoke or somehow I misinterpreted that lol.

[JustRalph]

Only in New Jersey would making a profit be referred to as "being rigged"

It's called Capitalism........a profit margin is expected.

[newtothegame]

Waxman and Stupak want answers regarding the "math" they don't understand. Implying that somehow these major corporations have somehow not told the truth to the american people. So now they want "answers"...!!! ????
This coming after the healthcare bill which neither one can still tell us what the "math" is???? lmao.....INCREDIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AT&T, Deere CEOs Called by Waxman to Back Up Health-Bill Costs

March 27, 2010, 7:28 PM EDT

March 27 (Bloomberg) -- Representative Henry Waxman called the chief executive officers of AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc., Caterpillar Inc. and Deere & Co. to provide evidence to support costs the companies plan to book related to the new health-care law.

Waxman of California, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and subcommittee Chairman Bart Stupak of Michigan released letters they wrote to the executives, saying their plans to record expenses against earnings as a result of the law contradict other estimates. The lawmakers requested the executives appear at hearing Stupak plans on April 21.

“The new law is designed to expand coverage and bring down costs, so your assertions are a matter of concern,” Waxman and Stupak, both Democrats, wrote in the letters yesterday. “They also appear to conflict with independent analyses.”

AT&T, the biggest U.S. phone company, is among employers that have announced plans to book costs related to the health- care law signed this week by President Barack Obama. The 10- year, $940-billion legislation is intended to cover 32 million uninsured Americans and provide benefits such as restricting premiums and ending the practice of denying coverage for pre- existing conditions.

Dallas-based AT&T said in a regulatory filing yesterday it would record $1 billion of costs, the most of any U.S. company so far.

AT&T previously received a tax-free benefit from the government to subsidize health-care costs for retirees. Under the new bill, AT&T will no longer be able to deduct that subsidy.

Tax Burden

“As a result of this legislation, including the additional tax burden, AT&T will be evaluating prospective changes to the active and retiree health-care benefits offered by the company,” the carrier said in the filing.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-27/at-t-deere-ceos-called-by-waxman-to-back-up-health-bill-costs.html