Insurance companies are routinely forced to insure risks that they would not insure voluntarily. For example, in auto and workers compensation insurance, where coverage is required by law, often times the mechanism for insuring the uninsurable is a requirement that each insurer writing voluntary coverage participate in an assigned risk pool. Bad risks are "assigned" to the insurer based on their voluntary market share. Another mechanism might be a state fund. The point is that there are ways of insuring the uninsurable.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
can anyone dumb this down for me....
- Thread starter ladybug
- Start date
Insurance companies are routinely forced to insure risks that they would not insure voluntarily. For example, in auto and workers compensation insurance, where coverage is required by law, often times the mechanism for insuring the uninsurable is a requirement that each insurer writing voluntary coverage participate in an assigned risk pool. Bad risks are "assigned" to the insurer based on their voluntary market share. Another mechanism might be a state fund. The point is that there are ways of insuring the uninsurable.
Insurance companies are routinely forced to insure risks that they would not insure voluntarily. For example, in auto and workers compensation insurance, where coverage is required by law, often times the mechanism for insuring the uninsurable is a requirement that each insurer writing voluntary coverage participate in an assigned risk pool. Bad risks are "assigned" to the insurer based on their voluntary market share. Another mechanism might be a state fund. The point is that there are ways of insuring the uninsurable.
Insurance companies are routinely forced to insure risks that they would not insure voluntarily. For example, in auto and workers compensation insurance, where coverage is required by law, often times the mechanism for insuring the uninsurable is a requirement that each insurer writing voluntary coverage participate in an assigned risk pool. Bad risks are "assigned" to the insurer based on their voluntary market share. Another mechanism might be a state fund. The point is that there are ways of insuring the uninsurable.
Insurance companies are routinely forced to insure risks that they would not insure voluntarily. For example, in auto and workers compensation insurance, where coverage is required by law, often times the mechanism for insuring the uninsurable is a requirement that each insurer writing voluntary coverage participate in an assigned risk pool. Bad risks are "assigned" to the insurer based on their voluntary market share. Another mechanism might be a state fund. The point is that there are ways of insuring the uninsurable.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
NYCLawGirl
New member
Agreed, buttghe difference with things like worker's comp is that the risk is covered by (as you correctly point out) a larger pool. This is why the government can refuse to allow insurance cos to discriminate based on things like CF when the insured is an employee - because the insurance company is most likely going to earn more than it spends from all the other employees, it is still a winning situation for them to provide insurance to the employees who are bad risks. Similarly, it is overall a good thing for the insurance cos to provide auto insurance. Since all drivers must have it by law, the number of enrollees is pushed up. So then the insurance cos can afford the luxury of not refusing even bad risks (although they do almost always charge higher premiums, which was also a concern on this thread).
There are definitely ways of insuring CFers, and everyone else with chronic illness. In order to do so in a way that doesn't cause a loss, however, there has to be a way to "cover the difference" somehow. Right now I personally believe that workingto reform public healthcare is probably the best way to go about that, although as I said before I do see the advantage argument to private healthcare. But the point is neither candidate is supporting simply forcing private health insurance cos to provide insurance at the regular premiums to individual CFers. I frankly wish they were - it's a loss I wouldn't mind most large (and very wealthy) insurance cos taking.
There are definitely ways of insuring CFers, and everyone else with chronic illness. In order to do so in a way that doesn't cause a loss, however, there has to be a way to "cover the difference" somehow. Right now I personally believe that workingto reform public healthcare is probably the best way to go about that, although as I said before I do see the advantage argument to private healthcare. But the point is neither candidate is supporting simply forcing private health insurance cos to provide insurance at the regular premiums to individual CFers. I frankly wish they were - it's a loss I wouldn't mind most large (and very wealthy) insurance cos taking.
NYCLawGirl
New member
Agreed, buttghe difference with things like worker's comp is that the risk is covered by (as you correctly point out) a larger pool. This is why the government can refuse to allow insurance cos to discriminate based on things like CF when the insured is an employee - because the insurance company is most likely going to earn more than it spends from all the other employees, it is still a winning situation for them to provide insurance to the employees who are bad risks. Similarly, it is overall a good thing for the insurance cos to provide auto insurance. Since all drivers must have it by law, the number of enrollees is pushed up. So then the insurance cos can afford the luxury of not refusing even bad risks (although they do almost always charge higher premiums, which was also a concern on this thread).
There are definitely ways of insuring CFers, and everyone else with chronic illness. In order to do so in a way that doesn't cause a loss, however, there has to be a way to "cover the difference" somehow. Right now I personally believe that workingto reform public healthcare is probably the best way to go about that, although as I said before I do see the advantage argument to private healthcare. But the point is neither candidate is supporting simply forcing private health insurance cos to provide insurance at the regular premiums to individual CFers. I frankly wish they were - it's a loss I wouldn't mind most large (and very wealthy) insurance cos taking.
There are definitely ways of insuring CFers, and everyone else with chronic illness. In order to do so in a way that doesn't cause a loss, however, there has to be a way to "cover the difference" somehow. Right now I personally believe that workingto reform public healthcare is probably the best way to go about that, although as I said before I do see the advantage argument to private healthcare. But the point is neither candidate is supporting simply forcing private health insurance cos to provide insurance at the regular premiums to individual CFers. I frankly wish they were - it's a loss I wouldn't mind most large (and very wealthy) insurance cos taking.
NYCLawGirl
New member
Agreed, buttghe difference with things like worker's comp is that the risk is covered by (as you correctly point out) a larger pool. This is why the government can refuse to allow insurance cos to discriminate based on things like CF when the insured is an employee - because the insurance company is most likely going to earn more than it spends from all the other employees, it is still a winning situation for them to provide insurance to the employees who are bad risks. Similarly, it is overall a good thing for the insurance cos to provide auto insurance. Since all drivers must have it by law, the number of enrollees is pushed up. So then the insurance cos can afford the luxury of not refusing even bad risks (although they do almost always charge higher premiums, which was also a concern on this thread).
There are definitely ways of insuring CFers, and everyone else with chronic illness. In order to do so in a way that doesn't cause a loss, however, there has to be a way to "cover the difference" somehow. Right now I personally believe that workingto reform public healthcare is probably the best way to go about that, although as I said before I do see the advantage argument to private healthcare. But the point is neither candidate is supporting simply forcing private health insurance cos to provide insurance at the regular premiums to individual CFers. I frankly wish they were - it's a loss I wouldn't mind most large (and very wealthy) insurance cos taking.
There are definitely ways of insuring CFers, and everyone else with chronic illness. In order to do so in a way that doesn't cause a loss, however, there has to be a way to "cover the difference" somehow. Right now I personally believe that workingto reform public healthcare is probably the best way to go about that, although as I said before I do see the advantage argument to private healthcare. But the point is neither candidate is supporting simply forcing private health insurance cos to provide insurance at the regular premiums to individual CFers. I frankly wish they were - it's a loss I wouldn't mind most large (and very wealthy) insurance cos taking.
NYCLawGirl
New member
Agreed, buttghe difference with things like worker's comp is that the risk is covered by (as you correctly point out) a larger pool. This is why the government can refuse to allow insurance cos to discriminate based on things like CF when the insured is an employee - because the insurance company is most likely going to earn more than it spends from all the other employees, it is still a winning situation for them to provide insurance to the employees who are bad risks. Similarly, it is overall a good thing for the insurance cos to provide auto insurance. Since all drivers must have it by law, the number of enrollees is pushed up. So then the insurance cos can afford the luxury of not refusing even bad risks (although they do almost always charge higher premiums, which was also a concern on this thread).
There are definitely ways of insuring CFers, and everyone else with chronic illness. In order to do so in a way that doesn't cause a loss, however, there has to be a way to "cover the difference" somehow. Right now I personally believe that workingto reform public healthcare is probably the best way to go about that, although as I said before I do see the advantage argument to private healthcare. But the point is neither candidate is supporting simply forcing private health insurance cos to provide insurance at the regular premiums to individual CFers. I frankly wish they were - it's a loss I wouldn't mind most large (and very wealthy) insurance cos taking.
