peppermintpatty
Pearl Clutcher
Refupea #1345
Posts: 3,838
Jun 26, 2014 17:47:08 GMT
|
Post by peppermintpatty on Sept 18, 2017 12:06:13 GMT
Ok, this is where I don't understand the issue with pre-existing conditions. If you currently have coverage and it does not lapse, it is NOT considered a pre-existing condition. So if you got coverage under ACA for something that was pre-existing, it is, by definition, no longer. As long as you maintain your coverage, this shouldn't be an issue.
In the context of healthcare in the United States, a pre-existing condition is a medical condition that started before a person's health benefits went into effect. Before 2014 some insurance policies would not cover expenses due to pre-existing conditions. These exclusions by the insurance industry were meant to cope with adverse selection by potential customers. Such exclusions have been prohibited since January 1, 2014, by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 17:32:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2017 12:32:29 GMT
Ok, this is where I don't understand the issue with pre-existing conditions. If you currently have coverage and it does not lapse, it is NOT considered a pre-existing condition. So if you got coverage under ACA for something that was pre-existing, it is, by definition, no longer. As long as you maintain your coverage, this shouldn't be an issue.In the context of healthcare in the United States, a pre-existing condition is a medical condition that started before a person's health benefits went into effect. Before 2014 some insurance policies would not cover expenses due to pre-existing conditions. These exclusions by the insurance industry were meant to cope with adverse selection by potential customers. Such exclusions have been prohibited since January 1, 2014, by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. There are two issues for those w/enormous health care costs: one that you noted - not being able to get coverage at all. The other is that coverage is not currently able to be charged more for those w/enormous health care costs. These two provisions keep everyone insurable. So, the SECOND ONE is the problem. You will not be able to maintain your coverage if the states allow insurers to charge those w/enormous health care costs more. See original article. "The states could waive provisions that forbid insurance companies from charging people higher rates based on their health status".
|
|
twinsmomfla99
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,981
Jun 26, 2014 13:42:47 GMT
|
Post by twinsmomfla99 on Sept 18, 2017 13:24:42 GMT
It is ridiculous that we have so many "layers" within our healthcare system. Some people have employers that offer coverage, and those folks may have the cost subsidized by both the employer and the government (i.e. paying the premium with pretax dollars). Others have to buy individual insurance with post tax dollars and no employer subsidy. Others are eligible for "free" healthcare through state plans. And then you have the multiple configurations of copay and deductibles, the need for primary care physicians for referrals, covered vs. noncovered drugs/procedures.... there is absolutely no way for healthcare to operate as a "free market" because it is impossible for consumers to make an informed choice.
I truly believe the answer will eventually be a single-payer system. However, it cannot happen overnight. Our economy is too dependent on the jobs created by the current system.
What could work would be giving everyone option of buying into Medicaid/state plans. The premiums would be income-based. You would be eligible regardless of your employment status and eligibility for an employer plan. This would allow a gradual shift to single-payer without tanking the economy overnight.
|
|
jayfab
Drama Llama
procastinating
Posts: 5,521
Jun 26, 2014 21:55:15 GMT
|
Post by jayfab on Sept 18, 2017 14:27:44 GMT
I'm trying to find "the hundreds" on this group who's "lives were completely ruined" by the ACA. What's really rich is that every single "conservative" plan RAISES premiums for virtually everyone and the Trump train holding back or refusing to pay is what is hurting the ACA right now. Do I think the ACA is perfect? NO. Do I think that insurance companies are taking advantage? YES. Do I think "the rich" should pay for my insurance? Not really. Do I think that FIRST AND FOREMOST the COSTS of medical, dr visits, treatments, and Rx should be addressed, reduced--Definitely YES. Costs are OUT OF CONTROL. My insurance is self funded. I pay for me and mine. I'm okay with a portion of my taxes going towards medical care of others--because ITS THE HUMANITARIAN THING TO DO. And I'm sick to fucking death of hearing the conservatives say that these devastatingly sick people, who through no fault of their own have been either born with or contracted life ending illness, need to "get a job that pays their health care" "pay their own way" "if only they would take care of themselves" "26 yr olds should be paying their own way and not be on parents policies" etc. The economy has changed drastically--kids are not leaving their parents homes right out of high school or college because they cannot afford it and/or they have to work 2-3 jobs (companies only wanting to hire part time) just to make a non-living wage. How do we expect kids in college to pay for these insurance policies? They're going to school. What about those who are <26 who are mentally, physically challenged who will ALWAYS be in their parents care? Do we bankrupt the parents because at what age--18?--they get kicked off their parents insurance??? Then what? There is no easy solution and anyone trying to "cure it all" in one package is going to meet obstruction and failure. For me, it's more about the insensitivity, who gives a fuck about others attitude (all the really shitty statements from the GOP'ers and conservatives) and that it IS all about the benefit to those more financially able--just go back to the statements made by Trump surrogates and GOP, they've acknowledged that more than once. I just don't have time to respond to all the posts here tonight (got a deadline I'm having to meet), but I do want to at least respond to you PCA. First of all--some of our taxes have always gone to pay towards the medical care of others. Always! That's nothing new. What is new is saying that it is a basic human right--which there is nothing in our Constitution that guarantees that at all. I know that I will be called heartless because I do not consider it a "right" but really that is untrue and unfair. Our country has managed for nearly 300 years without free healthcare and we have prospered. I am absolutely not