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.
Oh, boy, my feeling is not good about any of this. If we could indefinitely keep our insurance we had at work if we lost our jobs, that would ease a lot of worry that keeps me up at night. We can't. Right now, I try not to get anything diagnosed that could cause me to have a pre-exisiting condition. I don't let the doctor do any bloodwork or tests. I have insurance but I don't use my insurance so I can keep my insurance--what a dumb system. It doesn't make me happy.
Doctor Hugo was describing a theoretical that isn't likely to happen--portability.
It is a bad situation to be in, and we all are in it someway or another. When people are afraid to get diagnostic tests for fear of finding they have a disease, they are open to even more problems by not taking advantage of early detection capabilities. Not dealing early with issues, will result in much more expensive care needs later. We all should feel free to avail ourselves of all the technology that has been developed. There is, of course, a good deal of over use of that, primarily due to money reasons, but to not do it for fear of discovering a pre-existing condition and it's associated impact on future coverage, just strenghtens the argument for prohibiting the exclusion of that. There are just so many reasons that this country needs to address this whole issue honestly and openly. There are many other countries that have. That we refuse to acknowledge that we can learn from their experiences, is an arrogance that we are fast becoming unable to afford.
I see. So if you have stage-1 cancer, and they refuse your insurance application, all you gotta do is wait until its stage-5 and then they'll treat you at ER. Okie dokie. Like I said, this was one of those rare things both parties agreed on.
If I was diagnosed with stage one cancer I'd run not walk to my Naturopathic Doctor (not to be confused with a conventional western medical doctor or oncologist), to have him figure out the underlying cause of the disease then RADICALLY CHANGE MY DIET according to his recommendations until my immune system permanently fought off the cancer and the underlying cause was eliminated. In six months or a year when the cancer was gone, I'd still have my hair and most of my money and would be permanently free of the disease and probably look 10 years younger!
People have to choose their priorities. It seems few do that well these days. Tell me how people living paycheck to paycheck can choose to make a mortgage payment, 2 car payments, daycare, cell phone plans, cable t.v. ....but not their own health insurance?
If people were responsible for purchasing their own insurance, rather than it being part of an employment "benefits package" it would be portable and would not be dependant upon the job but instead on the person. An individual loses his/her job...the insurance does not go away unless/until the person stops paying his/her premiums. Catastrophic coverage should always be an option for those who wish to be self-insured or small employers who cannot otherwise afford to offer health care insurance (small farms, 4 man contractor crews, etc...) regardless of pre-existing conditions.
I agree with most of what you've said however I think pre-exisisting condition limitations are a necessary evil for health insurance and actually a good thing --and very fair. Without having some sort of pre-existing condtion restriction there would be no incentive to buy insurance before you needed it. Just as you don't expect to get homeowners insurance at a cheap rate AFTER your house has caught on fire, it isn't reasonable to expect a health insurer to insure you with major pre-existing condtions ESPECIALLY if you haven't had health insurance in a while and been paying into the system.
If you do away with pre-existing condition limitations and switch to community rating where everyone in the same zip code who is a certain age pays the same rate, the healthy people who would have qualified for great rates if health history was allowed to be considered by the insurance company, end up paying double the rates under community rating.
The only people that benefit under community rating are the people in their late 50's and early sixties and the very sick/ highest consumers of care. EVERYONE ELSE LOSES.
Also, we have to make all Americans start living healthier lifestyles. It's not fair to those Americans living a sensible and healthy lifestyle to use our health insurance premiums and taxes to pay for those who live an unhealthy lifestyle and having the health problems that go with those bad decisions. Wh should my premiums go towards paying for some overeating obese person's gastric bypass or lap band surgery? Or a cigarette smoker's throat or lung cancer treatments? Or an alcoholic's liver transplant?
Well let's see here .... my treadmill running has kept others from having to pay for my bariatric surgery, I guess. However they will be paying for this week's coming MRI for my knee. Should the alcoholics, smokers and obese get to complain about that?
I agree with what you are saying workingclasshero. The only thing I don't know if you are aware of this catastrophic insurance for a family buying it on their own is at $12,000 dollars a year. Add to that dr visits and a family making $50,000 a year has a difficult time paying for it. Add on average a twenty percent increase each year and the middle class is even priced out of catastrophic insurance.
You must live in one of the "bad" states. Also what is your idea of "catastrophic" coverage? Catastrophic coverage to me for a family would have a $10,000 deductible. If you pay $1000 a month for a policy like that you must live in one of the "bad" states because rates are much lower in the good states for a plan with a $10k deductible in the good states.
