By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 05 November 2009
Edit Thread
ckmlb said:
Kasz216 said:
ckmlb said:
 

 

You didn't actually read my post then, cause your bringing up a bunch of stuff that doesn't actually refer to what i said.  Additionally you should read the offical detailed AMA stance you can find and download on their webpage in about 5 minutes.  It's a lot different then you think it is.

The AARP supports this reform beacuse it includes a provision that increases medicaid and medicare benefits.  AARP members mostly being a part of medicaid and/or medicare anyway... making this entire revision meaningless to them.

 

As for why rates will go up... i'll start with one reason.  The simpliest, rather then resort to numerous reasons since that approach leads to them being ignored.

 

1) You can't discriminate against people with prexisting conditions.  Meaning you can't charge anyone with a prexisitng condition a different rate then a normal person.

A) This means the cost needs to be mitigated to everyone.  Meaning for average people, your healthcare insurance will go up.

B) May push smaller insraunce companies out of buisness who can't afford having too many people collect and could only afford to insure healthy people.  Making less competition and the bigger companies the only competition.  The bigger companies being the ones rated poorly for healthcare coverage by the AMA.

 

Them and the US government.

Fun fact.  According to the America Medial Assosiation's National Healthcare Report Card the US government was 1st in denials on average for coverge in 2007... and second in denials on average for 2008 compared to other major healthcare providers.

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/solutions-managing-your-practice/coding-billing-insurance/heal-claims-process/national-health-insurer-report-card.shtml

If the AMA thought this legistlation was more of a threat than terrorism as you do, I think they would have not supported it. 

I do understand that costs would go up and that's clear to everybody, but on the other hand the current state of affairs is unfair to people with pre-existing conditions and people with no health coverage. If an insurance company is supposed to insure only the healthy what's the point of insurance? Only for accidents? If that is the case these companies should call themselves accident insurance companies or something of the sort, not healthcare providers.

 

People with prexisting conditions can get healthcare covrage.  It's just more expesnive.

That's how all insurance works.

If your more likely to be in a car accident, it's more expensive for you to get car insurance.

If it looks like your going to die sooner, it's more expensive for you to get life insurance.

If your house is in a more dangerous area it's more expensive for you to get house insurance.

Here is another question though.  Why should healthy people get insurance if you get charged the same for a prexisting condition?

Why, get healthinsurance now... when healthy, when I can wait until i actually need my health insurance to get it?

Additionally, that doesn't actually adress the issue on why healthcare insurance will cost more.  Your basically conceding the argument.

 

Why is the AMA supporting this?   Politics.  I mean, it's fun to note that they were against the very same plan up till aboute June of this year... and espiecally against ALL public healthcare options.

 

What they want is a public option that will insure everyone for near free so they can make more money since they often don't collect on uninsured people.  That an a uniform law for insurance forms.  Doctors spend like 15% of what they make in paperwork help.