heartless, and there is no way that I could be put in a position of deciding who should get any kind of goodie because I'm a softy really and I'd end up giving the store away. But I feel that logic has to rule, and logic says that when nearly half our population is not working, there is no way the other half can pay for everything. Of course I agree with you--things HAVE changed. But much of that change is due to some of the policies liberals support. Employers no longer want to hire full time because of Obamacare. They can't afford the insurance premiums. So we all suffer with part time jobs. Believe me, I know what I am talking about with this. I stand by my statement that a 26 year old is an adult and should be responsible for his/her own insurance. Or Mom and Dad can pay if if they like. But your neighbor should not be required to pay for your adult child. But you asked how about 26 year olds who are physically and mentally challenged--to me that is a different thing. Social programs should exist for people like that and I support them. And comments that state that conservatives (like me) are insensitive, etc. just aren't true. I am far from heartless. I just think this path we're heading down where we basically give it all away will leave ALL of us broke. Izzyscraps is just one example. Thank you for a reasonable post. Of course we will never completely agree. But your side has to give too. And the reason I took the time to respond to you is that YOU actually did give a bit. You said that the cost of medical care has to be addressed and that is one of my hot buttons. I just cannot believe that anyone would think that there is nothing to be done with that. And now I better get my article done. Thanks, PCA. "Employers no longer want to hire full time because of Obamacare." quoting in case the bolded is lost among the text. I really am tired of this being touted all the time. Employers for the last 20 years have been downsizing employees/hours and using contractors. I know because I was one of the outsourced. Not one of the 3 jobs I found afterward offered insurance. Not one. And contrary to what people think about pre ACA, insurance was just not affordable prior. It cost hundreds a month and covered crap. I know firsthand. I ended up without insurance and needing gallbladder surgery. Even after begging for discounts from the doctors and hospital it wiped me out financially. I saw how so many had to file bankruptcy because of a medical issue.
|
|
|
Post by cade387 on Sept 18, 2017 15:00:18 GMT
Izzyscraps, I promise you that many of us DO care what has happened to you. I have been simply astonished at the lack of response from many Peas to the multiple threads we have had here from many, MANY of our Peas detailing how their financial lives have virtually been ruined by Obama Care. Your story is just one of literally hundreds of stories I have read. When did we decide that this country has the right to do to its citizens what has been done to you and thousands of others??!! Somewhere along the line we seem to have decided that a preexisting condition trumps everything else including the financial solvency of thousands and thousands of our middle class citizens. Personally, I am stunned that we also think that a 26-year-old ADULT has the right to demand that American citizens pay his/her insurance so they can remain on mom and dad's policy. This is just nonsense to me. A person that old should be taking care his own needs. Obamacare is a disaster and I am constantly stunned at the refusal of its proponents to admit that. It has destroyed so many families that before it went into effect were managing. All of this is why I support catastrophic insurance only.
so you are anti-vaccination then?
|
|
|
Post by crazy4scraps on Sept 18, 2017 15:09:04 GMT
"Employers no longer want to hire full time because of Obamacare." quoting in case the bolded is lost among the text. I really am tired of this being touted all the time. Employers for the last 20 years have been downsizing employees/hours and using contractors. I know because I was one of the outsourced. Not one of the 3 jobs I found afterward offered insurance. Not one. And contrary to what people think about pre ACA, insurance was just not affordable prior. It cost hundreds a month and covered crap. I know firsthand. I ended up without insurance and needing gallbladder surgery. Even after begging for discounts from the doctors and hospital it wiped me out financially. I saw how so many had to file bankruptcy because of a medical issue. True, true, true. DH and I have been self employed for over 20 years and we pay all of our healthcare costs ourselves. Before the ACA our premiums were going up on average about 15-20% per year every year. Back then we were younger and in much better health and it was STILL crazy expensive for just the two of us. And before that, we worked an array of part time and/or full time jobs that offered no health coverage. For a while there we had no health or dental so at that time we just prayed we wouldn't get sick or need a filling because we didn't have insurance and couldn't afford it even if it was offered. The bottom line is that even before the ACA the annual premiums were surely never going DOWN. For anybody. Now DH and I are 50 and we both have what could be considered pre-existing health issues, so if the laws are changed in the ways that have been proposed by the GOP we would be totally, totally screwed and our insurance rates would surely skyrocket even more than they already have. The difference for us with the ACA is that more stuff HAS to be covered by the insurance we now have, and a lot of it is the preventative care that keeps us healthier and identifies potential issues sooner when they're more easily (and less expensively) treatable. The bare bones catastrophic policies that Snowsilver suggested and that don't really cover anything would help very few people. If people aren't covered for the preventative care that finds the problems early, manages them and keeps them from becoming catastrophic, they're not going to be treated for it until it becomes catastrophic. At that point, it's too little, too late. That money would be much better spent keeping people healthier in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Sept 18, 2017 15:42:33 GMT
