Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Insurers still have to cover pre-existing conditions, but they will be able to charge more for people who are recently uninsured. The plan allows insurance companies to charge higher rates if a person has a significant lapse in coverage. Higher rates will be charged if a person was uninsured for 63 continuous days during the previous 12 months."
My concern is that if someone with a preexisting condition loses their job, and therefore coverage thru their employer, 63 days is not a very long period of time for most to find another job. Yes, COBRA may help if they can afford the high premiums. Will their new employer be required to accept them on the company's insurance plan, and if so, wouldn't that be a higher cost burden to the employer?
"Insurers still have to cover pre-existing conditions, but they will be able to charge more for people who are recently uninsured. The plan allows insurance companies to charge higher rates if a person has a significant lapse in coverage. Higher rates will be charged if a person was uninsured for 63 continuous days during the previous 12 months."
My concern is that if someone with a preexisting condition loses their job, and therefore coverage thru their employer, 63 days is not a very long period of time for most to find another job. Yes, COBRA may help if they can afford the high premiums. Will their new employer be required to accept them on the company's insurance plan, and if so, wouldn't that be a higher cost burden to the employer?
I think the proposed premium increase is 30 percent for a period of one year. I don't know the answer to your question. Maybe someone with more knowledge on group plans and employment laws can chime in.
"Insurers still have to cover pre-existing conditions, but they will be able to charge more for people who are recently uninsured. The plan allows insurance companies to charge higher rates if a person has a significant lapse in coverage. Higher rates will be charged if a person was uninsured for 63 continuous days during the previous 12 months."
My concern is that if someone with a preexisting condition loses their job, and therefore coverage thru their employer, 63 days is not a very long period of time for most to find another job. Yes, COBRA may help if they can afford the high premiums. Will their new employer be required to accept them on the company's insurance plan, and if so, wouldn't that be a higher cost burden to the employer?
The plan won't work. Affordable coverage for people with a preexisting condition is only possible when there are sizable numbers of healthy people in the insurance pool with them. Without the mandate, healthy people are not going to get into this risk pool.
The new plan will finish off the concept of insurance coverage for those with preexisting conditions. It would be more honest if the republicans simply admitted this was the case. "Freedom" for one person means unaffordable insurance coverage for another.
The new plan will finish off the concept of insurance coverage for those with preexisting conditions. It would be more honest if the republicans simply admitted this was the case.
That was their plan all along. Go back - to underwriting for pre-existing condition, expensive and often-failing high risk pools, and charity for Medicaid. Caller to C-Span the other day said she was a "nun on the bus" and said they talked to Ryan last year or earlier - and he said churches/charity etc. should be taking care of the Medicaid people, not the taxpayers. I did hear Ryan today say to Chris Wallace they were going to fix the proposed plan to increase the tax credits for older people - no figures mentioned. They just can't abide the barometer which makes the most sense - income-based subsidies. Somehow, they can swallow age. Guess that's a pre-existing condition.
That was their plan all along. Go back - to underwriting for pre-existing condition, expensive and often-failing high risk pools, and charity for Medicaid. Caller to C-Span the other day said she was a "nun on the bus" and said they talked to Ryan last year or earlier - and he said churches/charity etc. should be taking care of the Medicaid people, not the taxpayers. I did hear Ryan today say to Chris Wallace they were going to fix the proposed plan to increase the tax credits for older people - no figures mentioned. They just can't abide the barometer which makes the most sense - income-based subsidies. Somehow, they can swallow age. Guess that's a pre-existing condition.
No, age is a demographic that votes and has been rattling a lot of cages.
Poor is a demographic that is often also uneducated and a lot more to believe what they are told. So much likelier to continually vote against their own best economic interests.
Back in the pre ACA days carriers could reject you for individual policies if you were obese, smoked, etc. or otherwise failed their underwriting guidelines because you were a "bad risk."
Most employer sponsored plans today still specifically exclude treatment for obesity (although some do cover bariatric surgery for morbid obesity if you meet med nec criteria and it's a covered benefit).
I understood that one of the features needed when you have a "no denial of coverage" is to also specify some minimum coverage. I think this is one thing that was good about the ACA, but also caused some people with past lower coverage policies to have higher premiums. But at least leveled the coverage.
I do not see that in the R plan, so I think while we can not be denied coverage, we may not like the coverage that is "affordable". The plans and associated premiums will be up to the insurance companies.
Plan A covers all the OTC drugs you can take, $100/month. (sad humor applied)
Plan B more like the current ACA - $1000/month.
Neither will be denied to anyone, just really expensive to get good coverage.
Also from what I see, there is nothing in the R plan that will reduce costs. The "holy grail" that gets mentioned occasionally, which is already allowed under the ACA, tried and shown not to work in the recent past, is "selling insurance across state lines". This will do nothing for costs as the cost of healthcare is still high.
Sad that Trump met with drug companies a few weeks ago to persuade them to reduce prices... and a few days after one drug company raised price on a drug 600%. Well that worked Unless there are price controls, doubtful an R strategy, prices will continue to rise. As an aside, the VA has significantly reduced prices for drugs as negotiated rates (about 30% of what I pay for a few sampled). So someone was successful.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Unless there are price controls, doubtful an R strategy, prices will continue to rise. As an aside, the VA has significantly reduced prices for drugs as negotiated rates (about 30% of what I pay for a few sampled). So someone was successful.
