ObamaCare and Healthcare.gov

davebodner · Post by **davebodner** » Thu Nov 14, 2013 9:54 pm

skou wrote:Sorry Dave, but ALL Obamacare policies require maternity coverage, as well as a few other things that I won't need. Gynecology visits, PAP smears, and a host of other strictly female procedures, that not only will I not need, but am REQUIRED to have. (Or, would, if not for my VA coverage.)

And, yes, females have to have male-only coverage, too.

Why?

steve

Because it doesn't cost anyone one cent extra, and it makes it easier to baseline the quality of the product. Simple.

skou · Post by **skou** » Thu Nov 14, 2013 10:48 pm

davebodner wrote:Because it doesn't cost anyone one cent extra, and it makes it easier to baseline the quality of the product. Simple.

Dave, I'm sorry, but that doesn't make much sense.

Can you elaborate just how charging a single, no dependents male, for exclusively female issues, doesn't cost more? Everyone's insurance rate goes up, because the "baseline" requires it.

I've got a female friend, older than I am, and has had a hysterectomy. Needless to say, she no longer needs maternity care, but she'll be paying for it.

The last time I insured a car, I was able to include, or remove, ALL KINDS of things from coverage. I can do the same on my renter's insurance. Why can't I, (or you) do the same on our body insurance?

Funny, no comment on the legality of the President changing existing laws, just because he wants to. No other President has had that ability, what makes THIS guy different?

steve

heathicus · Post by **heathicus** » Fri Nov 15, 2013 2:23 am

The difference between insurance and cable TV plans is that I'm not required under penalty of law to buy cable TV.

dusty · Post by **dusty** » Fri Nov 15, 2013 6:18 am

skou wrote:Dave, I'm sorry, but that doesn't make much sense.

Can you elaborate just how charging a single, no dependents male, for exclusively female issues, doesn't cost more? Everyone's insurance rate goes up, because the "baseline" requires it.

I've got a female friend, older than I am, and has had a hysterectomy. Needless to say, she no longer needs maternity care, but she'll be paying for it.

The last time I insured a car, I was able to include, or remove, ALL KINDS of things from coverage. I can do the same on my renter's insurance. Why can't I, (or you) do the same on our body insurance?

Funny, no comment on the legality of the President changing existing laws, just because he wants to. No other President has had that ability, what makes THIS guy different?

steve

I am not sure that this is a true statement. What are executive orders? Other Presidents have used executive orders.

Don't get me wrong! I am not defending the President in his actions with ObamaCare. I think he is way out of line with most everything he has done with ObamaCare BUT I blame the entire Congress (both the House and the Senate).

Jointly, they could stop this fiasco but only Jointly.

fredsheldon · Post by **fredsheldon** » Fri Nov 15, 2013 8:34 am

skou wrote:Sorry Dave, but ALL Obamacare policies require maternity coverage, as well as a few other things that I won't need. Gynecology visits, PAP smears, and a host of other strictly female procedures, that not only will I not need, but am REQUIRED to have. (Or, would, if not for my VA coverage.)

And, yes, females have to have male-only coverage, too.

Why?

steve

And my policy covers ingrown toe nails but I never have ingrown toe nails so should I be able to exclude that procedure from my coverage? Of course not. That's the great thing about good policies, you don't have to worry about what's covered and what's not covered. It would drive the cost of administering the plan for everybody if that were the case, would it not?

And yes, you can exclude certain coverages from your car or home insurances, but if you have a loss that's not covered, only you suffer, but with the lack of health insurance, we all pay for your care when you go to the emergency room, am I not right?

dusty · Post by **dusty** » Fri Nov 15, 2013 8:47 am

fredsheldon wrote:And my policy covers ingrown toe nails but I never have ingrown toe nails so should I be able to exclude that procedure from my coverage? Of course not. That's the great thing about good policies, you don't have to worry about what's covered and what's not covered. It would drive the cost of administering the plan for everybody if that were the case, would it not?

The majority of the young folks believe that they do not need medical coverage at all but Obamacare needs for them (the young and healthy) to sign up for coverage. Not only that, they need to sign up for "full coverage" so that Obamacare can pay the bills.

Does this attitude work under your approach - I don't have ingrown.... therefore...

Obama needs them to sign up so that he can cover the bills created by caring for the "uninsured, the medicaid, etc".

I doubt that it is ever going to happen. Executive orders or no.

skou · Post by **skou** » Fri Nov 15, 2013 9:29 am

fredsheldon wrote: And yes, you can exclude certain coverages from your car or home insurances, but if you have a loss that's not covered, only you suffer, but with the lack of health insurance, we all pay for your care when you go to the emergency room, am I not right?

Sorry Fred, but that's gonna happen anyway. I'm a disabled Vet.

steve

Gene Howe · Post by **Gene Howe** » Fri Nov 15, 2013 10:01 am

That is true, Fred. Nothing is free. Somebody must pay. In premiums, taxes or higher medical fees. But everyone WILL pay.
I object to paying for maternity coverage, birth control, pediatric dentistry....etc. just so someone else, who may need those coverages, can have them at little or no cost to them.
Health care is not a right, and insurance coverage is certainly not!

fredsheldon wrote:And my policy covers ingrown toe nails but I never have ingrown toe nails so should I be able to exclude that procedure from my coverage? Of course not. That's the great thing about good policies, you don't have to worry about what's covered and what's not covered. It would drive the cost of administering the plan for everybody if that were the case, would it not?

And yes, you can exclude certain coverages from your car or home insurances, but if you have a loss that's not covered, only you suffer, but with the lack of health insurance, we all pay for your care when you go to the emergency room, am I not right?

fredsheldon · Post by **fredsheldon** » Fri Nov 15, 2013 11:44 am

My daughter, the dentist, just had my 5th grandchild delivered in NZ where her husband is from and it was totally free. I asked her how was the experience and she said other than the hospital rooms being a little drab, she really liked how it all worked out. Health care is free to everyone in NZ and they love it. Health care is a right, not a option, down under.

dusty · Post by **dusty** » Fri Nov 15, 2013 11:56 am

fredsheldon wrote:My daughter, the dentist, just had my 5th grandchild delivered in NZ where her husband is from and it was totally free. I asked her how was the experience and she said other than the hospital rooms being a little drab, she really liked how it all worked out. Health care is free to everyone in NZ and they love it. Health care is a right, not a option, down under.

Health care is a right here in the USA as well. You have the right to have it and if not you get to pay a "fee" - your choice. That fee will be cheap this year - just $95. Next year it shall not be quite so inexpensive; being based on a percentage of income; that percentage increases each subsequent year.

What is so neat about this is that while it isn't exactly free, we have to fork it over each year only because we placed its founder in his Office.