"Employers no longer want to hire full time because of Obamacare." quoting in case the bolded is lost among the text. I really am tired of this being touted all the time. Employers for the last 20 years have been downsizing employees/hours and using contractors. I know because I was one of the outsourced. Not one of the 3 jobs I found afterward offered insurance. Not one. And contrary to what people think about pre ACA, insurance was just not affordable prior. It cost hundreds a month and covered crap. I know firsthand. I ended up without insurance and needing gallbladder surgery. Even after begging for discounts from the doctors and hospital it wiped me out financially. I saw how so many had to file bankruptcy because of a medical issue. True, true, true. DH and I have been self employed for over 20 years and we pay all of our healthcare costs ourselves. Before the ACA our premiums were going up on average about 15-20% per year every year. Back then we were younger and in much better health and it was STILL crazy expensive for just the two of us. And before that, we worked an array of part time and/or full time jobs that offered no health coverage. For a while there we had no health or dental so at that time we just prayed we wouldn't get sick or need a filling because we didn't have insurance and couldn't afford it even if it was offered. The bottom line is that even before the ACA the annual premiums were surely never going DOWN. For anybody. Now DH and I are 50 and we both have what could be considered pre-existing health issues, so if the laws are changed in the ways that have been proposed by the GOP we would be totally, totally screwed and our insurance rates would surely skyrocket even more than they already have. The difference for us with the ACA is that more stuff HAS to be covered by the insurance we now have, and a lot of it is the preventative care that keeps us healthier and identifies potential issues sooner when they're more easily (and less expensively) treatable. The bare bones catastrophic policies that Snowsilver suggested and that don't really cover anything would help very few people. If people aren't covered for the preventative care that finds the problems early, manages them and keeps them from becoming catastrophic, they're not going to be treated for it until it becomes catastrophic. At that point, it's too little, too late. That money would be much better spent keeping people healthier in the first place. I actually had a catastrophic policy preACA for a 2 years and find there's a lot of misconception on what it did and didn't cover. I was working for a small company which offered really horrific coverage for an extremely high price. We priced out a high deductible plan ($5,000) for our family of 4 (with 2 children under 6) and it was $179 per month. We decided that we'd bank the monthly difference between the policies to cover a potential event that wold lead to the $5,000 deductible and still come out ahead. FYI preventative care WAS covered. My kid's well checkups and immunizations were covered pre-deductible and annual physicals and bloodwork for my husband and I were also covered. I was too young than for a mammogram, so don't know if that would have been covered or not. It isn't too surprising that insurance companies would cover some preventative care as the worst case scenario for them is a medical bill over $5,000 as that's when they would actually need to pay. The bare bones policies help young, healthy people who right now find insurance unaffordable. They are being forced to pay thousands of dollars into a system which they only need if they have a catastrophic event. It would also bring insurance back to actual INSURANCE. High deductible HSA type plans are also one of the few things that has actually shown to have an impact on the cost of health care.
|
|
|
Post by jenis40 on Sept 18, 2017 15:57:33 GMT
True, true, true. DH and I have been self employed for over 20 years and we pay all of our healthcare costs ourselves. Before the ACA our premiums were going up on average about 15-20% per year every year. Back then we were younger and in much better health and it was STILL crazy expensive for just the two of us. And before that, we worked an array of part time and/or full time jobs that offered no health coverage. For a while there we had no health or dental so at that time we just prayed we wouldn't get sick or need a filling because we didn't have insurance and couldn't afford it even if it was offered. The bottom line is that even before the ACA the annual premiums were surely never going DOWN. For anybody. Now DH and I are 50 and we both have what could be considered pre-existing health issues, so if the laws are changed in the ways that have been proposed by the GOP we would be totally, totally screwed and our insurance rates would surely skyrocket even more than they already have. The difference for us with the ACA is that more stuff HAS to be covered by the insurance we now have, and a lot of it is the preventative care that keeps us healthier and identifies potential issues sooner when they're more easily (and less expensively) treatable. The bare bones catastrophic policies that Snowsilver suggested and that don't really cover anything would help very few people. If people aren't covered for the preventative care that finds the problems early, manages them and keeps them from becoming catastrophic, they're not going to be treated for it until it becomes catastrophic. At that point, it's too little, too late. That money would be much better spent keeping people healthier in the first place. I actually had a catastrophic policy preACA for a 2 years and find there's a lot of misconception on what it did and didn't cover. I was working for a small company which offered really horrific coverage for an extremely high price. We priced out a high deductible plan ($5,000) for our family of 4 (with 2 children under 6) and it was $179 per month. We decided that we'd bank the monthly difference between the policies to cover a potential event that wold lead to the $5,000 deductible and still come out ahead. FYI preventative care WAS covered. My kid's well checkups and immunizations were covered pre-deductible and annual physicals and bloodwork for my husband and I were also covered. I was too young than for a mammogram, so don't know if that would have been covered or not. It isn't too surprising that insurance companies would cover some preventative care as the worst case scenario for them is a medical bill over $5,000 as that's when they would actually need to pay. The bare bones policies help young, healthy people who right now find insurance unaffordable. They are being forced to pay thousands of dollars into a system which they only need if they have a catastrophic event. It would also bring insurance back to actual INSURANCE. High deductible HSA type plans are also one of the few things that has actually shown to have an impact on the cost of health care. Not all catastrophic plans covered the same things though. Your plan covered those but another may not have.
