• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Coronavirus could be considered a preexisting condition if Obamacare is struck down

Casper said:
You don't say why your coverage was dropped and why you did not just buy another policy elsewhere. And by the way, that is all trump and the Republicants want for you in the future, except without the option of ACA and no guarantee that pre-existing conditions will be covered, yet you support their agenda, seems like you are going against your own best interests.
Click to expand...
You guys don't understand English. I was in a self bought policy with Anthem and it covered my pre-existing conditions at a higher rate than others. When the ACA was passed they had some lame excuse why I couldn't keep that policy anymore. I can't remember the reason they used. So, the only insurance I could get at that time was on the ACA marketplace and that policy was far, far, more expensive (counting both premiums and out of pocket costs, which I always maxed out on) than what I had had before.
 
Lovebug said:
So iow, scare people shitless by any means is ok as long as it serves the desired purpose. Russia?
Click to expand...

You don't think millions of families getting kicked off their health insurance all at once, during a pandemic, is a cause for concern?
 
Moderate Right said:
You guys don't understand English. I was in a self bought policy with Anthem and it covered my pre-existing conditions at a higher rate than others. When the ACA was passed they had some lame excuse why I couldn't keep that policy anymore. I can't remember the reason they used. So, the only insurance I could get at that time was on the ACA marketplace and that policy was far, far, more expensive (counting both premiums and out of pocket costs, which I always maxed out on) than what I had had before.
Click to expand...
Correct. Their real reason was "we want to sell you a more expensive plan." They blamed the ACA because people like you would buy it, and shift your anger to the government instead of towards Anthem who made the actual decision.
 
Lovebug said:
So iow, scare people shitless by any means is ok as long as it serves the desired purpose. Russia?
Click to expand...

Scaring people? You mean like Trump saying that if Biden is elected the police will be defunded? See unlike Trump's ridiculous claim (Biden can't defund the police BTW), having had the Coronavirus WOULD in fact be a pre-existing condition and that would affect people if the ACA is struck down.
 
Thom Paine said:
How

do you know this ?
Click to expand...

Anyone who has any actual knowledge of how the (for profit) insurance industry actually operates will tell you that the main driver in "paying claims" is "How much will our profit be affected if we pay (proportionately) more (or fewer) claims?".

An insurance company that develops a reputation (justified or not) for NOT paying, tends to lose business (which means that its profits [and, hence, its dividends] go down. This means no bonuses (and potentially no jobs) for the existing management.

An insurance company that develops a reputation (justified or not) for paying, tends to gain business (which means that its profits [and, hence, its dividends] go up. This means bonuses - and job security - for the existing management.

HOWEVER, an insurance company that (poportionately) pays claims to an amount where its profits [and, hence, its dividends] go down tends to have really angry shareholders and that means no bonuses (and potentially no jobs) for the existing management.

Remember the basic rules of insurance
  1. Don't pay.

  2. Don't pay.

  3. Don't pay.

  4. If you have to pay, pay as little as you possibly can.

  5. Once you have figured out how little you can pay, take as long as you possibly can before you actually do pay.

  6. For tax purposes, list all claims as contingent liabilities and at the maximum possible amount while including them in the profit and loss system as expenses.
 
Deuce said:
Correct. Their real reason was "we want to sell you a more expensive plan." They blamed the ACA because people like you would buy it, and shift your anger to the government instead of towards Anthem who made the actual decision.
Click to expand...
Before Obamacare I had coverage for pre-existing conditions and had had it for years and it was modestly priced. After the ACA my cost skyrocketed. If I remember correctly Anthem cancelled my policy because it didn't fit the ACA requirements.
 
Paradoxical said:
We have able bodied people unemployed here and on welfare for decades. We have county and/or state hospitals for them. Gubment run They are great.
Click to expand...

You know they still get a bill, right?
 
To US: You should do as other countries (like mine) do: Corona is a pandemic not a societal phenomenon, put your political difference aside, listen to the medical experts, decide on a strategy and implement it together. go go go! You can evaluate the strategy afterwards.

