Today's Insurance Changes

[jasonxctf]

anyone take issue with any of these? if so, which ones and why?

 

 

 

Setting aside the question of the long-term impact of the new law, Surge Desk outlines the list of the initial changes that will go into effect on Thursday.

 

1. Insurance companies will no longer be able to deny children coverage for pre-existing conditions.

 

2. Children of parents with insurance will be allowed to remain covered under those policies until the age of 26.

 

3. Insurance companies will be forbidden from terminating coverage for any other reason than customer fraud.

 

4. Insurance companies will no longer be able to cap the amount of benefits and treatment a person can receive in a lifetime.

 

5. Insurers can no longer charge customers for preventive services like mammograms and colonoscopies.

 

6. High-risk pools are mandated to cover those who have been denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

This is going to bankrupt and ruin the best healthcare system in the world!

 

And in response to #1, a lot of insurance companies are simply dropping the child-only plans. Why, again, should we stick with a for-profit model for insurance?

[southsider2k5]

This is going to bankrupt and ruin the best healthcare system in the world!

 

And in response to #1, a lot of insurance companies are simply dropping the child-only plans. Why, again, should we stick with a for-profit model for insurance?

 

Which is exactly the plan. This is why these kind of provisions are the first coming on-line. They want to drive the private companies out of business so that they can step in as the government. Obama knew public opinion couldn't do it all at once, so they instead made sure they would do it in steps, demonizing all of the way, just like anything else the Democrats want to control.

[jasonxctf]

This is going to bankrupt and ruin the best healthcare system in the world!

 

And in response to #1, a lot of insurance companies are simply dropping the child-only plans. Why, again, should we stick with a for-profit model for insurance?

 

with a child on the way, I was curious about this. So people will go out there and find a different insurance company just for their child?

 

So for example, they would be on Aetna and the child would be on Blue Cross Blue Shield?

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Darn. Wouldn't that just be terrible? Who will deny children health insurance then?!

 

Really I suspect that we'll all be stuck with essentially the same terrible insurance system we currently have with some minor changes.

[StrangeSox]

with a child on the way, I was curious about this. So people will go out there and find a different insurance company just for their child?

 

So for example, they would be on Aetna and the child would be on Blue Cross Blue Shield?

 

If you were an actually-small business owner or otherwise self-employed, or you didn't have health insurance through your employer, you would probably want coverage for your child even if you couldn't afford a whole family plan. These child-only plans would typically have a ton of loopholes to deny care for even routine items and of course for any "pre-existing condition".

 

Now, instead of offering these plans without being able to deny for pre-existing conditions, a lot of companies are simply not offering these plans. So it's whole family or nothing.

[StrangeSox]

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_16120503

 

Health-insurance companies are raising rates in Colorado, ending sales of child-only policies and blaming their actions in part on the federal health reform law, moves that regulators call "bizarre" and consumer advocates are vowing to watch.

 

The election-season changes by insurers come as Democrats and Republicans escalate harsh rhetoric on the reforms passed in March.

 

The White House has already warned companies against unjustified rate hikes.

 

At least six major companies — including Anthem, Aetna, Cigna and Humana — have said they will stop writing new policies for individual children not covered by their parents' or other plans, insurance officials said.

 

They blamed health reform mandates taking effect Thursday requiring companies that write such policies as of that date to also cover sick children up to age 19.

 

Some of the same insurers, meanwhile, have filed proposed rate increases with Colorado for individual policies, hiking premiums by up to 27 percent, regulators said.

 

UnitedHealthcare has asked for an 8.3 percent increase in large-group plans, affecting 71,400 people; it also asked for 20.5 percent increases for 241 individuals.

 

Aetna, in one plan covering 22,500 people in Colorado, wants a 12.5 percent average boost. Other group plans from Aetna ask for 26.4 percent hikes covering 6,600 people.