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Sept 18, 2017 16:07:05 GMT
I just don't have time to respond to all the posts here tonight (got a deadline I'm having to meet), but I do want to at least respond to you PCA. First of all--some of our taxes have always gone to pay towards the medical care of others. Always! That's nothing new. What is new is saying that it is a basic human right--which there is nothing in our Constitution that guarantees that at all. I know that I will be called heartless because I do not consider it a "right" but really that is untrue and unfair. Our country has managed for nearly 300 years without free healthcare and we have prospered. I am absolutely not heartless, and there is no way that I could be put in a position of deciding who should get any kind of goodie because I'm a softy really and I'd end up giving the store away. But I feel that logic has to rule, and logic says that when nearly half our population is not working, there is no way the other half can pay for everything. Of course I agree with you--things HAVE changed. But much of that change is due to some of the policies liberals support. Employers no longer want to hire full time because of Obamacare. They can't afford the insurance premiums. So we all suffer with part time jobs. Believe me, I know what I am talking about with this. I stand by my statement that a 26 year old is an adult and should be responsible for his/her own insurance. Or Mom and Dad can pay if if they like. But your neighbor should not be required to pay for your adult child. But you asked how about 26 year olds who are physically and mentally challenged--to me that is a different thing. Social programs should exist for people like that and I support them. And comments that state that conservatives (like me) are insensitive, etc. just aren't true. I am far from heartless. I just think this path we're heading down where we basically give it all away will leave ALL of us broke. Izzyscraps is just one example. Thank you for a reasonable post. Of course we will never completely agree. But your side has to give too. And the reason I took the time to respond to you is that YOU actually did give a bit. You said that the cost of medical care has to be addressed and that is one of my hot buttons. I just cannot believe that anyone would think that there is nothing to be done with that. And now I better get my article done. Thanks, PCA. "Employers no longer want to hire full time because of Obamacare." quoting in case the bolded is lost among the text. I really am tired of this being touted all the time. Employers for the last 20 years have been downsizing employees/hours and using contractors. I know because I was one of the outsourced. Not one of the 3 jobs I found afterward offered insurance. Not one. And contrary to what people think about pre ACA, insurance was just not affordable prior. It cost hundreds a month and covered crap. I know firsthand. I ended up without insurance and needing gallbladder surgery. Even after begging for discounts from the doctors and hospital it wiped me out financially. I saw how so many had to file bankruptcy because of a medical issue. My husband and I are two healthy adults. Yet, we must pay $1200 per month for insurance and have deductibles of $4000 per person meaning we will likely never meet the deductibles in the absence of a major accident or illness. Year after year, we are paying the government over $13,000 for insurance that does us absolutely no good. I'm sorry, but why should we have to pay for insurance at these astronomical rates so that you (general you) can obtain insurance at a reasonable cost for your major illnesses? Someone above said "life isn't fair" to justify my having to pay; but let's turn it around. Life isn't fair can also apply to situations like yours. And if there is a single payer system, we'll still be paying for you (at least those who pay no taxes). I'm tired of "life isn't fair" being used to steal my hard-earned dollars for the benefit of others.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Sept 18, 2017 16:25:58 GMT
I actually had a catastrophic policy preACA for a 2 years and find there's a lot of misconception on what it did and didn't cover. I was working for a small company which offered really horrific coverage for an extremely high price. We priced out a high deductible plan ($5,000) for our family of 4 (with 2 children under 6) and it was $179 per month. We decided that we'd bank the monthly difference between the policies to cover a potential event that wold lead to the $5,000 deductible and still come out ahead. FYI preventative care WAS covered. My kid's well checkups and immunizations were covered pre-deductible and annual physicals and bloodwork for my husband and I were also covered. I was too young than for a mammogram, so don't know if that would have been covered or not. It isn't too surprising that insurance companies would cover some preventative care as the worst case scenario for them is a medical bill over $5,000 as that's when they would actually need to pay. The bare bones policies help young, healthy people who right now find insurance unaffordable. They are being forced to pay thousands of dollars into a system which they only need if they have a catastrophic event. It would also bring insurance back to actual INSURANCE. High deductible HSA type plans are also one of the few things that has actually shown to have an impact on the cost of health care. Not all catastrophic plans covered the same things though. Your plan covered those but another may not have. Of course- I'm just saying there is no reason why a catastrophic plan can't cover those things. I have seen several proposals floated around for universal coverage of all using a catastrophic model that includes both preventative and high return services (ie statin drugs that reduce the risk of heart attacks). Most of the arguments against a high deductible plan seem moot to me now as the ACA marketplace plans ARE high deductible - but they're also insanely expensive. I priced out the exact deductible plan I was paying less than $200 for preACA on the marketplace when it came out and it was over $1,300. So now we have both high deductibles and high premiums.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 17:32:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2017 17:17:07 GMT
For-profit duplicative admin/marketing is expensive. Illnesses are expensive. Horrific accidents are expensive.
