Comments about ‘Letter: Deserving insurance’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Jan. 7 2014 12:00 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "Kimber" the open enrollment times are only to get insurance through the exchanges. If I decided to get a policy on my own, typically I can sign up for it whenever I want. The exchanges were set up to get you qualified for subsidies.

Ford DeTreese
Provo, UT

Ultra Bob is right on. Insurance is strictly a numbers game. Years ago, my wife was threatening to go into premature labor. Chances were pretty high that if the baby survived, he would spend some time in the NICU. A friend of mine who sold insurance told me about an ICU rider he sold. It would pay a certain amount in cash for every day a member of your family spent in ICU. The only questions the insurance company cared about were whether you had AIDS, cancer, or heart disease. If not, they would accept your premiums and offer coverage. Well, the baby came early and spent $19,000 worth of days in the NICU. The company sent us a check for that amount. With all the other expenses we had, I was certainly grateful for all the people who picked up that rider and never needed it. But life would be much simpler if we had a single-payer system that covered everybody and saved administrative costs. Too much to hope for, I know, but maybe someday. . .

Kent C. DeForrest
Provo, UT


My friends in Europe certainly don't consider their health-care systems disasters. But they think we're a bunch of lunatics for treating health care the way we do in America.

Kearns, UT

Ah. Insurance, the newest entitlement and civil right. I remember the days when my parents had catastrophic coverage only and paid the doctors in cash. No paperwork, no government interference or mandates, paid the doctor $5.00 per visit. Wish those days were back.

My dad worked his butt off to pay a lot of the cost for my sister's open heart surgery when she was two years old that insurance didn't cover. She's had a pacemaker since then. She's now 50 years old so do the math. She has had many surgeries since then for valve problems and new pacemakers over the years. Even with the pre-existing condition since 1965, she's always been insurable. High risk but insurable.

Kearns, UT

Oh by the way Ultra Bob, I hate to break it to you, but my insurance has paid out much more for me than I have paid in. What happened to their profits then? I figured it out and the ratio of what I have paid in verses what has gone out for me only, not my wife or family, has been almost two to one. That 11 day hospital stay 19 years ago mostly took care of that. Five of the days were in intesive care. That hotel stay cost my insurance company over $25,000.00. That didn't count the $8,000.00 cost of the knee surgery a few days before that caused that hospital stay. It also doesn't count the herniated discs over the years, the facial re-construction after a sports injury, the table saw incident, the footbal injuries and baseball injuries while officiating and my last pulled hamstring. Yep, I'm living pretty good because of that.

I hope that the insurers make a lot of money off of you. I'm happy that the cost of my care has essentially been paid for by others.


"It was already illegal in the United States for insurance companies to turn you down for pre-existing conditions IF you were coming from another insurance plan"

That simply is/was not true.

gave workers and their families to keep their (current) group health coverage during times of voluntary or involuntary job loss, reduction in the hours worked, transition between jobs and in certain other cases (ie your employer would offer you the opportunity to continue insurance by requiring you to pay the full cost without the employer contribution). It did not require a totally new insurer to offer you insurance or accept you as a new subscriber.

Salt Lake City, UT

Thanks EDM and that's very much what I was trying to point out. The fact of the matter is that people were being kicked off health insurance plans (or denied) because of preexisting conditions which were no fault of their own. These were not the people that were plans within a good sized company, but people that had private or small employer plans.

Deep Space 9, Ut

To "Kent C. DeForrest" my relatives in Europe do consider it trash. But then again, some people think that "Honey Boo Boo" is great entertainment too. Just because some people think that it is good, does not make it a quality system.

salt lake city, utah

Here's the facts Redshirt, and they don't support an average 43% increase. In fact prices are very stable.

The Rand corporation a non partisan think tank conducted this study;

The study used modeling to look at ten “representative states” as well as the country as a whole. In five of those ten states, RAND finds no increases when the costs of individual plans offered prior to Obamacare are compared to cost estimates for comparable plans offered in the exchanges. Consumers in three states – Minnesota, North Dakota and Ohio – could see their premiums increase by as much as 43%, while in the final two states – Louisiana and New Mexico – consumers could see their premiums decline. Nationwide, the study estimates that premiums will remain stable. "

Prices under ACA have increased around 1%. Prices in Bush's first 4 years went up 5%.

USS Enterprise, UT

To "pragmatistferlife" you are right, I was wrong. It is only a 41% increase. See "49-State Analysis: Obamacare To Increase Individual-Market Premiums By Average Of 41%" in Forbes. Rather than looking at a few states, they actually looked at all of them.

I don't know where you get your information, but it apears to be wrong or else highly biased.

According to Mercer, under the ACA prices have increased by over 4% overall.

If you read "$328: Average Monthly Health Insurance Cost Under the Affordable Care Act" at NBCWashington, you find that if you assume a $16000/yr average cost for health insurance, that equals a 25% increase in cost.

So, tell me again how the ACA hasn't raised costs much.

salt lake city, utah

Redshirt, "Obamacare To Increase Individual-Market Premiums By Average Of 41%" in Forbes." Who did this study a conservative "think tank" The Manhattan Institute, and then published in Ford. Talk about a bubble.

Who did the other study? The Rand corporation. The most respected think tank in the world, and generally conservative leaning. "The study used modeling to look at ten “representative states” as well as the country as a whole."

There you go Rand vs. Manhattan Institute.

USS Enterprise, UT

To "pragmatistferlife" the difference is the "representative" study vs. the study using actual values. I am sorry that you want to trust a study that was not conducted very well, by a liberal think tank that is funded by the US government.

Personally I am going to go with the independant Manhatten Institute, rather than with the people that depend on government for funding.

On top of trusting a government funded think tank, you are using old data. The Manhatten study is from November 2013, while the Rand study is from August 2013. In other words, the Rand study was based on projections, and the Manhatten Institute based their study on actual increases.

Believe what you want, but I will trust the study based on actual data.

salt lake city, utah

Redshirt, of course you will. BTW you do realize that what ever the increase is you are only talking about the independent insurance market. That's what the study was. So someone who had virtually worthless insurance and now is required to carry more comprehensive policy is who you are talking about. Not the general population who insurance comes through an employer.

USS Enterprise, UT

To "pragmatistferlife" isn't that the market that matters the most? Since it is the poor, uninsured, and those on the independant market that we are the most concerned with getting insurance to, shouldn't we be concerned about the SIGNIFICANT increase in costs?

If you do want to look at costs overall, go to Politifact and look at their article "Under Obamacare, health insurance premiums haven't gone down, they've gone up, Ron Johnson says" There we see that overall, since the ACA took effect in 2011 (that is when certain provisions began to raise insurance costs) that insurance has gone up 18% on average for all insured people.

So tell us, why is the ACA so great if in 3 years (not full implementation) we have already seen the cost of insurance raise by 18% or more depending on who pays for your insurance?

salt lake city, utah

Redshirt, ""Under Obamacare, health insurance premiums haven't gone down, they've gone up". Oh no say it isn't so. Health insurance premiums have gone up in the last 5 years. Oh my, oh my.

Mind telling me when health insurance premiums didn't go up. And please don't drag out the old Obama said premiums would go down by $2500 talking point. He never said nor implied that this would happen in the first year of roll out.

Fact is health insurance premiums have gone up by about one percent of median family income every year since at least the middle nineties.

And no the private health insurance market is not the market that matters most. It only represents a small percentage of America and is simply those who weren't playing and taking advantage all along.

USS Enterprise, UT

To "pragmatistferlife" so waht you are saying is that first we have to push the price up, before we can lower it.

Luckily most of us are smarter than that.

With a large thing like health insurance, if the costs are not cut during the rollout, they never will be. The problem is that already the average cost of insurance for a family has jumped up by more than $2500, and will remain there until the system collapses on itself.

The fact that you are making excuses for Obama shows just how much you are in denial.

Obama said "I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year."

Since Obamacare was signed, the cost of insurance has risen by $2500. Where is the savings, where is the promise of more affordable insurance? Kathleen Sebelius released a statement on the HHS web site titled "New report finds competition lowers premiums by nearly 20 percent in the Health Insurance Marketplace". Where is the savings since rates jumped up for the marketplace by 41%?

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments