Santorum lost my vote.
03-18-2012, 02:23 PM
#161
One of the many reasons health-insurance costs so much is because of extremely expensive chronic conditions. HIV treatment is a huge monthly cost that I don't need coverage for, it's that simple. However, HIV is one of the many illnesses that must be covered because precluding coverage of this illness is consider "discrimination". This logic applies to many other behavior related diseases that I will never contract because I don't engage in most behavior related vulnerabilities like unprotected gay sex, tobacco, chemical addiction, and others.
First off, I have been trying to find federal regulations that force Insurance Companies to not offer A La Carte plans. I have been having a great deal of trouble finding them, and am currently reading as much as I can on it. The closest I can find is Obamacare requiring insurance companies to allow the insured to extend their coverage to other family members, not being able to deny people coverage for pre-existing conditions that they are insured for, etc.. As far as I can tell, the reason why insurance companies do not offer a la carte plans is because the packages are much more lucrative profit wise - this is similar to how cable companies do not want to, under any circumstances, offer a la carte plans. Their packages are extremely lucrative.
Secondly, and this is the untrue part of the above: There are certain services that are required to be provided with insurance. But you don't pay for them if you aren't part of the risk pool or aren't the right sex, Hustly. Your entire argument seems to be based on "But I pay X for Y!". Perhaps I'm being slightly disingenuous there - according to the information provided from one insurance company, they charge under a dollar per quarter for AIDS and HIV coverage if you are a healthy male in your early 30s with good health, and no prior medical history putting you at risk for this. Granted, most insurance companies simply do not provide this information. But what I pay for HIV, AIDS, STD, etc. coverage cost is very, very minimal according to my insurance company - and that's because I'm not in a risk pool that is at risk for them. Another good example is that the pool I am in does not pay for women's healthcare - not a dime. Although, inversely, I pay a fair amount for male-specific healthcare.
Ultimately, I agree with you in a way, but I've been unable to find any specific federal regulation that, as an example, forces you to get AIDS or HIV coverage in your insurance plan. In theory, a health insurance company could offer you a plan without that coverage based on what I've read - in fact, I believe in theory there is no legal reason a health insurance company could not tailor a plan that is exactly what you are demanding here. The "a la carte" legislative proposals from the Republicans in Washington don't actually have much to do at all with what you are talking about.
P.S. I'm going to hit on states rights for a moment. The attempt to allow health insurance companies to offer health insurance across states (Which is tightly related to a la carte plans) is actually an assault on states rights and an attempt to consolidate more power in the federal government - we saw an identical situation with loans and credit cards in the '70s and '80s. It's nothing more than a federal power grab being pitched as a way to save money, which I think is a load of ----. Taking more power out of the hands of the states and putting it in federal hands is a poor ------- excuse to "save money" on. Politicians repeatedly make this a major part of the so-called "a la carte" plans.
Reply
0
0
03-18-2012, 02:35 PM
#162
http://host.madison.com/news/local/h...cc4c03286.html
An addition to the above - Wisconsin had no problem offering out of state plans OR a la carte plans via legislation.
Any state can currently allow for that based on what I've read. Why do you want to introduce federal regulations to do that, Hustler, when the states already have that power?
An addition to the above - Wisconsin had no problem offering out of state plans OR a la carte plans via legislation.
Any state can currently allow for that based on what I've read. Why do you want to introduce federal regulations to do that, Hustler, when the states already have that power?
Reply
0
0
03-18-2012, 02:37 PM
#163
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
http://host.madison.com/news/local/h...cc4c03286.html
An addition to the above - Wisconsin had no problem offering out of state plans OR a la carte plans via legislation.
Any state can currently allow for that based on what I've read. Why do you want to introduce federal regulations to do that, Hustler, when the states already have that power?
An addition to the above - Wisconsin had no problem offering out of state plans OR a la carte plans via legislation.
Any state can currently allow for that based on what I've read. Why do you want to introduce federal regulations to do that, Hustler, when the states already have that power?
Reply
0
0
03-18-2012, 02:43 PM
#164
A state can (theoretically) legalize out of state insurers and a la carte plans today. State regulations are the primary bar of that, not federal. As I posted above, Wisconsin had no problem putting the legislation in and through consideration.
P.S. Props to your original post for making me research this. I thought it was federal regulations that were the source of an inability to offer a la carte insurance and state line limitations.
Reply
0
0
03-18-2012, 03:15 PM
#165
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
This is very true, but I would postulate that it is at least in part a result of the health insurance companies trying to continually insert themselves in at all levels of the health insurance system.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...y-father/7617/
Let me use an example. In several states, they used to let people pay a cash price that was substantially lower than their posted insurance rates.
Then the insurance companies lobbied the legislature to make it illegal to do it. The bills passed.
Then the insurance companies lobbied the legislature to make it illegal to do it. The bills passed.
in part due to the health insurance companies actions - including them lobbying legislators to get laws passed that make them required to have.
Reply
0
0
03-19-2012, 10:02 AM
#169
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
This clearly shows the GOP's problem this year.
You can have a guy like this:
or a guy like this:
Policy aside, one guy is an annoying douche and the other is a beer drinking, Moslim socialist, America hating, succubus who I'd rather hang out with.
You can have a guy like this:
or a guy like this:
Policy aside, one guy is an annoying douche and the other is a beer drinking, Moslim socialist, America hating, succubus who I'd rather hang out with.
Reply
0
0
