Quoted from CICERO

What?  Write a policy stupid Americans can't comprehend?  Yes!  Americans are getting their premium rates because of this.  If they want the stipulations of the policy - READ IT - don't b**ch after.

WHAT?  Can't you just read and answer? The discussion is that insurance companies can cancel
insurers based on a generic umbrella called pre-existing condition. So if you don't report you
were treated for a hangnail, and develop colon cancer, they can cancel you.
(1) Do you agree this is a practice that should be illegal? Do you agree that insurance companies should
be allowed to do this or not?
(2) Do you believe the definition needs to be specific and clarified to be fully understood?
(3) Do you understand that ACA (as I understand it) allows to be insured WIHOUT CONSIDERATION OF ANY
PRE-EXISTING CONDITION, which is a good part of the legislation?

Quoted from joebxr

WHAT?  Can't you just read and answer? The discussion is that insurance companies can cancel
insurers based on a generic umbrella called pre-existing condition. So if you don't report you
were treated for a hangnail, and develop colon cancer, they can cancel you.
(1) Do you agree this is a practice that should be illegal? Do you agree that insurance companies should
be allowed to do this or not?
(2) Do you believe the definition needs to be specific and clarified to be fully understood?
(3) Do you understand that ACA (as I understand it) allows to be insured WIHOUT CONSIDERATION OF ANY
PRE-EXISTING CONDITION, which is a good part of the legislation?

We're talking about cancellation of current policies for illness.  Not denial of policies.  The cancelations are based on not following the policy conditions for treatment signed when you agree to the policy...Do you believe it's up to the insurer or the policy holder for the conditions of their agreement?  

Quoted from Box A Rox

Yes on page 117 paragraph 43, line 7 clearly states that they can deny any claim for any
reason if it's submitted on a day that ends in the letter "Y".  
Clearly, they should have read their plan.

One of those "low cost" plans that do not meet even minimum standards, that the GOP
wants you to keep.

LOL...So you side with the stupid American that agrees to those terms.  You don't want to hold the suckers responsible. Maybe if Americans had a decent education(which you believe the public education system offers) a person wouldn't be stupid enough to agree and pay for that policy.  But, like usual, you are stupid, so you assume everybody is stupid, so government needs to make everything idiot proof.

Quoted from Box A Rox

The Number of denied claims (once you've been cancelled) is 0.  It's the Republican Health Care Plan...
"Just go somewhere and die... preferably somewhere away from me so I don't have to see it or
listen to it... Just die!

Nice rhetoric.  Diversion...You don't want to face the facts.

Quoted from CICERO

We're talking about cancellation of current policies for illness.  Not denial of policies.  The cancelations are based on not following the policy conditions for treatment signed when you agree to the policy...Do you believe it's up to the insurer or the policy holder for the conditions of their agreement?  

No, we're speaking about the quote you dispute as being propaganda and the
underlying issue...cancellations due to pre-existing conditions....nice diversion...try
answering the questions!

Quoted from joebxr

No, we're speaking about the quote you dispute as being propaganda and the
underlying issue...cancellations due to pre-existing conditions....nice diversion...try
answering the questions!

What the f*** are you talking about?  A person takes an insurance policy and discloses all their medical history so the insurance company can underwrite them appropriately.  You suggested that a person that doesn't honestly disclose their medical records of their visit to a dermatologist, and you believe it is the insurance companies responsibility to cover the person that wasn't honest on their application?  
As you stated below

Quoted from joebxr

Bend rules?  Get real. Why would YOU believe that you need to inform the insurance company
that you visited a dermatologist as being categorized as pre-existing condition so that
allows them to cancel you with breast cancer?  How about you don't report you went to
the doctor and were treated for a cold, and now you develop prostate cancer, so the
insurance company can cancel you and deny paying for your treatment because you didn't
tell them you had a cold and were treated for it!

