Re: Whatcha think Pawdawg: ACA replacement
I can't get past the basic question. Why is the government concerned with my health care in the first place? The reason this is complicated is because the government is involved.
The practical matter is this. Before Obamacare, we paid $95 per month for my son's health insurance. Immediately after Obamacare it became $405 with a much higher deductible. That means that we must be paying the insurance for three other people.
Get government out of our health care. It really isn't that complicated. But, it will remain complicated and long debates will continue on now the government should run our lives.
Insanity.
Re: Whatcha think Pawdawg: ACA replacement
Quote:
Originally Posted by
theprofessor
I'm not really talking about a child not having insurance. I'm talking about when that child becomes an adult. I am a Type 1 diabetic. I was diagnosed at age 12. I cannot get private insurance if there is no pre-existing clause. I'm lucky in that I have a job where I can get insurance through, but honestly, my health has closed a number of doors as far as careers because health insurance is such a primary concern.
First of all, I'm glad you are now in a profession that provides good health care benefits. I have a feeling you chose teaching for more than just the great benefits.
I'm not familiar with your career before you went to work with Gannett, but I assume they provided benefits. Long before Obamacare became law you would have been protected by the law that allow you to purchase an individual policy even if you had a pre-ex. The catch was that you had to purchase a new plan within 63 days of losing coverage. Anybody losing group coverage has always had and continues to have an option for COBRA or state continuation.
Before Obamacare there were companies that would accept type1 diabetics who did not require dialysis. There was also a special pool for pre-ex. Of course it was expensive, but not as expensive as Obamacare is now.
Re: Whatcha think Pawdawg: ACA replacement
Hate to jump in late, but I thought I'd put my understanding of the pre-ex situation with the new bill:
The new plan keeps pre-ex conditions mandate, but allows insurers to charge an additional 30% for one year on the premium when someone with a pre-ex becomes covered. Obamacare not only forced pre-existing conditions coverage, but also fixed the pricing, which is and was a quick road to insolvency.
The four big changes with this version of the law:
1. Employer mandate repealed
2. Individual mandate repealed
3. Cost-sharing subsidy repealed
4. Premium subsidy replaced with tax credits
Before obamacare, the provisions of this bill earn a solid F.
After 7 years of economic destruction that is obamacare, its an improvement, maybe a C-.
Re: Whatcha think Pawdawg: ACA replacement
What about competition across state lines?
I thought that was Trump's best talking about.
Re: Whatcha think Pawdawg: ACA replacement
Quote:
Originally Posted by
johnnylightnin
What about competition across state lines?
I thought that was Trump's best talking about.
It's not in this bill. It is allegedly in a second or third bill to come at a later date.
Not pointed at you, but, generally in regards to Trump-
Any trump supporter who thought Trump would repeal Obamacare wholesale wasn't paying attention, especially in regards to pre-ex conditions. This bill is exactly what I expected out of Trump now that policy rubber has met the road: Middle of the road deal-making, and he's kept everything he said he would.
Re: Whatcha think Pawdawg: ACA replacement
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LATechBanjo
Hate to jump in late, but I thought I'd put my understanding of the pre-ex situation with the new bill:
The new plan keeps pre-ex conditions mandate, but allows insurers to charge an additional 30% for one year on the premium when someone with a pre-ex becomes covered.
.
I think some of the pre-ex may fall under the "Continuous Coverage" provision of the bill which includes any person going more than 63 days without coverage in the previous 12 month period.
Re: Whatcha think Pawdawg: ACA replacement
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PawDawg
I think some of the pre-ex may fall under the "Continuous Coverage" provision of the bill which includes any person going more than 63 days without coverage in the previous 12 month period.
Correct. I could be wrong, but I think that was the intention of the "continuous coverage" clause - to allow insurers to mark up pre-ex.
Re: Whatcha think Pawdawg: ACA replacement
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LATechBanjo
Correct. I could be wrong, but I think that was the intention of the "continuous coverage" clause - to allow insurers to mark up pre-ex.
Yes, I imagine there are many pre-ex patients who could not afford the Obamacare premiums, but will be glad to pay an extra 30% for 12 months.
