I'm not buying into anything and I've only read what you've written. It doesn't make sense. You say the plan will be better because the sick will be taken out. At the same time you say no one will lose their coverage. How will the sick be taken out if there's no loss in coverage.
If they're being put on the government teat, how does that work without us being in t he exact same position we're in now, but worse because they'll be fewer people purchasing plans as they aren't mandated to purchase plans.
Time is your friend. Impulse is your enemy. -John Bogle
I'm not sure why it is difficult to understand that during the transition Obamacare will stay in place. Assuming January 1, 2018 is the date of the new plan start up, the sick pre-ex subscribers will be included in a new pool as described in post #24. Until then they keep what they have. The new plan will be rated like true insurance and not be forced to include the current pre-ex subscribers. No loss of coverage.
I asked if they could keep their current coverage. It seems the answer is yes, until January 1, 2018 right? At that point they WILL lose their coverage and will be transitioned to a high risk pool?
You know I wasn't in favor of the ACA. I just don't see how this will be any better. As usual, republicans only know how to oppose and they don't know how to govern.
Time is your friend. Impulse is your enemy. -John Bogle
They will not lose coverage. Going to a high risk pool does not take coverage away. High risk pools are common in the insurance industry for all types of insurance including health insurance.
It's too early to judge whether they will govern or not, but they have been consistent in opposing Obamacare from day one.
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.
the bold, the beautiful, theprofessor
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.
And then proceeded to tell me that at some point in 2018, their current coverage would be stopped (I don't know if revoked has a specific industry meaning or not) and they'd be moved to a high risk pool. So, their current coverage will not continue and they'll be moved to a different system. Correct? If the answer is NO, then the proposed system is LESS solvent than the currently insolvent system. If the answer is yes, I am unsure if passage is possible.
I'm not advocating for one thing or another, I'm trying to understand.
Time is your friend. Impulse is your enemy. -John Bogle