Hey Joey, are you ok that a person go an insure a vehicle and doesn't disclose they had a DUI?  Is that ok?  Sure they received a lower rate by not disclosing that information, but should the  person be covered in full?  They weren't paying the proper premium because they never disclosed their risk.  That is ridiculous. You are suggesting that it is ok for a person to deceive the insurance underwriter to get a lower rate, then when the insurance company catches you in the lie and denies the claim, you call the policyholder that lied on the application a victim.  

This is what the f*** is wrong with America.  Everybody is an f'n victim.  

OK Cissyboy...play your game.
Don't address the questions or the true points,
spin them your way...go back and read what was said
and what was asked...not what you are diverting it to be!!!
You complain on not having an honest discussion, I try, and you
play your games....well, play solo!!

Quoted from joebxr

OK Cissyboy...play your game.
Don't address the questions or the true points,
spin them your way...go back and read what was said
and what was asked...not what you are diverting it to be!!!
You complain on not having an honest discussion, I try, and you
play your games....well, play solo!!

Checkmate...what you call games is dismantling your logic.  You are advocating for the person that lied on their application.  You don't care why somebody didn't disclose WHY they went to the dermatologist.  You just think the person that develops melanoma 2 years later should be covered.  Even though they never paid their "fair share " for their risk.

No diversion Joey, I just caught you justifying insurance fraud.

You caught squat Cissyboy...you just have to be in total control
and make every thread YOURS! You've been exposed for the
control freak you are. Never meet a discussion head on if you
can't have it your way.  You avoided the issue and
spun it Cissyboy's direction....avoided the issue preented;
avoided answering the questions; avoided having an adult discussion.
Cissyboy's games; Cissyboy's rules....solo is a familiar thing for you so ENJOY!!!!
Have a great Thanksgiving...YOUR WAY!!!

Quoted from joebxr

(1) Do you agree this is a practice that should be illegal? Do you agree that insurance companies should
be allowed to do this or not?

Yes , it should be illegal to be covered if you do not disclose medical treatments if it was required by the underwriter.  It's falsifying information, and penalizes all the other people insured in the risk pool that did not lie.  

Quoted from joebxr

(2) Do you believe the definition needs to be specific and clarified to be fully understood?

It's up to the policy holder to understand all agreements they sign.

Quoted from joebxr

(3) Do you understand that ACA (as I understand it) allows to be insured WIHOUT CONSIDERATION OF ANY PRE-EXISTING CONDITION, which is a good part of the legislation?

The ACA does consider pre existing conditions.  People are put into a higher risk pool.(not really risk pool, but subsidy pool)  The difference is , the mandate and penalty force young healthy people to enter the risk pool, and subsidize the treatment of the pre existing conditions. As I said before, there is no such thing as insuring a pre existing condition.  It's like buying fire insurance after your house is already on fire.  

Quoted from CICERO

Yes , it should be illegal to be covered if you do not disclose medical treatments if it was required by the underwriter.  It's falsifying information, and penalizes all the other people insured in the risk pool that did not lie.  

It's up to the policy holder to understand all agreements they sign.

The ACA does consider pre existing conditions.  People are put into a higher risk pool.(not really risk pool, but subsidy pool)  The difference is , the mandate and penalty force young healthy people to enter the risk pool, and subsidize the treatment of the pre existing conditions. As I said before, there is no such thing as insuring a pre existing condition.  It's like buying fire insurance after your house is already on fire.  

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ROFLMAO!!!!....Another one of those 'unreasonable' demands that the GOP made during the debt dispute that the WH and Dems were unwilling to negotiate.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/online-shop-enrollment-delayed-by-one-year-100438.html

Quoted Text

Small business Obamacare online enrollment delayed a year

The Obama administration today announced a one year delay of online enrollment for small businesses looking to purchase health coverage through federal Obamacare exchanges, another high-profile setback for HealthCare.gov.

