Virginia judge rules health care mandate unconstitutional

Nothing, that's the whole point of the mandate, get the young and healthy to subsidize the care of those who are older or unhealthy.

Regardless of whether or not the mandate survives a SCOTUS ruling, the fines are so small in the current law there's little incentive for younger, healthier people to comply anyway. The responsible folks who maintain coverage will pick up the tab through higher insurance rates and fees for treatment.

so having risk spread out amongst larger numbers runs counter to the idea of insurance?

so having risk spread out amongst larger numbers runs counter to the idea of insurance?

I am confused. I am a relatively healthy 30ish male with no pre-existing conditions. Why should I buy insurance if I can get it the day I get sick or have to go to the hospital? Right now, I have insurance for the Chris Rock reason, "In case $hit happens." Now, if they pull the individual mandate then what is my impetus until I need it. Wouldn't this bankrupt the insurance business and thus lead more quickly to government run insurance.

In my scenario, everybody is on the wrong side of the issue if we are going to cover pre-existing conditions and sick people with no waiting time.

The liberals should want the mandate removed which would still require the private industry to cover everyone that wants insurance, which would consist mostly of pre-existing conditions and sick people. This would lead to rates exploding and likely a government takeover. While the conservatives should be pushing for the mandate and thus the private industry making huge windfalls with less risk. I must be missing something.

You cannot buy insurance after you are sick/injured and have it apply retroactively, just as you cannot buy car insurance to cover the wreck you had yesterday or homeowner's insurance because someone fell on your driveway last week.

But they cannot refuse to sell you car insurance just because you had a wreck prior, just as they will not be able to deny you health insurance coverage because of a prior injury.

You cannot buy insurance after you are sick/injured and have it apply retroactively, just as you cannot buy car insurance to cover the wreck you had yesterday or homeowner's insurance because someone fell on your driveway last week.

But they cannot refuse to sell you car insurance just because you had a wreck prior, just as they will not be able to deny you health insurance coverage because of a prior injury.

We're talking time frames. I can go see a doctor when I am sick for a hundred bucks or so and him say, we need to run some tests for cancer, then we schedule them. Before I go back, I will dang sure have bought my insurance, in case $hit happens and I have cancer. I agree that you would be taking on the risk of what could happen today but I would imagine a great number of people will take on that risk if you can get insurance tomorrow.

I am not disagreeing that pre-existing conditions should be covered but I don't see how the numbers work for private industry to do it without a mandate. My brother in law just got out of the hospital after being sick for about a month, part of that time was in ICU. He had insurance but if he did not have insurance but been able to get it the day before he was admitted then the insurance companies would have been screwed as he saw it coming.

Yes, obviously if we could see into the future we could all not get insurance until we knew we were sick.

But I also wouldn't need health insurance because I would have won the lotto. ;-)

And while I know there are those who currently wait to get treatments until they have insurance or certain benefits kick in, I doubt that what you describe will happen on a large scale - mainly because I highly doubt that anyone in the health insurance industry has let this go unaddressed.

The industry that doesn't accept 364 days as an acceptable time between "annual" visits is not going to let you buy health insurance one day and check into the hospital the next.

Yes, obviously if we could see into the future we could all not get insurance until we knew we were sick.

But I also wouldn't need health insurance because I would have won the lotto. ;-)

And while I know there are those who currently wait to get treatments until they have insurance or certain benefits kick in, I doubt that what you describe will happen on a large scale - mainly because I highly doubt that anyone in the health insurance industry has let this go unaddressed.

The industry that doesn't accept 364 days as an acceptable time between "annual" visits is not going to let you buy health insurance one day and check into the hospital the next.

Um, that's called a pre existing condition. The law specifically makes that legal, and forces insurance companies to cover you in that case. BeachSiO2 has a good point. The real problem here is that the penalties for not carrying are too weak. If the mandate does get over turned, well, lookout, we will be in uncharted territory.

Does the law REALLY say that you must be able to buy insurance and have it go into effect immediately and retroactively, or does it just say that you cannot be summarily denied insurance based on a pre-existing condition?

My guess is that there is a certain allowable time frame for processing and for when it becomes effective - like most kinds of insurance and services.

Yes, obviously if we could see into the future we could all not get insurance until we knew we were sick.

But I also wouldn't need health insurance because I would have won the lotto. ;-)

And while I know there are those who currently wait to get treatments until they have insurance or certain benefits kick in, I doubt that what you describe will happen on a large scale - mainly because I highly doubt that anyone in the health insurance industry has let this go unaddressed.

The industry that doesn't accept 364 days as an acceptable time between "annual" visits is not going to let you buy health insurance one day and check into the hospital the next.

I think you would get a lot of people to roll the dice until they hit their 40's. They could create their own "crisis fund" that they could use if they ever needed it instead of sending it to the insurance company. For example, I have "wasted" over $5k the past two years since I haven't had to go to the doctor. Now, while I am glad I haven't had to go to the doctor, it would be nice to have that 5k going into my savings account (crisis fund) instead of to a high deductible/catastrophic insurance plan. In a fairly short period of time you could get a pretty good fund built up that would only need to last a day or so in case of a real emergency.

The bolded part is what I am trying to get clarified. Something doesn't seem right for sure.

I think you're forgetting one key element here. No, the insurance company cannot deny you, but buying insurance at the last minute is probably going to be like buying a last minute plane ticket. You are going to pay for it. I can see insurance companies offering incentives and discounts for people to keep and maintain their insurance instead of picking up a policy on the way to the doctor.

Does the law REALLY say that you must be able to buy insurance and have it go into effect immediately and retroactively, or does it just say that you cannot be summarily denied insurance based on a pre-existing condition?

My guess is that there is a certain allowable time frame for processing and for when it becomes effective - like most kinds of insurance and services.

I doubt it goes into any detail at all on this. One of those TBD gray areas HHS will have to figure out.

I think you're forgetting one key element here. No, the insurance company cannot deny you, but buying insurance at the last minute is probably going to be like buying a last minute plane ticket. You are going to pay for it. I can see insurance companies offering incentives and discounts for people to keep and maintain their insurance instead of picking up a policy on the way to the doctor.

Nope, that would be in violation of the law.

For reference -

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, it's totally illogical - but so is everything else related to health insurance.

For example, it is currently legal for my health insurance to set requirements like "If you wish to add pregnancy as a covered condition, you must do so 60 days before conception."

This is why I call total BS that someone could get insurance and then get treatment w/o them somehow addressing it.

I just saw that as the first bullet under 2014. How in the world are they going to set reasonable rates if they charge my mom (diabetic, smoker, heart issues, and not very healthy overall) the same as a healthy person in their twenties? That's when the wheels fall off for sure.