wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 13:04:45 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 21:11:33 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

Why should an insurance company cover a pre-existing condition if the
person
did not have insurance previously?


They have to now, imagine what that will do to our premiums.

In that Frontline show I talked about the insurance company lobbyist
put her finger right on it. She said their actuaries immediately went
to work computing what the effect was going to be on premiums.
These people are bookies., They don't care which team you pick, they
just adjust the line and take your bet.
That is the wild card nobody wants to talk about.


More bs. Pre-existing conditions could be something minor and usually are.
The "actuaries" are always at work. They don't determine policy. They only
define risk.

If preexisting conditions were a minor problem we wouldn't have ever
heard about them. The actuaries were put to work to assess a dollar
value on the number of uninsured people with these conditions along
with the number of 18-25 year old kids they will have to pick up. That
cost will be spread out across everyoone else and determine what we
will all pay.

I said most preexisting conditions. Some are big deals, but not being able
to get insurance even because of minor problem means MUCH higher costs for
the individual for everything else, esp. if they have issue that requires
significant medical intervention. You're trying to separate things out that
can't be separated out.

The people they "have to pick up" are going to be paying. So, what's your
beef? I just don't understand the objection to getting everyone covered.

The real wild card for the working class will be how much that
mandatory insurance will cost if you don't qualify for government
assistance (2x the poverty rate). If you are 30 and never paid for
insurance befiore that could be a shocking number for you.
The question is, how many will blow off the requirement and hope they
don't get caught. Even if they do, the fine is a pittance.
The actuaries have to assess a price on that too.

According to the right wing crowd, you'd go to jail. More bs. Feel free to
continue to blame actuaries.

--
Nom=de=Plume