Re: Whatcha think Pawdawg: ACA replacement
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LATechBanjo
Any trump supporter who thought Trump would repeal Obamacare wholesale wasn't paying attention, especially in regards to pre-ex conditions. This bill is exactly what I expected out of Trump now that policy rubber has met the road: Middle of the road deal-making, and he's kept everything he said he would.
My thoughts exactly. All he ever said was state to state competition would come, everyone had to be covered (and sounded like a mandate), and that pre-existing conditions would be covered.
I'm wondering now whether or not he can get this thing passed. If he can't get the conservative republicans on board, the bill will be in trouble as it will have uniform democrat opposition. How many Rand Paul's will vote no?
Re: Whatcha think Pawdawg: ACA replacement
Quote:
Originally Posted by
johnnylightnin
My thoughts exactly. All he ever said was state to state competition would come, everyone had to be covered (and sounded like a mandate), and that pre-existing conditions would be covered.
I'm wondering now whether or not he can get this thing passed. If he can't get the conservative republicans on board, the bill will be in trouble as it will have uniform democrat opposition. How many Rand Paul's will vote no?
I think it cruises through the house. It will have a puncher's chance in the Senate. Paul's vote can be bought with the promise of more changes to come.
As much as I think every conservative has their aches and pains about this bill (myself included), it's real hard to argue that it's not an improvement.
On the other hand, why take an 18 foot jump shot when you can just back up a couple of feet and take the three? If senate conservatives think they only get one swing at the bear, they'd better not miss.
Re: Whatcha think Pawdawg: ACA replacement
Re: Whatcha think Pawdawg: ACA replacement
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RhythmDawg
Such will power has been required to not post on this thread...short of my one initial post. I have finally given in.
The root of the problem you describe here professor is that you should not need, nor use, insurance for the vast majority of your healthcare services. You should only need the insurance for high dollar, catastrophic instances. But because they insurance low cost, highly utilized services...and because your diabetes made you at high risk to be a high utilizer...you couldn't get insured for anything. The problem is the bogus insurance reimbursement model. If the Repubs don't fix that, the root of the problem will persist.
Someone find me an insurance type which works like health insurance. Anyone.
I guess the argument is health insurance vs. health care. What I need isn't insurance. What I need is affordable health care. A three-month supply of my insulin costs almost $1,700. I need that four times per year. That's $6,800 for insulin alone. That doesn't even consider the cost of my insulin pump (thousands of dollars even with "insurance") or my pump supplies (over $100 per month with insurance). Having Type 1 diabetes, which unlike Type 2 is not brought on through any fault of the person who has the disease (we're still certain for a real cause), is a financially crippling disease without some sort of insurance or affordable health care. And yet, until Obamacare was passed, I was automatically ineligible for private insurance because it's considered a pre-existing condition, one I got when I was 12 years old. I have been extremely lucky to have insurance through an employer my entire adult life. I've only had to get COBRA once to extend that coverage until a new employer could pick up the coverage. Not everyone is that lucky. There are many jobs that don't have insurance as a benefit. Those people are now taking advantage of Obamacare, and even if it is expensive, it's certainly much, much cheaper than the alternative route of not having insurance and paying thousands and thousands of dollars for health-care costs.
Re: Whatcha think Pawdawg: ACA replacement
What I meed is for conservatives to quit arguing about how best the government should control my health care.
Repeal
Re: Whatcha think Pawdawg: ACA replacement
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Soonerdawg
What I meed is for conservatives to quit arguing about how best the government should control my health care.
Repeal
It'd be great if all you had to do to get government out of healthcare was repeal the ACA, but that's not the case. The system was broken before and both parties just kicked the van down the road.
I'd love for Rhythmdawg to he the architect of what we do, but we know his solutions aren't likely to be widely accepted because they'll cost the insurance companies too much in lost premiums.
Re: Whatcha think Pawdawg: ACA replacement
Big pharma is the money grabber and the problem. Government intervention in a free market system over the past 30 plus years has not helped at all. One party wants more government involvement and always has.