Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS
what has been implemented so far has not impacted people's costs that much.
In 2010 adult child coverage until 26, lifetime $ limits prohibited and preventive care w/no cost sharing where all implemented.
.
|
I'm not sure what you classify as "not that much". But these things you itemized (other than the $1 per member per month), would be considered significant to any actuary who does ratemaking for healthcare.
How about the ban on limits for pre-existing conditions? Has that gone in yet? That's huge.
I'm not saying that it's bad policy to eliminate lifetime limits or to eliminate bans for pre-existing conditions. But nobody, not even Barack the Almighty, can implement such things without the resultant increase in costs.
Despite liberals' hysterical claims to the contrary, health insurance is highly regulated, and the profit margins for that industry are pretty tight. You cannot increase coverage without increasing costs. It's just not possible.
There are things that could have been implemented to offset the increased costs (like tort reform), but the Trial Lawyers Lobby made sure that the Democratic-controlled Senate would never agree to that.
Threaded Mode