Health Reform Cuts Health Care Options for Children in CT
The September mandates will reduce the health coverage options available for those under 19. All over the country, many private health care insurance carriers appear to have decided not to insure those under 19 who purchase standalone policies after September 22nd. Not all companies have announced their decision on this issue, but many that have are choosing eliminate these types of policies.
Children who apply for coverage with at one or both parents will not be affected. kids who are covered by standalone policies that were effective prior to the mandate will be allowed to keep their existing insurance policies.
Who's the villain here? We can fault the insurance carriers. However, mandating that an insurance company to insure unhealthy people is like mandating that lending institutions to underwrite loans for people with poor credit scores. Our lawmakers could be more deserving of blame than the insurance carriers.
Health coverage companies do make a lot of money but their margins are tiny. They don't make tons of money on per policy. Adding just a few additional significantly unhealthy people can make them unprofitable or make their premiums unaffordable.
A simplistic example might involve an insurance company that insures one hundred people against major illnesses. Each person pays one thousand and twenty dollars a year. Like clockwork one of the insured people has a myocardial infarction annually. It costs the company $100,000. The carrier pays the medical expenses. It earns $2,000..
After a new law goes into effect, they must add five unhealthy people. Every year one of these five new people has a heart attack that costs an additional $100,000. This means that the insurance carrier doubled its costs, but not its income.
If the insurance company responded by doubling the price of the insurance policies, their policyholders might respond also. Some might terminate their policies. Chances are the healthier people would be much more likely to decide to take the risks that come with being uninsured. Then their rates would have to go up again and again as their ratio of healthy to unhealthy policyholders would keep moving in the wrong direction.
When an insurance carrier is forced to take on people without regard to their health status, they run the risk of going out of business. This might sound ridiculous to you, but big corporations go out of business from time to time.
Perhaps if the United States car manufacturers had been more fiscally responsible, they wouldn't have needed the taxpayers to bail them out. Perhaps banks should have been more prudent a few years ago and not underwritten so many soon-to-be bad loans.
A legal mandate cannot change the laws of the marketplace. If an insurance carrier takes on unprofitable business it will have to raise its premiums. If they are forced to raise their rates more than their competitors, they will wind up with fewer customers.
Congress wrote a law that was designed to provide universal medical coverage to children 18 and under. This law has had not had the desired effect. Fewer alternatives for health care insurance are now available for children 18 and under.
This has to make many voters wonder if the rest of the health care reform mandates are going to work. Our lawmakers spent a lot of time demonizing the insurance companies. They are no more or less wicked than companies in any type of business. They spent a lot of time telling us how much money they make overall. The real issue is how much they make per insured person.
We've gotten compelling rhetoric and at least one stupid mandate. Let's hope that this was the only one mistake they made. Do you think that is possible?
Children who apply for coverage with at one or both parents will not be affected. kids who are covered by standalone policies that were effective prior to the mandate will be allowed to keep their existing insurance policies.
Who's the villain here? We can fault the insurance carriers. However, mandating that an insurance company to insure unhealthy people is like mandating that lending institutions to underwrite loans for people with poor credit scores. Our lawmakers could be more deserving of blame than the insurance carriers.
Health coverage companies do make a lot of money but their margins are tiny. They don't make tons of money on per policy. Adding just a few additional significantly unhealthy people can make them unprofitable or make their premiums unaffordable.
A simplistic example might involve an insurance company that insures one hundred people against major illnesses. Each person pays one thousand and twenty dollars a year. Like clockwork one of the insured people has a myocardial infarction annually. It costs the company $100,000. The carrier pays the medical expenses. It earns $2,000..
After a new law goes into effect, they must add five unhealthy people. Every year one of these five new people has a heart attack that costs an additional $100,000. This means that the insurance carrier doubled its costs, but not its income.
If the insurance company responded by doubling the price of the insurance policies, their policyholders might respond also. Some might terminate their policies. Chances are the healthier people would be much more likely to decide to take the risks that come with being uninsured. Then their rates would have to go up again and again as their ratio of healthy to unhealthy policyholders would keep moving in the wrong direction.
When an insurance carrier is forced to take on people without regard to their health status, they run the risk of going out of business. This might sound ridiculous to you, but big corporations go out of business from time to time.
Perhaps if the United States car manufacturers had been more fiscally responsible, they wouldn't have needed the taxpayers to bail them out. Perhaps banks should have been more prudent a few years ago and not underwritten so many soon-to-be bad loans.
A legal mandate cannot change the laws of the marketplace. If an insurance carrier takes on unprofitable business it will have to raise its premiums. If they are forced to raise their rates more than their competitors, they will wind up with fewer customers.
Congress wrote a law that was designed to provide universal medical coverage to children 18 and under. This law has had not had the desired effect. Fewer alternatives for health care insurance are now available for children 18 and under.
This has to make many voters wonder if the rest of the health care reform mandates are going to work. Our lawmakers spent a lot of time demonizing the insurance companies. They are no more or less wicked than companies in any type of business. They spent a lot of time telling us how much money they make overall. The real issue is how much they make per insured person.
We've gotten compelling rhetoric and at least one stupid mandate. Let's hope that this was the only one mistake they made. Do you think that is possible?
Source...