 

Aetna regional spokeswoman Anjie Coplin said in a statement, "Health insurance premiums are a direct reflection of the cost of health care services, in terms of both the cost or price of services and the increased use of health care services by our members."

 

The company added, "As a country, we must get costs under control. We are directly engaged in those efforts."

 

http://www.latimes.com/health/la-fi-kids-h...,0,799167.story

 

Big health insurers to stop selling new child-only policies

 

Anthem Blue Cross, Aetna Inc. and others say they will make the move as soon as Thursday when parts of the new healthcare law take effect. They cite potentially huge and unexpected costs for insuring children.

 

Major health insurance companies in California and other states have decided to stop selling policies for children rather than comply with a new federal healthcare law that bars them from rejecting youngsters with preexisting medical conditions.

 

Anthem Blue Cross, Aetna Inc. and others will halt new child-only policies in California, Illinois, Florida, Connecticut and elsewhere as early as Thursday when provisions of the nation's new healthcare law take effect, including a requirement that insurers cover children under age 19 regardless of their health histories.

 

The action will apply only to new coverage sought for children and not to existing child-only plans, family policies or insurance provided to youngsters through their parents' employers. An estimated 80,000 California children currently without insurance — and as many as 500,000 nationwide — would be affected, according to experts.

 

Best system in the world!

 

I don't expect this "reform" to really be all that effective on the whole because we're still using the same rotten foundation for all of it.

[Balta1701]

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_16120503

 

 

 

http://www.latimes.com/health/la-fi-kids-h...,0,799167.story

Just remember when people start screaming that the 25% rate increases are because of the ACA...they were proposing 25% rate increases before the bill passed. 25% rate increases every couple years has been the norm for the past 20 years.

 

[jasonxctf]

If you were an actually-small business owner or otherwise self-employed, or you didn't have health insurance through your employer, you would probably want coverage for your child even if you couldn't afford a whole family plan. These child-only plans would typically have a ton of loopholes to deny care for even routine items and of course for any "pre-existing condition".

 

Now, instead of offering these plans without being able to deny for pre-existing conditions, a lot of companies are simply not offering these plans. So it's whole family or nothing.

 

interesting. my wife has group insurance with BCBS. I have a indiv policy with them too. We called to do an analysis of which policy was better for the baby. Even though her policy will cost more to add the baby, then me to add the baby, we chose hers. The big issue was that I don't have maternity coverage with mine, so there would be this cluster of bills/charges immediately after birth bouncing back and forth between policies.

 

So the plan is, to keep the baby on my wife's until next year, (enrollment period) and then add her to mine to save the $.

[Balta1701]

So the plan is, to keep the baby on my wife's until next year, (enrollment period) and then add her to mine to save the $.

I'd just like to note...any system set up that requires decisions like this is inherently unstable, cost-ineffective, and bizarre. The ACA won't change that.

[Balta1701]

Which is exactly the plan. This is why these kind of provisions are the first coming on-line. They want to drive the private companies out of business so that they can step in as the government. Obama knew public opinion couldn't do it all at once, so they instead made sure they would do it in steps, demonizing all of the way, just like anything else the Democrats want to control.

I think it's worth pointing out that the Republican "Pledge to America" plan announced today includes these clauses about what they want to do with health care:

“We will make it illegal for an insurance company to deny coverage to someone with prior coverage on the basis of a pre-­‐existing condition.” (p. 15)

 

“[E]liminate annual and lifetime spending caps” (p.15)

 

“[P]revent insurers from dropping your coverage just because you get sick.” (p.15)

If you'll note...some of the things that they want to do that I've noted here are the exact things which break the insurance companies and force everyone on to Meciare. You make pre-existing condition denial illegal without some sort of mandate to have insurance, you break the system. Same reason why you'd drop a child-only plan the moment they make pre-existing condition coverage for children mandatory; if a 2 year old gets sick, then you buy insurance, not before.