Any strategy is better than no strategy (which unfortunately is your presidents favorite)
 
Last edited:
Moderate Right said:
Before Obamacare I had coverage for pre-existing conditions and had had it for years and it was modestly priced. After the ACA my cost skyrocketed. If I remember correctly Anthem cancelled my policy because it didn't fit the ACA requirements.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's the excuse I mentioned. They weren't actually under legal obligation to cancel your plan.
 
Novichok said:
Leftism should be considered a preexisting condition.

And incurable.
Click to expand...
As long as Rightism is also considered a preexisting condition.

Maybe someday health care won't be such a partisan issue.
 
snakestretcher said:
Thank goodness for UHC; no bills, no denial of claims because of pre-existing conditions, no co-pays, no negotiating the best 'deal' or stressing over the possibility your insurer won't pay up. I go to the doctor/hospital, get fixed, go home and all for a measly monthly contribution via general taxation. And American 'libertarians' say it's a bad thing? It's no coincidence that the top ten countries with the best performing healthcare systems all enjoy UHC. Nobody complains-except envious conservative Americans having to pay jaw-dropping amounts for substandard healthcare (ranking 37th in the world for overall quality).
Click to expand...

The UK currently leads the US in terms of how likely a person picked at random will die from COVID-19

20-09-23 B2 - Death by Ability to Pay TABLE.JPG​

(ignore the 24 SEP 20 line) by all three measures. However, it is still within the ±5% window if you ignore relative abilities to pay and relative per capita healthcare spending.

If the current trends continue unchanged, the UK will pass out of the ±5% window on that measure on or about 02 OCT 20.

Three anecdotal instances that will illustrate the situation (admittedly both from the late 1960s)

  1. It cost 10 times more to transport - by road - a patient from the Park Falls, WI, airport to the Park Falls, WI, hospital (less than two miles) than it took to transport them - by air - from the hospital in Fort William, ON (as it was then - it's now Thunder Bay, ON) which was a distance of 178.33 miles.

  2. The at the hospital in Fort William, ON (as it was then - it's now Thunder Bay, ON) total medical bill (ambulance charges, ER charges, OR charges, Physician's charges, Surgeon's charges, Anesthesiologist's charges, medication charges, and hospital room charges) for some one who had suffered bone deep lacerations to both forearms was less than the Surgeon's charges alone would have been in the US.

  3. American insurance companies had an arrangement with Kingston General Hospital to have US patients treated at KGH and paid cash on the barrel head for that treatment because the total charge at KGH was less than the insurance company would have had to pay at US hospitals. (The US insurance companies used the US charges in determining their premium rates - on the basis that they MIGHT not be able to have the treatment done in Canada.) This is what is known in the trade as "conservative financial forecasting".
 
Novichok said:
Leftism should be considered a preexisting condition.

And incurable.
Click to expand...
Conservatism, on the other hand, is easily cured by education.
 
mike2810 said:
As long as Rightism is also considered a preexisting condition.

Maybe someday health care won't be such a partisan issue.
Click to expand...
For some reason, many conservatives can be convinced to vote against their best interests. It's like they think wealthy, powerful people are more intelligent than they are and they want to appear intelligent themselves by agreeing with them.
 
Deuce said:
Because that's what these companies do. We have decades of precedent pre-ACA.
Click to expand...
meh ... why live in the past and speculate the future as fact ? It's 50/50 until seeing the legislation... but I suspect pre-existing conditions will be covered. maybe at additional premium, as it should be to keep all rates as low as possible. Let the free market set the prices.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Anyone who has any actual knowledge of how the (for profit) insurance industry actually operates will tell you that the main driver in "paying claims" is "How much will our profit be affected if we pay (proportionately) more (or fewer) claims?".

An insurance company that develops a reputation (justified or not) for NOT paying, tends to lose business (which means that its profits [and, hence, its dividends] go down. This means no bonuses (and potentially no jobs) for the existing management.

An insurance company that develops a reputation (justified or not) for paying, tends to gain business (which means that its profits [and, hence, its dividends] go up. This means bonuses - and job security - for the existing management.