There are definitely ways of insuring CFers, and everyone else with chronic illness. In order to do so in a way that doesn't cause a loss, however, there has to be a way to "cover the difference" somehow. Right now I personally believe that workingto reform public healthcare is probably the best way to go about that, although as I said before I do see the advantage argument to private healthcare. But the point is neither candidate is supporting simply forcing private health insurance cos to provide insurance at the regular premiums to individual CFers. I frankly wish they were - it's a loss I wouldn't mind most large (and very wealthy) insurance cos taking.
NYCLawGirl
New member
Agreed, buttghe difference with things like worker's comp is that the risk is covered by (as you correctly point out) a larger pool. This is why the government can refuse to allow insurance cos to discriminate based on things like CF when the insured is an employee - because the insurance company is most likely going to earn more than it spends from all the other employees, it is still a winning situation for them to provide insurance to the employees who are bad risks. Similarly, it is overall a good thing for the insurance cos to provide auto insurance. Since all drivers must have it by law, the number of enrollees is pushed up. So then the insurance cos can afford the luxury of not refusing even bad risks (although they do almost always charge higher premiums, which was also a concern on this thread).
<br />
<br />There are definitely ways of insuring CFers, and everyone else with chronic illness. In order to do so in a way that doesn't cause a loss, however, there has to be a way to "cover the difference" somehow. Right now I personally believe that workingto reform public healthcare is probably the best way to go about that, although as I said before I do see the advantage argument to private healthcare. But the point is neither candidate is supporting simply forcing private health insurance cos to provide insurance at the regular premiums to individual CFers. I frankly wish they were - it's a loss I wouldn't mind most large (and very wealthy) insurance cos taking.
<br />
<br />There are definitely ways of insuring CFers, and everyone else with chronic illness. In order to do so in a way that doesn't cause a loss, however, there has to be a way to "cover the difference" somehow. Right now I personally believe that workingto reform public healthcare is probably the best way to go about that, although as I said before I do see the advantage argument to private healthcare. But the point is neither candidate is supporting simply forcing private health insurance cos to provide insurance at the regular premiums to individual CFers. I frankly wish they were - it's a loss I wouldn't mind most large (and very wealthy) insurance cos taking.
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>NYCLawGirl</b></i>
But the point is neither candidate is supporting simply forcing private health insurance cos to provide insurance at the regular premiums to individual CFers. I frankly wish they were - it's a loss I wouldn't mind most large (and very wealthy) insurance cos taking.</end quote></div>
Right, and this is kinda what I THOUGHT "covering pre existing conditions" meant, but I guess not.
So really the healthcare policies of each don't much effect CFer's rights to affordable healthcare since usually we're either covered by an employer already OR are on Medicare cause we cannot work. Is this correct? Currently, we're either already covered by the "large pool" (employers) OR we're covered by a federally-run program that covers our pre existing conditions. None of this would change under either candidate's plans. And those who aren't covered by employers and aren't on Medicare are just kinda left blowing in the wind, no matter who wins... Correct?
But the point is neither candidate is supporting simply forcing private health insurance cos to provide insurance at the regular premiums to individual CFers. I frankly wish they were - it's a loss I wouldn't mind most large (and very wealthy) insurance cos taking.</end quote></div>
Right, and this is kinda what I THOUGHT "covering pre existing conditions" meant, but I guess not.
So really the healthcare policies of each don't much effect CFer's rights to affordable healthcare since usually we're either covered by an employer already OR are on Medicare cause we cannot work. Is this correct? Currently, we're either already covered by the "large pool" (employers) OR we're covered by a federally-run program that covers our pre existing conditions. None of this would change under either candidate's plans. And those who aren't covered by employers and aren't on Medicare are just kinda left blowing in the wind, no matter who wins... Correct?
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>NYCLawGirl</b></i>
But the point is neither candidate is supporting simply forcing private health insurance cos to provide insurance at the regular premiums to individual CFers. I frankly wish they were - it's a loss I wouldn't mind most large (and very wealthy) insurance cos taking.</end quote></div>
Right, and this is kinda what I THOUGHT "covering pre existing conditions" meant, but I guess not.
