Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (129601)	1/29/2010 1:01:27 PM
From: Katelew	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541933

Thanks, Tim. Good information. I was already in agreement on the blowback for guaranteed-issue states. I have a child, single and uninsured, who lives in NYC. Not only is she resisting getting a policy in that state, so far she has found it cheaper to simply fly home and get an annual physical, a mammogram, an eye exam, and have her teeth cleaned by all the docs she had here before she left. The discussion of mandates was interesting, though. Lane had brought up before the imposition of state regulations on the contents of policies. This was something that I wasn't fully aware of before. Something else I have suspected was being overstated in the debate surrounding HCR was the ability of insurers to drop people after they get sick. I know fraud, such as hiding a pre-existing condition or a habit like smoking, will enable an insurer to drop folks, but I think there are laws in place in every state to prevent insurers from just dropping anyone they choose after they start losing money on that person's illnesses. Do you know anything much on this?

To: TimF who wrote (129601)	1/30/2010 10:27:00 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541933

>>The last number, 4662, is the number of a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives, introduced in 2004 by Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ). It is called "Creating Healthier Options in Insurance through Choice and Efficiency," or the CHOICE Act. The legislation would allow people living in one state to buy health insurance approved and available to people in other states. It would permit a person to buy health insurance across state lines.<< I was aware of that bill. With Republican control of Congress, this bill did not pass. It's true that guaranteed issue requirements cause premiums to rise. So what to do? Shall we just keep out of the way and let insurance companies deny coverage to people who are more likely to end up needing it? I can't think of a solution that involves relying on for-profit insurance companies to provide coverage AND offers people who have certain conditions or histories a path to affordable healthcare on an ongoing basis, AND doesn't cause everyone's premiums to rise. Allowing people to buy insurance across state lines isn't going to help.