|
|
jayfab
Drama Llama
procastinating
Posts: 5,521
Jun 26, 2014 21:55:15 GMT
|
Post by jayfab on Sept 19, 2017 2:47:25 GMT
"Employers no longer want to hire full time because of Obamacare." quoting in case the bolded is lost among the text. I really am tired of this being touted all the time. Employers for the last 20 years have been downsizing employees/hours and using contractors. I know because I was one of the outsourced. Not one of the 3 jobs I found afterward offered insurance. Not one. And contrary to what people think about pre ACA, insurance was just not affordable prior. It cost hundreds a month and covered crap. I know firsthand. I ended up without insurance and needing gallbladder surgery. Even after begging for discounts from the doctors and hospital it wiped me out financially. I saw how so many had to file bankruptcy because of a medical issue. My husband and I are two healthy adults. Yet, we must pay $1200 per month for insurance and have deductibles of $4000 per person meaning we will likely never meet the deductibles in the absence of a major accident or illness. Year after year, we are paying the government over $13,000 for insurance that does us absolutely no good. I'm sorry, but why should we have to pay for insurance at these astronomical rates so that you (general you) can obtain insurance at a reasonable cost for your major illnesses? Someone above said "life isn't fair" to justify my having to pay; but let's turn it around. Life isn't fair can also apply to situations like yours. And if there is a single payer system, we'll still be paying for you (at least those who pay no taxes). I'm tired of "life isn't fair" being used to steal my hard-earned dollars for the benefit of others. Excuse me! Just because I didn't have insurance for a few years doesn't mean I didn't pay taxes. I paid and do pay taxes. Plenty of them. With the small amount of discount the DOCTORS and hospital gave me I still paid over 10,000.00 dollars. I was grateful for the small discount. And extremely grateful they worked with me. You can shove that condescension. That transition time was the only time I was without insurance in 40 years of working. Like hell if I'm going to feel guilty about it. And FYI in those 40 years I have never met my deductible. Why are you paying govt and not your insurance company? Anyway - the gist of my previous post was that pre ACA wasn't so rosy as people keep saying.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 17:32:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2017 12:41:41 GMT
|
|
pudgygroundhog
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,643
Location: The Grand Canyon
Jun 25, 2014 20:18:39 GMT
|
Post by pudgygroundhog on Sept 20, 2017 13:18:30 GMT
True, true, true. DH and I have been self employed for over 20 years and we pay all of our healthcare costs ourselves. Before the ACA our premiums were going up on average about 15-20% per year every year. Back then we were younger and in much better health and it was STILL crazy expensive for just the two of us. And before that, we worked an array of part time and/or full time jobs that offered no health coverage. For a while there we had no health or dental so at that time we just prayed we wouldn't get sick or need a filling because we didn't have insurance and couldn't afford it even if it was offered. The bottom line is that even before the ACA the annual premiums were surely never going DOWN. For anybody. Now DH and I are 50 and we both have what could be considered pre-existing health issues, so if the laws are changed in the ways that have been proposed by the GOP we would be totally, totally screwed and our insurance rates would surely skyrocket even more than they already have. The difference for us with the ACA is that more stuff HAS to be covered by the insurance we now have, and a lot of it is the preventative care that keeps us healthier and identifies potential issues sooner when they're more easily (and less expensively) treatable. The bare bones catastrophic policies that Snowsilver suggested and that don't really cover anything would help very few people. If people aren't covered for the preventative care that finds the problems early, manages them and keeps them from becoming catastrophic, they're not going to be treated for it until it becomes catastrophic. At that point, it's too little, too late. That money would be much better spent keeping people healthier in the first place. I actually had a catastrophic policy preACA for a 2 years and find there's a lot of misconception on what it did and didn't cover. I was working for a small company which offered really horrific coverage for an extremely high price. We priced out a high deductible plan ($5,000) for our family of 4 (with 2 children under 6) and it was $179 per month. We decided that we'd bank the monthly difference between the policies to cover a potential event that wold lead to the $5,000 deductible and still come out ahead. FYI preventative care WAS covered. My kid's well checkups and immunizations were covered pre-deductible and annual physicals and bloodwork for my husband and I were also covered. I was too young than for a mammogram, so don't know if that would have been covered or not. It isn't too surprising that insurance companies would cover some preventative care as the worst case scenario for them is a medical bill over $5,000 as that's when they would actually need to pay. The bare bones policies help young, healthy people who right now find insurance unaffordable. They are being forced to pay thousands of dollars into a system which they only need if they have a catastrophic event. It would also bring insurance back to actual INSURANCE. High deductible HSA type plans are also one of the few things that has actually shown to have an impact on the cost of health care. I don't think what I have is considered catastrophic, but it is similar. I love that my company offers several level of plans so people can find the right fit for their family. We don't have any chronic issues and rarely go to the doctor - so have a plan with very low premiums, higher deductibles, and higher out of pocket maximums (my husband carries his own insurance and has a high deductible HSA plan). I love my plan - my up front costs are low, but I'm covered if something drastic happens. Preventative care is included and deductible doesn't apply to routine things - so I don't have to worry about going to the doctor if sick (i.e. just have a copay or coinsurance instead of paying the full amount of a office visit). We could be out more money if something big happens unexpectedly, but it's a risk we are okay with because we save the extra money we would've spent on a more expensive plan.
|
|
pudgygroundhog
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,643
Location: The Grand Canyon
Jun 25, 2014 20:18:39 GMT
|
Post by pudgygroundhog on Sept 20, 2017 13:29:12 GMT
Izzyscraps, I promise you that many of us DO care what has happened to you. I have been simply astonished at the lack of response from many Peas to the multiple threads we have had here from many, MANY of our Peas detailing how their financial lives have virtually been ruined by Obama Care. Your story is just one of literally hundreds of stories I have read. When did we decide that this country has the right to do to its citizens what has been done to you and thousands of others??!! Somewhere along the line we seem to have decided that a preexisting condition trumps everything else including the financial solvency of thousands and thousands of our middle class citizens. Personally, I am stunned that we also think that a 26-year-old ADULT has the right to demand that American citizens pay his/her insurance so they can remain on mom and dad's policy. This is just nonsense to me. A person that old should be taking care his own needs. Obamacare is a disaster and I am constantly stunned at the refusal of its proponents to admit that. It has destroyed so many families that before it went into effect were managing. All of this is why I support catastrophic insurance only. I'm not sure about the circles you run in, but I know a lot of people who support ACA and none of these people (myself included) think ACA is perfect. No doubt there are many still hurting under ACA and we have to continue to improve the system. I think it's wrong to say that we don't care about people who can't afford the high premiums (which is not solely a factor of ACA - premiums were often too high and out of reach before ACA for many people already). I could turn around your statement and I say I am simply astonished at the lack of response from many peas about people with medical conditions who couldn't afford insurance or treatment before ACA. Health care before ACA was a complete disaster and I'm constantly stunned that opponents of ACA refuse to admit that. So many people died unnecessarily. Health care is complicated and can't be reduced to simple black and white terms - I think this is one of the biggest failings of the current debate.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 17:32:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2017 13:30:13 GMT
I don't think what I have is considered catastrophic, but it is similar. I love that my company offers several level of plans so people can find the right fit for their family. We don't have any chronic issues and rarely go to the doctor - so have a plan with very low premiums, higher deductibles, and higher out of pocket maximums (my husband carries his own insurance and has a high deductible HSA plan). I love my plan - my up front costs are low, but I'm covered if something drastic happens. Preventative care is included and deductible doesn't apply to routine things - so I don't have to worry about going to the doctor if sick (i.e. just have a copay or coinsurance instead of paying the full amount of a office visit). We could be out more money if something big happens unexpectedly, but it's a risk we are okay with because we save the extra money we would've spent on a more expensive plan. There were lots of "cheap plans" before ACA that covered basically nothing and as soon as something truly catastrophic happened they would top out and throw people off of coverage, basically putting them back on socialized care based on the rest of us paying the hospitals for their care. ACA said, we can't have so many people w/o insurance (w/o paying in) only to get catastrophic care through the rest of us when a truly horrible accident or disease happens. Now, we're going back to people either having no plan or such a shitty "catastrophic" plan that as soon as something really bad happens (disease or disaster), they'll be hitting maximums in no time, getting the minimal care the hospitals can get away with and w/the hospitals writing off their treatment and the rest of us picking up the difference.
|
|
pudgygroundhog
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,643
Location: The Grand Canyon
Jun 25, 2014 20:18:39 GMT
|
Post by pudgygroundhog on Sept 20, 2017 13:39:02 GMT
I don't think what I have is considered catastrophic, but it is similar. I love that my company offers several level of plans so people can find the right fit for their family. We don't have any chronic issues and rarely go to the doctor - so have a plan with very low premiums, higher deductibles, and higher out of pocket maximums (my husband carries his own insurance and has a high deductible HSA plan). I love my plan - my up front costs are low, but I'm covered if something drastic happens. Preventative care is included and deductible doesn't apply to routine things - so I don't have to worry about going to the doctor if sick (i.e. just have a copay or coinsurance instead of paying the full amount of a office visit). We could be out more money if something big happens unexpectedly, but it's a risk we are okay with because we save the extra money we would've spent on a more expensive plan. There were lots of "cheap plans" before ACA that covered basically nothing and as soon as something truly catastrophic happened they would top out and throw people off of coverage, basically putting them back on socialized care based on the rest of us paying the hospitals for their care. ACA said, we can't have so many people w/o insurance (w/o paying in) only to get catastrophic care through the rest of us when a truly horrible accident or disease happens. Now, we're going back to people either having no plan or such a shitty "catastrophic" plan that as soon as something really bad happens (disease or disaster), they'll be hitting maximums in no time, getting the minimal care the hospitals can get away with and w/the hospitals writing off their treatment and the rest of us picking up the difference. I agree - everybody needs to pay in (which is how an insurance model works) and that not all "catastrophic" plans are created equal. I was pointing out that my current plan (subsidized by my employer) is a good balance. I'm covered if something catastrophic happens (I don't lose coverage or get bumped off, once I hit my out of pocket maximum, they pick up the tab - so I would not be without care, nor would this cost be passed on to the government or hospital), but I also don't have to sweat routine visits. Preventative care is covered 100% and I pay a co-pay for routine visits. My premiums are very low, but deductible higher - but I'm okay with that trade off. I think if plans like this were offered, they would be attractive to younger, healthier people and they would be more likely to pay in. I'm talking specifically about a plan like this - not a catastrophic plan that really does nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Sept 20, 2017 13:53:20 GMT