It’s the second delay for online small business enrollment, which the administration had said would begin this month.

Amazing that all this stuff is getting pushed back until after the Nov. '14 elections

More people getting screwed over by Obamacare....

Quoted Text

Large employers cite Obamacare 'Cadillac' tax in reducing benefits

By Talesha Reynolds and Lisa Myers
NBC News

For 75 million Americans who get their insurance through large companies, the Affordable Care Act is a mixed bag.  Experts tell NBC News the new healthcare law is only slightly increasing premiums next year, but causing some companies with the most generous plans to reduce their employees’ benefits.

Aaron Baker, 36, his wife Billie and their two young children are covered under a generous health insurance plan offered by the private Midwestern university where he’s worked for 10 years. When they opened their benefits notice this year, they were pleased to see their $385 premium is only up by four dollars next year. However, they were shocked to discover that instead of covering the first dollar they spend with no deductible, the Baker’s plan now includes a $1,000 deductible and a $2,500 out of pocket maximum. They also will still have small co-pays for services.

Quoted from CICERO

The ACA does consider pre existing conditions.  

Quoted from senders

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OOPS...no BINGO!  FALSE ALARM...FALSE INFORMATION!
It's far from perfect and far from being implemented well...but it's a step in the right direction!

Quoted Text

The Affordable Care Act forces insurance companies to play by the rules, prohibiting them from discriminating against anyone with a
pre-existing condition, dropping your coverage if you get sick, billing you into bankruptcy because of an illness or
injury, and limiting your annual or lifetime benefits.

Quoted Text

Starting in 2014, the Affordable Care Act will prohibit health insurers from charging more or denying coverage to people because of pre-existing conditions. It will also make charging women more for health insurance a thing of the past.

Quoted Text

No more pre-existing condition denials for children: The parents of over 17.6 million children with
pre-existing conditions no longer have to worry that their children will be denied coverage because of a
pre-existing condition.

Quoted Text

Insurance companies can no longer deny coverage to children because of a pre-existing condition. And
in 2014, discriminating against anyone with a pre-existing condition will be prohibited.

Quoted Text

Obamacare pool spending exposes the myth of the uninsured

So, where are we now, almost two years after the law’s passage? A new report from the Department of Health and Human Services, brought to our attention by Sarah Kliff, gives us the stats for the PPACA Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan, or PCIP. After Obamacare became law, in November 2010, government officials estimated that they would spend $13,026 per high-risk pool enrollee. Nine months later, in August 2011, they revised their estimate to $28,994 per enrollee: a 123 percent increase.

And PCIP hasn’t enrolled a ton of people: only 48,879 as of December 2011. Keep that number in mind: effectively, in 2010, the federal government substantially rearranged the American health care system, which affects 300 million people, in order to help 48,879.

The typical high-risk pool patient suffered from serious, but relatively common, ailments: cancer (27 percent of total spending), cardiovascular disease (19 percent), rehabilitative care (18 percent), and degenerative joint diseases such as arthritis (14 percent).

The program’s performance explodes some of the myths around the uninsured population. According to the 2010 Census, 55 percent of the uninsured population under 65 is comprised of young people below the age of 35. However, only 21 percent of those who enrolled in Obamacare’s high-risk pools were younger than 35
.


Step back for a minute and digest that. We’re constantly told about how dangerous it is that 50 million people in America go without health insurance. And there’s no doubt our system could be better organized. But most people who go without health insurance in America are healthy young people who don’t qualify for the high-risk pools. It is precisely these people(young and healthy) who Obamacare discriminates against, by forcing them to pay more for their insurance so that older people can pay less.

This is a consequence of the law’s “community rating” provision, which requires that insurers charge young people no more than three times what they charge older people, despite the fact that older people have much greater health expenses. Community rating is destined to increase the number of people who are uninsured, because it is young people who endure the highest unemployment rate and lowest net worth.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/th.....overnment-estimates/