I agree with most of what you've said however I think pre-exisisting condition limitations are a necessary evil for health insurance and actually a good thing --and very fair. Without having some sort of pre-existing condtion restriction there would be no incentive to buy insurance before you needed it. Just as you don't expect to get homeowners insurance at a cheap rate AFTER your house has caught on fire, it isn't reasonable to expect a health insurer to insure you with major pre-existing condtions ESPECIALLY if you haven't had health insurance in a while and been paying into the system.
If you do away with pre-existing condition limitations and switch to community rating where everyone in the same zip code who is a certain age pays the same rate, the healthy people who would have qualified for great rates if health history was allowed to be considered by the insurance company, end up paying double the rates under community rating.
The only people that benefit under community rating are the people in their late 50's and early sixties and the very sick/ highest consumers of care. EVERYONE ELSE LOSES.
What if the person had continual insurance? Like--they had good insurance through their employer, but the employer went bankrupt, or closed the division they worked for? And now their Cobra is running out?
It is a bad situation to be in, and we all are in it someway or another. When people are afraid to get diagnostic tests for fear of finding they have a disease, they are open to even more problems by not taking advantage of early detection capabilities. Not dealing early with issues, will result in much more expensive care needs later. We all should feel free to avail ourselves of all the technology that has been developed. There is, of course, a good deal of over use of that, primarily due to money reasons, but to not do it for fear of discovering a pre-existing condition and it's associated impact on future coverage, just strenghtens the argument for prohibiting the exclusion of that. There are just so many reasons that this country needs to address this whole issue honestly and openly. There are many other countries that have. That we refuse to acknowledge that we can learn from their experiences, is an arrogance that we are fast becoming unable to afford.
I agree with most of what you've said however I think pre-exisisting condition limitations are a necessary evil for health insurance and actually a good thing --and very fair. Without having some sort of pre-existing condtion restriction there would be no incentive to buy insurance before you needed it. Just as you don't expect to get homeowners insurance at a cheap rate AFTER your house has caught on fire, it isn't reasonable to expect a health insurer to insure you with major pre-existing condtions ESPECIALLY if you haven't had health insurance in a while and been paying into the system.
If you do away with pre-existing condition limitations and switch to community rating where everyone in the same zip code who is a certain age pays the same rate, the healthy people who would have qualified for great rates if health history was allowed to be considered by the insurance company, end up paying double the rates under community rating.
The only people that benefit under community rating are the people in their late 50's and early sixties and the very sick/ highest consumers of care. EVERYONE ELSE LOSES.
Also, everyone eventually will be in their fifties and sixties (if they don't die young). Why work your whole life to lose it all in your fifties because that is the one decade you can't buy health insurance (maybe after being let go from work)? And what about your parents, if you are very young? Do you want them to lose their home to medical expenses? And what about teenagers who become adults? What if they have a pre-existing conditions? If you don't care about anyone but yourself--what if your child has a pre-existing condition and you can do nothing to help them when they turn 18?
Here is one place that you are dead wrong...there is such a thing as pre-existing conditions for employer sponsored plans. I don't have time to look up all the details but the basic idea is that you have to have been insured right up until going onto the new plan or your pre-existing conditions may not be covered, or there is a waiting period for service. It's called "creditable coverage" and you have to have it in order to be fully covered as of day one for all your injuries and illnesses (except maternity) on an employer sponsored plan. No they don't ask you what conditions you have and they can't refuse to cover you period, but if you get medical care for what they determine is "pre-existing" condition and you were not covered right up until the day before you went on their coverage, then they will absolutely deny your claim. That's just a fact. Perhaps that's something your Rwers don't want you to know about?
No arielmina, in some states, legislators now will not allow health insurers even for small groups or self- employed individuals to ask any health questions or to any longer have any pre-existing waiting period. This is not the way it USED to be of course. These most liberal states are the exception to the rule where in most states they still do medically underwrite applications and require a pre-ex waiting period if the employee had not had prior coverage for 18 months with no gaps. Of course these states where there are no pre-ex limitations have the highest rates, the fewest choices of plans and carriers and the healthier groups pay two to three times what they might in a normal state with medical underwriting and where pre-ex waiting periods are allowed.
1. Because she can't afford much of anything out of pocket. She's $90,000 in debt with student loans.
2. It does make a difference in some companies. DH used to work for a very small company. The owner's son was a type I diabetic. A "consultant's" recommendation was that the owner drop his son (he was eligible for insurance at college) and our rates would go down. The owner made a decision as a father and kept his kid in our group, which raised our rates. I feel he would have done it for any of his employees.
If I was the owner of that company, assuming this is a normal state--let's say, North Carolina, in that situation I'd get an individual family plan from an individual carrier for my family or even from the high risk pool there which have reasonable rates... so I was just paying high premiums for my family. Then I'd get a group plan for my employees from a private insurer and simply waive the group coverage for my family. I'd certainly be paying less money overall because the drop in group rates would more than offset the higher rates for my individual family rates
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.