So really the healthcare policies of each don't much effect CFer's rights to affordable healthcare since usually we're either covered by an employer already OR are on Medicare cause we cannot work. Is this correct? Currently, we're either already covered by the "large pool" (employers) OR we're covered by a federally-run program that covers our pre existing conditions. None of this would change under either candidate's plans. And those who aren't covered by employers and aren't on Medicare are just kinda left blowing in the wind, no matter who wins... Correct?
But the point is neither candidate is supporting simply forcing private health insurance cos to provide insurance at the regular premiums to individual CFers. I frankly wish they were - it's a loss I wouldn't mind most large (and very wealthy) insurance cos taking.</end quote></div>
Right, and this is kinda what I THOUGHT "covering pre existing conditions" meant, but I guess not.
So really the healthcare policies of each don't much effect CFer's rights to affordable healthcare since usually we're either covered by an employer already OR are on Medicare cause we cannot work. Is this correct? Currently, we're either already covered by the "large pool" (employers) OR we're covered by a federally-run program that covers our pre existing conditions. None of this would change under either candidate's plans. And those who aren't covered by employers and aren't on Medicare are just kinda left blowing in the wind, no matter who wins... Correct?
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>NYCLawGirl</b></i>
But the point is neither candidate is supporting simply forcing private health insurance cos to provide insurance at the regular premiums to individual CFers. I frankly wish they were - it's a loss I wouldn't mind most large (and very wealthy) insurance cos taking.</end quote></div>
Right, and this is kinda what I THOUGHT "covering pre existing conditions" meant, but I guess not.
So really the healthcare policies of each don't much effect CFer's rights to affordable healthcare since usually we're either covered by an employer already OR are on Medicare cause we cannot work. Is this correct? Currently, we're either already covered by the "large pool" (employers) OR we're covered by a federally-run program that covers our pre existing conditions. None of this would change under either candidate's plans. And those who aren't covered by employers and aren't on Medicare are just kinda left blowing in the wind, no matter who wins... Correct?
But the point is neither candidate is supporting simply forcing private health insurance cos to provide insurance at the regular premiums to individual CFers. I frankly wish they were - it's a loss I wouldn't mind most large (and very wealthy) insurance cos taking.</end quote></div>
Right, and this is kinda what I THOUGHT "covering pre existing conditions" meant, but I guess not.
So really the healthcare policies of each don't much effect CFer's rights to affordable healthcare since usually we're either covered by an employer already OR are on Medicare cause we cannot work. Is this correct? Currently, we're either already covered by the "large pool" (employers) OR we're covered by a federally-run program that covers our pre existing conditions. None of this would change under either candidate's plans. And those who aren't covered by employers and aren't on Medicare are just kinda left blowing in the wind, no matter who wins... Correct?
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>NYCLawGirl</b></i>
But the point is neither candidate is supporting simply forcing private health insurance cos to provide insurance at the regular premiums to individual CFers. I frankly wish they were - it's a loss I wouldn't mind most large (and very wealthy) insurance cos taking.</end quote>
Right, and this is kinda what I THOUGHT "covering pre existing conditions" meant, but I guess not.
So really the healthcare policies of each don't much effect CFer's rights to affordable healthcare since usually we're either covered by an employer already OR are on Medicare cause we cannot work. Is this correct? Currently, we're either already covered by the "large pool" (employers) OR we're covered by a federally-run program that covers our pre existing conditions. None of this would change under either candidate's plans. And those who aren't covered by employers and aren't on Medicare are just kinda left blowing in the wind, no matter who wins... Correct?
But the point is neither candidate is supporting simply forcing private health insurance cos to provide insurance at the regular premiums to individual CFers. I frankly wish they were - it's a loss I wouldn't mind most large (and very wealthy) insurance cos taking.</end quote>
Right, and this is kinda what I THOUGHT "covering pre existing conditions" meant, but I guess not.
So really the healthcare policies of each don't much effect CFer's rights to affordable healthcare since usually we're either covered by an employer already OR are on Medicare cause we cannot work. Is this correct? Currently, we're either already covered by the "large pool" (employers) OR we're covered by a federally-run program that covers our pre existing conditions. None of this would change under either candidate's plans. And those who aren't covered by employers and aren't on Medicare are just kinda left blowing in the wind, no matter who wins... Correct?
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>NYCLawGirl</b></i>
<br />
<br />But the point is neither candidate is supporting simply forcing private health insurance cos to provide insurance at the regular premiums to individual CFers. I frankly wish they were - it's a loss I wouldn't mind most large (and very wealthy) insurance cos taking.</end quote>
<br />
<br />Right, and this is kinda what I THOUGHT "covering pre existing conditions" meant, but I guess not.
<br />
<br />So really the healthcare policies of each don't much effect CFer's rights to affordable healthcare since usually we're either covered by an employer already OR are on Medicare cause we cannot work. Is this correct? Currently, we're either already covered by the "large pool" (employers) OR we're covered by a federally-run program that covers our pre existing conditions. None of this would change under either candidate's plans. And those who aren't covered by employers and aren't on Medicare are just kinda left blowing in the wind, no matter who wins... Correct?
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />But the point is neither candidate is supporting simply forcing private health insurance cos to provide insurance at the regular premiums to individual CFers. I frankly wish they were - it's a loss I wouldn't mind most large (and very wealthy) insurance cos taking.</end quote>
<br />
<br />Right, and this is kinda what I THOUGHT "covering pre existing conditions" meant, but I guess not.
<br />
<br />So really the healthcare policies of each don't much effect CFer's rights to affordable healthcare since usually we're either covered by an employer already OR are on Medicare cause we cannot work. Is this correct? Currently, we're either already covered by the "large pool" (employers) OR we're covered by a federally-run program that covers our pre existing conditions. None of this would change under either candidate's plans. And those who aren't covered by employers and aren't on Medicare are just kinda left blowing in the wind, no matter who wins... Correct?
<br />
<br />
bagged2drag
Active member
COBRA protects people with preexisting conditions when transferring insurance. As far as the candidates standings about pre-existing conditions, I personally haven't heard any comments on the issue, but that doesn't mean nothing has been said. I personally have the most faith in Obama's plan. Do I want more government involvement in Medical care? Not necessarily, but our current privatized system needs some help, and that seems to be more of his purpose. He basically is telling large employers they need to provide health insurance (think of the top reason large employers use temp agencies---they don't supply insurance-under his direction, they would need to). Small employers or individuals could get an insurance plan through the government (it is not clear to me if it will be a large group type policy or actual government funded care). Either way, ballooning a large pool of people under one large policy will divert costs, just as a large employers group policy does. This is what would allow reasonable rates for everyone. Ultimately, his plan will have little effect on those already insured, but they may be able to drop their present coverage in choice of the government policy, or maybe even buy a supplement policy/ This is just speculation at this point though, as obviously we don't have enough details. McCains policy, on the other hand, just gives the 5000 credit to buy a policy. There seems to be no protections in place for people though. 5000 is barely enough to buy decent coverage for someone healthy in their 20's, and for someone like us, it may be impossible to buy coverage without those protections. Even if we could, premiums would likely be so high that they would be out or reach for most of us.
bagged2drag
Active member
COBRA protects people with preexisting conditions when transferring insurance. As far as the candidates standings about pre-existing conditions, I personally haven't heard any comments on the issue, but that doesn't mean nothing has been said. I personally have the most faith in Obama's plan. Do I want more government involvement in Medical care? Not necessarily, but our current privatized system needs some help, and that seems to be more of his purpose. He basically is telling large employers they need to provide health insurance (think of the top reason large employers use temp agencies---they don't supply insurance-under his direction, they would need to). Small employers or individuals could get an insurance plan through the government (it is not clear to me if it will be a large group type policy or actual government funded care). Either way, ballooning a large pool of people under one large policy will divert costs, just as a large employers group policy does. This is what would allow reasonable rates for everyone. Ultimately, his plan will have little effect on those already insured, but they may be able to drop their present coverage in choice of the government policy, or maybe even buy a supplement policy/ This is just speculation at this point though, as obviously we don't have enough details. McCains policy, on the other hand, just gives the 5000 credit to buy a policy. There seems to be no protections in place for people though. 5000 is barely enough to buy decent coverage for someone healthy in their 20's, and for someone like us, it may be impossible to buy coverage without those protections. Even if we could, premiums would likely be so high that they would be out or reach for most of us.
bagged2drag
Active member
COBRA protects people with preexisting conditions when transferring insurance. As far as the candidates standings about pre-existing conditions, I personally haven't heard any comments on the issue, but that doesn't mean nothing has been said. I personally have the most faith in Obama's plan. Do I want more government involvement in Medical care? Not necessarily, but our current privatized system needs some help, and that seems to be more of his purpose. He basically is telling large employers they need to provide health insurance (think of the top reason large employers use temp agencies---they don't supply insurance-under his direction, they would need to). Small employers or individuals could get an insurance plan through the government (it is not clear to me if it will be a large group type policy or actual government funded care). Either way, ballooning a large pool of people under one large policy will divert costs, just as a large employers group policy does. This is what would allow reasonable rates for everyone. Ultimately, his plan will have little effect on those already insured, but they may be able to drop their present coverage in choice of the government policy, or maybe even buy a supplement policy/ This is just speculation at this point though, as obviously we don't have enough details. McCains policy, on the other hand, just gives the 5000 credit to buy a policy. There seems to be no protections in place for people though. 5000 is barely enough to buy decent coverage for someone healthy in their 20's, and for someone like us, it may be impossible to buy coverage without those protections. Even if we could, premiums would likely be so high that they would be out or reach for most of us.
bagged2drag
Active member
COBRA protects people with preexisting conditions when transferring insurance. As far as the candidates standings about pre-existing conditions, I personally haven't heard any comments on the issue, but that doesn't mean nothing has been said. I personally have the most faith in Obama's plan. Do I want more government involvement in Medical care? Not necessarily, but our current privatized system needs some help, and that seems to be more of his purpose. He basically is telling large employers they need to provide health insurance (think of the top reason large employers use temp agencies---they don't supply insurance-under his direction, they would need to). Small employers or individuals could get an insurance plan through the government (it is not clear to me if it will be a large group type policy or actual government funded care). Either way, ballooning a large pool of people under one large policy will divert costs, just as a large employers group policy does. This is what would allow reasonable rates for everyone. Ultimately, his plan will have little effect on those already insured, but they may be able to drop their present coverage in choice of the government policy, or maybe even buy a supplement policy/ This is just speculation at this point though, as obviously we don't have enough details. McCains policy, on the other hand, just gives the 5000 credit to buy a policy. There seems to be no protections in place for people though. 5000 is barely enough to buy decent coverage for someone healthy in their 20's, and for someone like us, it may be impossible to buy coverage without those protections. Even if we could, premiums would likely be so high that they would be out or reach for most of us.
bagged2drag
Active member
COBRA protects people with preexisting conditions when transferring insurance. As far as the candidates standings about pre-existing conditions, I personally haven't heard any comments on the issue, but that doesn't mean nothing has been said. I personally have the most faith in Obama's plan. Do I want more government involvement in Medical care? Not necessarily, but our current privatized system needs some help, and that seems to be more of his purpose. He basically is telling large employers they need to provide health insurance (think of the top reason large employers use temp agencies---they don't supply insurance-under his direction, they would need to). Small employers or individuals could get an insurance plan through the government (it is not clear to me if it will be a large group type policy or actual government funded care). Either way, ballooning a large pool of people under one large policy will divert costs, just as a large employers group policy does. This is what would allow reasonable rates for everyone. Ultimately, his plan will have little effect on those already insured, but they may be able to drop their present coverage in choice of the government policy, or maybe even buy a supplement policy/ This is just speculation at this point though, as obviously we don't have enough details. McCains policy, on the other hand, just gives the 5000 credit to buy a policy. There seems to be no protections in place for people though. 5000 is barely enough to buy decent coverage for someone healthy in their 20's, and for someone like us, it may be impossible to buy coverage without those protections. Even if we could, premiums would likely be so high that they would be out or reach for most of us.