 

While you may want to demonize the Democrats for this part...the Republicans want the exact same thing because it's hideous policy to not do so...they just are willing to pretend that it wouldn't kill the system entirely, while the ACA worked around that problem.

[Rex Kickass]

Which is exactly the plan. This is why these kind of provisions are the first coming on-line. They want to drive the private companies out of business so that they can step in as the government. Obama knew public opinion couldn't do it all at once, so they instead made sure they would do it in steps, demonizing all of the way, just like anything else the Democrats want to control.

 

I wish that was the plan, but I'm trying to figure out how requiring insurance companies to have 31 million additional customers within the next five years is going to bankrupt insurance companies.

[Soxbadger]

And by customers you mean 31 million who they will gladly charge premiums one day, while the next day they try to deny every claim the customer submits.

 

Ive got a lot of sad stories about insurance companies.

[Balta1701]

And by customers you mean 31 million who they will gladly charge premiums one day, while the next day they try to deny every claim the customer submits.

In theory we've banned that too. In practice...we'll see.

[Iwritecode]

Same reason why you'd drop a child-only plan the moment they make pre-existing condition coverage for children mandatory; if a 2 year old gets sick, then you buy insurance, not before.

 

Kids have tons of required shots from the day they are born through high school. I'm not sure that many people would go without insurance until the kid actually gets sick.

[Balta1701]

Kids have tons of required shots from the day they are born through high school. I'm not sure that many people would go without insurance until the kid actually gets sick.

Have you noted what the cost of an actual insurance policy for a child in the individual market? You're talking about several thousand dollars, maybe over 10k if the child is in a high risk group. The cost of those shots would pale in comparison to the several thousand dollars you could pocket.

[Iwritecode]

Have you noted what the cost of an actual insurance policy for a child in the individual market? You're talking about several thousand dollars, maybe over 10k if the child is in a high risk group. The cost of those shots would pale in comparison to the several thousand dollars you could pocket.

 

Actually I haven't because I'm lucky enough to only pay $30 a month for my kids.

 

I don't know how much the actual shots cost but if you have 2 or 3 kids and add in the costs of doctor visits I'm sure it can get pretty pricey.

 

My wife and I have run the risk of going without insurance for years. We know we are playing with fire if either one of us ever gets sick or hurt. I just don't know how many people would actually take that same risk with their kids.

 

If your kid falls and breaks his/her arm playing at school during recess you're gonna wish you had insurance before it happened becuase it's too late when you are sitting in the emergency room.

Edited September 23, 2010 by Iwritecode

[jasonxctf]

Have you noted what the cost of an actual insurance policy for a child in the individual market? You're talking about several thousand dollars, maybe over 10k if the child is in a high risk group. The cost of those shots would pale in comparison to the several thousand dollars you could pocket.

 

Not sure if its the same thing or not, but adding a child to my individual plan at BCBS was going to cost $1,700 per year. My plan costs $2,400 per year including Dental.

[Balta1701]

Not sure if its the same thing or not, but adding a child to my individual plan at BCBS was going to cost $1,700 per year. My plan costs $2,400 per year including Dental.

Adding a single person to a plan costs significantly less than a plan for just 1 person in most cases.

[StrangeSox]

Kids have tons of required shots from the day they are born through high school. I'm not sure that many people would go without insurance until the kid actually gets sick.

 

Many people can't afford to do otherwise without the help of programs like SCHIP.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

Single Payer Universal Healthcare.... Single Payer Universal Healthcare.... Single Payer Universal Healthcare....

[Iwritecode]

Many people can't afford to do otherwise without the help of programs like SCHIP.

 

Which means the kids are covered.

 

Which also means that the parents won't be signing up for/dropping coverage every time the kid gets sick.

[Texsox]

The government puts policies in place to protect consumers from the insurance companies.

 

What should the insurance companies do?

hmmm

 

Maybe jack up rates, cancel product offering, and blame it on the government so the regulations are dropped?!