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.
Are you telling me insurance companies CAN refuse people for pre-existing conditions?
You can choose to purchase insurance during the annual open enrollment period. When you do, your medical history or lack thereof, does not matter.
If you choose to not insure your risks, your SOL till the next open enrollment period. In the meantime, you and you alone, are responsible for your choices and any uninsured medical expenses you incur while uninsured.
People get hit by cars, every day. Some of those cars are driven by motorists who choose not to comply with their state's minimum auto liability insurance mandate. Some of those cars are driven by people who choose to buy only the state minimum, which will likely be inadequate to cover your medical expenses, let alone lost wages and rehabilitation. Such drivers tend not to have assets, so suing is not going to pay your medical bills, lost wages or living expenses, while you are unable to work.
The open enrollment period has always been limited to several months out of the year. Works the same with employer-sponsored insurance unless one is a new hire or is a current hire with a life-changing event (birth, adoption, marriage...) The exchanges are set up the same way.
Now, a person could purchase an individual policy through an individual provider at any time of the year, but, there will likely be, as there are with employer-sponsored plans, waiting periods before one is covered.
And, if one does go this route, forget subsidies, etc. until the next open enrollment period.
As for the OP, I've no issue with employers dropping health coverage.
That used to be true. At the same time, the insurer could deny you insurance due to pre-existing conditions or limit future claims to things unrelated to the pre-existing condition.
so explain why premiums in Obamacare are more expensive for most people?
Quote:
Originally Posted by detwahDJ
That is just a Roger Ailes talking point designed to be accepted at face value by a sleepy Fox News audience - it stands out like a sore thumb. Can you even explain it? Skyrocketing costs are due to allowing corporations to do as they please, the expensive ER system itself, unnecessary but lucrative procedures performed, and rising costs of technology.
I am happy with my so called "facist" REGULATED corporate ER system.
Never had a problem with Keystone East.
Quote:
Originally Posted by detwahDJ
You have not explained how the unregulated corporate fascist ER system is better. I already said the ACA's flaw is a wet kiss to an established barnacle of an industry. Reading comprehension?
You have done zero homework other than to believe what fascist Fox News has told you. You see, they fear it will be as popular with Americans as Romneycare has been in Massachusetts. If Obama were a republicon, both you and Faux News would be singing the praises of the President and his program.
Do you even understand the basic premise behind Obamacare? Seems like before expressing an opinion you should at least accomplish that. Fox apostles don't even know if it is bad or not.
Did you know that the program was designed by the conservative Heritage Foundation as a gift to the repub corporate base? Fox hasn't told you that little fact?
Most hospitals are NFP. Being NFP, does not mean they are not allowed to have a profit. They simply cannot use those profits to pay dividends to their shareholders. So the best of them use those profits to build their brand and either put the competition out of business or acquire them. The less competition, the more they can charge.
Let's say there are 2 hospital based Cancer Treatment Centers, A and B, a few blocks from each other. "A" uses its profits to attract top international research talent to create the aura that they can cure you and they build the brand around this. "B" offers the same treatment plans but can do so for less because they do not invest in research talent or brand building.
When people receive a cancer diagnosis, they want the best care their insurance will buy. They have been bombarded with TV, direct mail and internet ads that tout hospital "A". So patients flock to hospital "A" for treatment.
That "B" charges less, is a drag on what "A" is reimbursed by insurers and Medicare. "A" has to either force " B" to close or buy it. When they succeed, they have reduced local competition and the reimbursement from insurers and Medicare will be higher.
Take private and public insurance out of it, and most people could not afford treatment. There is no way to make it affordable for the masses. I don't envision Walmart installing birthing rooms in the back of the stores and paying MDs $25/hr. at crunch time.
The growing trend seems to favor hospitals seeking to eliminate the middle man, the insurer. If the depth and breadth of their brand is large enough, they can offer their own insurance plans directly to consumers.
Oh yes, we need insurance of some sort. We can't take public or private insurance away, and as you say, there are only two possibilities, government (public) or corporate (private). Government can theoretically operate with lower overhead i.e. profit. A "public option" is what it says. The VA system uses military doctors for routine care, can barter drug prices, but uses private hospitals for serious illnesses.
Single-payer is just medicare for all. Both still use private hospitals and are insurance programs. The government ones are more broad-based with probably many more subscribers (a larger pool). Both are competition to the corporate insurers, thus the "free market" political opposition.
If hospitals offered their own programs, would these just cover costs? A government-run hospital could do that, but no reason for a private hospital to do the same.
My point about the ER system is that they must treat patients who can't afford it because they are seriously ill, the treatment success rate is lower due to lack of previous preventive care, costs must be absorbed somewhere and those costs ultimately get passed to the paying customers. This makes the whole system expensive. Healthcare is inevitably for profit on all fronts, but the difference is how much and where.
OK - so when Obama, or whomever, speaks about insurance companies not rejecting customers because of pre-existing conditions - what is he talking about?
It seems a little misinformation goes a long way when it comes to the ACA.
Pre ACA, you could be denied insurance based on a pre-existing condition. That condition need not have been a big bad nasty diagnosis of a Cancer. Think along the lines of more common things like anti-depressants, a cholesterol medication, diabetes and even ED.
ACA legislation no longer allows an insurer to deny you insurance due to preexisting conditions, no matter how simple or complex.
Assume you choose to remain uninsured and ignore the Open Enrollment Deadline of 3/31. You and you alone will be responsible for any and all medical expenses incurred in 2014.
Beginning in November, 2014 you can buy insurance that will be effective in 2015, regardless of pre-existing conditions. Your 2015 policy is not going to pay claims for medical services you incurred prior to becoming insured. It will however, pay new claims related to medical services you received in 2015, subject to the terms of the plan, you choose.
I am no leftie and I do advocate for universal healthcare.
Here are improvements that I see:
People cannot be denied insurance for a pre-existing condition.
People can no longer be dropped from their individual plan, when they get sick
There are no longer annual/lifetime caps on pay-outs.
Annual out of pocket costs, including the deductible are capped.
There's a cap on the premium, based on a percentage of income.
There's a cap on insurer's profits.
There's a cap on annual increases.
Lowers senior's prescription medication prices by beginning to close the donut hole.
Offers tax credits to small businesses to purchase group insurance for their employees.
Adult children can be covered on a parent's policy till age 26.
You now have deductibles that have tripled in many states. You have higher copays. You also have businesses holding people to under 30 hours of work per week to avoid Obamacare. And the premiums are all higher because of that 'free' stuff you cited. Had the plan simply been to remove caps and get rid of the preconditions, you may have had a better plan. The devil is in the details.
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.
Can you even explain it?
