Moving Forward on Basic Income

Re:Moving Forward on Basic Income by webXL on Wednesday June 01, 2016 @09:20AM (#11814097)

#1 is a legit reason for insurance. I'm having a hard time with #2 though. You elected to have a condition that others might have to eventually pay for. Now this was an extension of your dad's condition, so really his insurance company (pool) should pay for your condition's expenses, but with the help of Obamacare, all insurance companies are going to share in these expenses and raise their rates, and they can raise the rates more than their actual costs, because with all the new regulations, how many plans can you really choose from? So we now see healthcare providers laughing all the way to the bank, and a new form of guaranteed income for the insurance workforce. #1 and #2 shouldn't be in the same system. That's what needs to be repealed.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Moving Forward on Basic Income by JohnTHaller on Wednesday June 01, 2016 @12:43PM (#11815903)

The rules around "pre-existing conditions" are completely asinine. Under the old rules that Republicans would like to go back to, I'm covered as long as I don't have any period that I didn't have insurance since donating the kidney. However, if I temporarily lose health insurance and then get health insurance again, that kidney donation 16 years ago magically becomes a pre-existing condition again for a period of multiple years. Even though nothing at all happened in that short period I went without health insurance.

The kicker is, health insurance companies will use any pre-existing condition to get out of paying for just about everything. So, for example, if I wound up getting poly-cystic kidney disease, my insurance company would use the fact that I donated a kidney as a pre-existing condition to get out of paying for it. Even though it's completely unrelated and can't cause PKD. It's an out in their mind and they're going to take it.

Health insurance and medical care in the US is absurdly corrupt. That's why I wasn't allowed to leave the hospital without buying a walking boot from their provider. And their provider billed my insurance company $700. And the insurance company paid them $400. And then the provider billed me $100 and threatened to send me to collections if I didn't pay them. All for a walking boot that didn't fit, that I didn't use, and that I could have purchased from Amazon.com for $53 with free shipping.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Moving Forward on Basic Income by dragonwriter on Wednesday June 01, 2016 @12:53PM (#11815997)

> but with the help of Obamacare, all insurance companies are going to share in these expenses and raise their rates, and they can raise the rates more than their actual costs

Only if they are below the maximum premium profit-to-cost ratio (20/80), otherwise, they are going to have to refund the excess anyway, due to other provisions of the ACA.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Moving Forward on Basic Income by dllthomas on Wednesday June 01, 2016 @01:06PM (#11816115)

I really think the MLR cap was the biggest improvement Obamacare brought. It means keeping a genuinely expensive patient might mean your shareholders get to take home more money, so the incentive is "keep their business" rather than "treat them well enough that they can't successfully sue you for more than you'd have spent on them anyway."

[ Parent | on HN ]