HOWEVER, an insurance company that (poportionately) pays claims to an amount where its profits [and, hence, its dividends] go down tends to have really angry shareholders and that means no bonuses (and potentially no jobs) for the existing management.

Remember the basic rules of insurance
  1. Don't pay.

  2. Don't pay.

  3. Don't pay.

  4. If you have to pay, pay as little as you possibly can.

  5. Once you have figured out how little you can pay, take as long as you possibly can before you actually do pay.

  6. For tax purposes, list all claims as contingent liabilities and at the maximum possible amount while including them in the profit and loss system as expenses.
Click to expand...
Funny .. wrong but funny non specific answer; A anti-insurance company oration.
This thread is based upon a speculation.. and many are speaking that speculation as fact. A bit Premature.
 
Thom Paine said:
It's 50/50 until seeing the legislation... but I suspect pre-existing conditions will be covered.
Click to expand...

There is no legislation. It's a lawsuit before the SCOTUS to bring back pre-existing conditions.
 
Greenbeard said:
There is no legislation. It's a lawsuit before the SCOTUS to bring back pre-existing conditions.
Click to expand...
Dayum .. how'd that get by me... somehow missed it...
whatever is in front of SCOTUS, as in any court, is 50/50 .....
I need to take a look-see. do you have a case reference ?
(in case I can't find it)
 
Moderate Right said:
You guys don't understand English. I was in a self bought policy with Anthem and it covered my pre-existing conditions at a higher rate than others. When the ACA was passed they had some lame excuse why I couldn't keep that policy anymore. I can't remember the reason they used. So, the only insurance I could get at that time was on the ACA marketplace and that policy was far, far, more expensive (counting both premiums and out of pocket costs, which I always maxed out on) than what I had had before.
Click to expand...
Why was ACA the only insurance you could get?
 
Thom Paine said:
hmmmmm, this appears to be applicable only to the ACA mandate and applicable fines for not subscribing. Am I missing something ?
Click to expand...

The GOP is arguing that changes to the law made in their 2017 tax legislation render the individual mandate unconstitutional. And that if the individual mandate is unconstitutional, the guaranteed issue and community rating provisions of the Affordable Care Act (i.e., the protections for people with pre-existing conditions) are not severable from it and must be tossed out.

And, for good measure, they're also arguing that literally everything else in the Affordable Care Act is also not severable from the individual mandate and must be tossed out as well. Medicaid expansion, public health investments, health care workforce development, community health center funding, anti-fraud provisions in Medicare and Medicaid, hospital safety provisions, health care quality improvement initiatives, menu calorie labeling, closure of the Medicare donut hole--you name it, if it's in the ACA, they want it gone.

They're arguing that Congress, which just zeroed out the mandate penalty in 2017 and functionally ended it without repealing any of those other provisions of the ACA, would never have wanted any of those provisions in the ACA to stand without the individual mandate. It's all been a pretext for the GOP to finally bring back pre-existing conditions. During a pandemic no less!
 
Greenbeard said:
The GOP is arguing that changes to the law made in their 2017 tax legislation render the individual mandate unconstitutional. And that if the individual mandate is unconstitutional, the guaranteed issue and community rating provisions of the Affordable Care Act (i.e., the protections for people with pre-existing conditions) are not severable from it and must be tossed out.

And, for good measure, they're also arguing that literally everything else in the Affordable Care Act is also not severable from the individual mandate and must be tossed out as well. Medicaid expansion, public health investments, health care workforce development, community health center funding, anti-fraud provisions in Medicare and Medicaid, hospital safety provisions, health care quality improvement initiatives, menu calorie labeling, closure of the Medicare donut hole--you name it, if it's in the ACA, they want it gone.

They're arguing that Congress, which just zeroed out the mandate penalty in 2017 and functionally ended it without repealing any of those other provisions of the ACA, would never have wanted any of those provisions in the ACA to stand without the individual mandate. It's all been a pretext for the GOP to finally bring back pre-existing conditions. During a pandemic no less!
Click to expand...
Well, hell, I need to dig into this more. This being Ca. v Tx, I wonder what the GOP has in the case.... and why.
I'll get further into it.
Thanks G
good day atcha'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom