Whatcha think Pawdawg: ACA replacement

[Soonerdawg]

I'm not sure what the answer is, but I imagine that the pre-existing condition coverage isn't going anywhere. Like most entitlements, once it was passed, it will be politically impossible to get rid of it. So, what do we do with it?

Then quit calling it insurance.

[johnnylightnin]

You are buying into the liberal mantra that says the sick will lose coverage. There will be not be a loss of coverage. To simplify it, the sick go on the government teat without being included in the new plan's "law of large numbers" group that will determine the new rates.

I thought I explained that in post #24, but probably didn't explain it well.

Keep in mind there are two plans involved..for now.

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.

[PawDawg]

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.

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.

[PawDawg]

There will be not be a loss of coverage.

Sorry, I just saw the typo. I transposed and didn't put all three words in bold... It should have said "There will not be"

[johnnylightnin]

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.

[PawDawg]

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.

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.

[johnnylightnin]

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.

Will they keep their current coverage (my original question)?

[PawDawg]

Will they keep their current coverage (my original question)?

No, it will be poor quality coverage designed mostly to keep the person of color and poor person in his place.

[johnnylightnin]

No, it will be poor quality coverage designed mostly to keep the person of color and poor person in his place.

Is it so hard to give a straight answer? I guess you think I've got an angle, but I dont. I ask you because I figure you know, but you can't post without responding to a point you imagine I'm making.

Trying to figure out TMac is less frustrating.

[PawDawg]

Is it so hard to give a straight answer? I guess you think I've got an angle, but I dont. I ask you because I figure you know, but you can't post without responding to a point you imagine I'm making.

Those with pre-ex will continued to be covered ...

The bill creates a separate fund for pre-ex patients through a high risk pool or other arrangement(s).

There will not be (corrected) a loss of coverage. To simplify it, the sick go on the government teat without being included in the new plan's "law of large numbers" group that will determine the new rates.

Keep in mind there are two plans involved..for now.

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.

\.

[johnnylightnin]

No, but that is a falsehood being spread by dems. Although Republicans do want to kill all old and poor people, they are cutting them some slack in this bill.

I'm on my phone, so I can't multi-quote, but this is where your answers got squirrelly. The correct answer to my question was, "yes".

[PawDawg]

I'm on my phone, so I can't multi-quote, but this is where your answers got squirrelly. The correct answer to my question was, "yes".

You asked this...

So currently covered people with pre-existing conditions will have their current coverage revoked?

I answered no.

[theprofessor]

- Why was the child not insured at the time he was diagnosed?

- If it was because his parents were poor the child qualifies for LaChip. In Louisiana families of 4 can make over $5k/mo and still qualify. Most states have similar programs.


Are you also in favor of being able to purchase auto or fire insurance after the accident/fire?

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.

[RhythmDawg]

Such will power has been required to not post on this thread...short of my one initial post. I have finally given in.

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 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.

[johnnylightnin]

You asked this...

So currently covered people with pre-existing conditions will have their current coverage revoked?

I answered no.

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.