Izzyscraps, I promise you that many of us DO care what has happened to you. I have been simply astonished at the lack of response from many Peas to the multiple threads we have had here from many, MANY of our Peas detailing how their financial lives have virtually been ruined by Obama Care. Your story is just one of literally hundreds of stories I have read. When did we decide that this country has the right to do to its citizens what has been done to you and thousands of others??!! Somewhere along the line we seem to have decided that a preexisting condition trumps everything else including the financial solvency of thousands and thousands of our middle class citizens. Personally, I am stunned that we also think that a 26-year-old ADULT has the right to demand that American citizens pay his/her insurance so they can remain on mom and dad's policy. This is just nonsense to me. A person that old should be taking care his own needs. Obamacare is a disaster and I am constantly stunned at the refusal of its proponents to admit that. It has destroyed so many families that before it went into effect were managing. All of this is why I support catastrophic insurance only. I'm not sure about the circles you run in, but I know a lot of people who support ACA and none of these people (myself included) think ACA is perfect. No doubt there are many still hurting under ACA and we have to continue to improve the system. I think it's wrong to say that we don't care about people who can't afford the high premiums (which is not solely a factor of ACA - premiums were often too high and out of reach before ACA for many people already). I could turn around your statement and I say I am simply astonished at the lack of response from many peas about people with medical conditions who couldn't afford insurance or treatment before ACA. Health care before ACA was a complete disaster and I'm constantly stunned that opponents of ACA refuse to admit that. So many people died unnecessarily. Health care is complicated and can't be reduced to simple black and white terms - I think this is one of the biggest failings of the current debate. 1000x this - if it was easy, the Democrats wouldn't have passed ACA with its glaring shortcomings. If it was easy, the Republicans would have passed something to improve ACA. There are a ton of unintended consequences and the continued belief that it's easy and straightforward without "losers" will keep us from actually accomplishing anything.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Sept 20, 2017 13:57:47 GMT
There were some really rotten plans and policies historically - probably the worst was an insurance companies ability to claim that something was preexisting and delay or deny coverage ie you have a history of migraines you never claimed on your paperwork, we won't cover your brain cancer and the patient ends up spending ridiculous amounts of time proving their brain cancer isn't related to undisclosed migraines. No one wants insurance that doesn't actually insure anyone.
|
|
|
Post by miominmio on Sept 20, 2017 14:18:26 GMT
We don't need to start w/the middle class family scrabbling to make it. We can start w/those 10% who have accumulated 76% of the wealth. Then we can move down from there. Some people have hundreds of millions. Some have nothing. Some have pre-existings. Some have great health. In a decent society, those who have tens or hundreds of millions more and need less, pay more than those who have less or need more. No, that is in a socialist society, which we are not (yet). And I know you are aware that the rich in this country pay massive amounts of taxes already. What we need to do is shore up our middle class because even the middle class (upper levels) are now hit with crippling taxes. Health care is probably the hardest problem to resolve we will ever face, and there is absolutely no way that it can be fixed so that it is "fair" to everyone. I, personally, believe in national catastrophic care only. I know that makes me insensitive and a bunch of other words, but I am also a realist. So all European countries, Australia and New Zealand are socialist countries to you? Just like the Soviet Union was? Because if you believe that, you really need to educate yourself.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 17:32:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2017 14:22:42 GMT
There were some really rotten plans and policies historically - probably the worst was an insurance companies ability to claim that something was preexisting and delay or deny coverage ie you have a history of migraines you never claimed on your paperwork, we won't cover your brain cancer and the patient ends up spending ridiculous amounts of time proving their brain cancer isn't related to undisclosed migraines. No one wants insurance that doesn't actually insure anyone. This is exactly why the government stepped in to stop things like this from happening.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Sept 20, 2017 14:28:47 GMT
No, that is in a socialist society, which we are not (yet). And I know you are aware that the rich in this country pay massive amounts of taxes already. What we need to do is shore up our middle class because even the middle class (upper levels) are now hit with crippling taxes. Health care is probably the hardest problem to resolve we will ever face, and there is absolutely no way that it can be fixed so that it is "fair" to everyone. I, personally, believe in national catastrophic care only. I know that makes me insensitive and a bunch of other words, but I am also a realist. So all European countries, Australia and New Zealand are socialist countries to you? Just like the Soviet Union was? Because if you believe that, you really need to educate yourself. The Soviet Union was a communist country, not socialist.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Sept 20, 2017 14:30:38 GMT
There were some really rotten plans and policies historically - probably the worst was an insurance companies ability to claim that something was preexisting and delay or deny coverage ie you have a history of migraines you never claimed on your paperwork, we won't cover your brain cancer and the patient ends up spending ridiculous amounts of time proving their brain cancer isn't related to undisclosed migraines. No one wants insurance that doesn't actually insure anyone. This is exactly why the government stepped in to stop things like this from happening. And I've never said there wasn't a role for the government - particularly when you're delaying with predatory practices.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 17:32:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2017 14:33:58 GMT
No, that is in a socialist society, which we are not (yet). And I know you are aware that the rich in this country pay massive amounts of taxes already. What we need to do is shore up our middle class because even the middle class (upper levels) are now hit with crippling taxes. Health care is probably the hardest problem to resolve we will ever face, and there is absolutely no way that it can be fixed so that it is "fair" to everyone. I, personally, believe in national catastrophic care only. I know that makes me insensitive and a bunch of other words, but I am also a realist. So all European countries, Australia and New Zealand are socialist countries to you? Just like the Soviet Union was? Because if you believe that, you really need to educate yourself. Ironic really considering that we in the UK have had universal health care here since 1948. From 1948 to the present we've had 30 years of a Labour government, which can probably be described as centre left in a political sense and a Conservative government for 39 years of those years since 1948......go figure!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 17:32:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2017 14:35:52 GMT
This is exactly why the government stepped in to stop things like this from happening. And I've never said there wasn't a role for the government - particularly when you're delaying with predatory practices. Never though you did. A lot of people grumble about the government getting up in their business. I thought you gave a great example of why sometimes the government needs to get up in someone’s business.
|
|
|
Post by prolificcrafter on Sept 20, 2017 14:43:32 GMT
No, that is in a socialist society, which we are not (yet). And I know you are aware that the rich in this country pay massive amounts of taxes already. What we need to do is shore up our middle class because even the middle class (upper levels) are now hit with crippling taxes. Health care is probably the hardest problem to resolve we will ever face, and there is absolutely no way that it can be fixed so that it is "fair" to everyone. I, personally, believe in national catastrophic care only. I know that makes me insensitive and a bunch of other words, but I am also a realist. So all European countries, Australia and New Zealand are socialist countries to you? Just like the Soviet Union was? Because if you believe that, you really need to educate yourself. Hmm I wonder who needs the education? The Soviet Union was Communist, not Socialist. Yes, many countries now have popular Socialist parties- in fact, many in Europe are. In Europe, 'socialist' doesn't have the negative connotation that it does here- it's just considered a mainstream party. Here, they won't dare call themselves socialists. Too bad because that's pretty much what the Democrats are- why not embrace it if that's what you think? It's not an insult.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 17:32:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2017 14:50:25 GMT
So all European countries, Australia and New Zealand are socialist countries to you? Just like the Soviet Union was? Because if you believe that, you really need to educate yourself. The Soviet Union was a communist country, not socialist. You have to admit that the politics and economics of both are very similar and that communism is, in many instances a higher stage of socialism. They both share the economic and political structures that promote equality and seek to eliminate social classes. A far left socialist government does border on communism in many ways.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Sept 20, 2017 15:03:09 GMT
The Soviet Union was a communist country, not socialist. You have to admit that the politics and economics of both are very similar and that communism is, in many instances a higher stage of socialism. They both share the economic and political structures that promote equality and seek to eliminate social classes. A far left socialist government does border on communism in many ways. Economics - yes politics - no and it doesn't help the discussion at all to ignore those fundamental differences and throwing the Soviet Union in this discussion. I also think we need to be extremely careful in taking snowsilver comments out of context. Her socialist society was specifically in response to @zingermack 's comment She did NOT say anyone who has universal health care is a socialist society - she may believe that, I don't know and won't speak to her. The ironic thing is that the UK's tax rates for upper income are not at all different than the US's upper tax bracket 45% versus 40.5% The difference in the tax codes is the middle brackets which are substantially higher 40% for those making more than 45,000 pounds (you'd pay closer to 25% in the US) So really you're paying for health care not through confiscatory taxes on wealthy individuals, but much higher taxes on the middle class - not socialist at all.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 17:32:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2017 15:15:37 GMT
So all European countries, Australia and New Zealand are socialist countries to you? Just like the Soviet Union was? Because if you believe that, you really need to educate yourself. Hmm I wonder who needs the education? The Soviet Union was Communist, not Socialist. Yes, many countries now have popular Socialist parties- in fact, many in Europe are. In Europe, 'socialist' doesn't have the negative connotation that it does here- it's just considered a mainstream party. Here, they won't dare call themselves socialists. Too bad because that's pretty much what the Democrats are- why not embrace it if that's what you think? It's not an insult. If by socialist, you mean there is no private ownership of property and that all wealth is shared among the people by a government, no many in Europe are not. All the countries that you seems to believe are socialist are inhabited by populations that decided, through their elected representatives, to have higher taxes in exchange for better social services, health being a priority. But most of their jobs and most of their economy are based on the private sector. They have social policies, but their economy is still primarily based on free enterprise. Most of Europe come into the above category........that isn't socialism. And if you look further into the US government both Republican and Democrat neither are completely free of socialism either.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 17:32:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2017 15:40:19 GMT
Something to keep in mind about this new bill that per Cassidy Jimmy Kimmel doesn’t understand.
Erza Klein....
“States do not have magic ways to cut healthcare costs. When funding drops, they cut people off, reduce eligibility, and trim benefits.”
|
|