Insurance: do you have or not. For or against ACA

[kwilson]

Those who have insurance, are you for or against the ACA? Those who don't have insurance, are you for or against the ACA?

 

[ttwtt78640]

I do not have medical care insurance and am against the PPACA. I make too little to be covered by PPACA, yet have no dependents or disability to qualify for Medicaid.

 

[GottaGo]

Those who have insurance, are you for or against the ACA? Those who don't have insurance, are you for or against the ACA?

I have insurance. The ACA ,as it exists now, I am against. Individual aspects of it are good, such as the no more pre-existing exclusions. However, people who do not have a pre-existing condition should not have to pay for those who do.

I could pick it apart piece by piece, but that would be rather time consuming. I believe it should be repealed, and only certain parts put into play.

 

[Henrin]

I have insurance. The ACA ,as it exists now, I am against. Individual aspects of it are good, such as the no more pre-existing exclusions. However, people who do not have a pre-existing condition should not have to pay for those who do.

Since that is exactly what it means, it is therefore a bad thing, right?

 

[GottaGo]

Since that is exactly what it means, it is therefore a bad thing, right?

That those with pre-existing conditions cannot be excluded, such as denied the 12 month no-coverage for it clause many insurance companies utilized, is a good thing.

The fact that other people will absorb the cost of this particular line item, is a bad thing.

IMO, the bad overrides the good in the overall of the ACA.. In repealing the ACA, and creating individual corrections to the insurance requirements such as providing the PE coverage, but allowing the insurance companies to charge specifically for it is the way to go.

 

[Baralis]

I do not have insurance and I am against the ACA.

Mandating the purchase of a good from a private company or face a (fine) tax penalty is setting very bad precedence and should never have been allowed. I feel that if the government were to get involved at all it should have been done very differently, even UHC is preferable to the ACA and I think that is exactly why they put the ACA into play.

Personally I feel health care should be left to the states and if a state has the support and wants to add state run UHC and finance it with a flat sales tax % then the people can decide for themselves. What I am sick of is our country adding services and then excluding persons from having to pay for those services via the tax code because they are lower income.

 

[clownboy]

I have insurance, almost always have, and before Obamacare I could afford to use it.

 

[CalGun]

My wife is a federal employee and her work covers both of us. The rates she paid increased enough to reduce her take home pay 2% this year and on top of the social security 2% change she lost 4% of her take home pay. Next year doesn't look like its going to be very good as its likely Kaiser will jack their rates even higher so they can issue insurance to those they previously rejected due to cost.

 

[Fisher]

We have an nsurance policy that will no longer be available to new subscribers due to ACA though per my agent we will be grandfathered in. I oppose the mandate and think the subsidies extend into too high of an income bracket and should have been done on a sliding scale instead of a cliff where $1 more in income makes the difference between getting a subsidy or not.

 

[MaggieD]

That those with pre-existing conditions cannot be excluded, such as denied the 12 month no-coverage for it clause many insurance companies utilized, is a good thing.

The fact that other people will absorb the cost of this particular line item, is a bad thing.

IMO, the bad overrides the good in the overall of the ACA.. In repealing the ACA, and creating individual corrections to the insurance requirements such as providing the PE coverage, but allowing the insurance companies to charge specifically for it is the way to go.

Just who do you think should absorb the cost of covering those with pre-existing conditions? Do you even understand how insurance works??

 

[MaggieD]

I do not have insurance and I am against the ACA.

Mandating the purchase of a good from a private company or face a (fine) tax penalty is setting very bad precedence and should never have been allowed. I feel that if the government were to get involved at all it should have been done very differently, even UHC is preferable to the ACA and I think that is exactly why they put the ACA into play.

Personally I feel health care should be left to the states and if a state has the support and wants to add state run UHC and finance it with a flat sales tax % then the people can decide for themselves. What I am sick of is our country adding services and then excluding persons from having to pay for those services via the tax code because they are lower income.

If you have been running around without health insurance, your opinion is superfluous.

 

[ttwtt78640]

If you have been running around without health insurance, your opinion is superfluous.

Why? I pay cash for my medical care just like I do for my pizza, haircuts and lumber. I could see a fine (or even jail time) if you use (demand) free ER care, but not for simply paying cash or having "substandard" medical care insurance.

 

[MaggieD]

Why? I pay cash for my medical care just like I do for my pizza, haircuts and lumber. I could see a fine (or even jail time) if you use (demand) free ER care, but not for simply paying cash or having "substandard" medical care insurance.

You pay cash for your medical care because you can afford it. If you couldn't? Any emergency care, at the very least, would be free. And I'd be paying for that.

 

[GottaGo]

Just who do you think should absorb the cost of covering those with pre-existing conditions? Do you even understand how insurance works??

The people who have the PE should be paying a higher premium, not those who do not have a PE.

Do I know how insurance works? Very much so, everyday of the last 13 years of my working life.

A PE exists in the majority of cases when someone who did not have insurance purchases insurance. Under pre-ACA coverage, a PE for a newly insured person was not ccovered in most casesfor that condition for 12 months while paying a higher premium, since the insurer knew the costs of containing/maintaining the condition. After the 12 month period, the insurance would kick in paying for the condition, sometimes with limitations.

A PE was not handled this way if the person had previous insurance, and switched insurers but remained in continuous coverage. When a policy year on a group plan renewed, the group's rate would be adjusted to reflect the actual costs of coverage of the condition, most often ending in an increase.

By providing coverage to people with PE's with no exclusion, and some of those coming in will qualify for the 'subsidized' rates, the increase to the premiums for those who are paying them will initially be sizable. Perhaps once the dust settles and all the newly insured people's conditions are known, the insurance premiums will also settle, but it is currently an unknown factor.

It is my belief that those who were previously uninsured who have PEs should pay an adjusted rate to offset some of the increases that will occur as I described above.

 

[ttwtt78640]

You pay cash for your medical care because you can afford it. If you couldn't? Any emergency care, at the very least, would be free. And I'd be paying for that.

And you still will be even under PPACA. I make too little to get PPACA (or the fine), yet have no dependents or disability to "qualify" for Medicaid. What PPACA does is simply extend heavily subsidized care for a few in exchange for increased costs to many. It is designed to penalize those that have employer provided insurance to give insurance, at reduced (subsidized) rates, to those that lack it. The fine for individuals is too low to make it a real "mandate", in fact, many low income folks will opt for the fine (in 2014 about half what their premium payment would be).

http://www.ncsl.org/documents/health/Individual_Mandate_Under_PPACA_pdf.pdf

 

[MaggieD]

The people who have the PE should be paying a higher premium, not those who do not have a PE.

Do I know how insurance works? Very much so, everyday of the last 13 years of my working life.

A PE exists in the majority of cases when someone who did not have insurance purchases insurance. Under pre-ACA coverage, a PE for a newly insured person was not ccovered in most casesfor that condition for 12 months while paying a higher premium, since the insurer knew the costs of containing/maintaining the condition. After the 12 month period, the insurance would kick in paying for the condition, sometimes with limitations.

A PE was not handled this way if the person had previous insurance, and switched insurers but remained in continuous coverage. When a policy year on a group plan renewed, the group's rate would be adjusted to reflect the actual costs of coverage of the condition, most often ending in an increase.

By providing coverage to people with PE's with no exclusion, and some of those coming in will qualify for the 'subsidized' rates, the increase to the premiums for those who are paying them will initially be sizable. Perhaps once the dust settles and all the newly insured people's conditions are known, the insurance premiums will also settle, but it is currently an unknown factor.

It is my belief that those who were previously uninsured who have PEs should pay an adjusted rate to offset some of the increases that will occur as I described above.

I think you're right that they'll settle. But you're wrong on how insurance works with pre-existing conditions today. I know. I've bought private insurance my entire life. Not Cobra; not through employers; but individually. Brief description:

Insurance companies in the past set up their own little groups where enrollment is, for instance, from January 1st until March 31, 2013. Then they close that little group ... which may have 5,000 or more people in it, by the way. They all start out healthy, because that's the only way, at the present time, you can get individual insurance. As they begin to get sick, their claims ratio rises and policy premiums go up. When they begin to rise somewhat exponentially, all the healthy people bailed to other insurance companies "little groups." Those who found themselves with pre-existing conditions and unable to switch insurance companies paid astronomical premium increases and had no choice -- until they couldn't afford the premiums anymore and had to drop their coverage.

I have a pre-existing condition. Before I was able to enroll in Illinois' ICHIP program (subsidized), I was paying $850 a month for my insurance -- with a $5,200 deductible. How many people do you think could have afforded that? Few. I couldn't switch to another policy because I was virtually uninsurable. With ICHIP, I still have a $5,200 deductible but pay $640/month for my insurance. And it's been relatively stable for five years.

I think you have an excellent idea -- that those who've "ridden the hot rail" by finally dropping their insurance because of my description above (or those who chose not to have any insurance at all, but also have pre-existing conditions) should pay some extra. This is where I think you're correct that it'll "settle in."

By the way, when I bought my ICHIP coverage, they have a six-month pre-existing conditions clause. So I paid both premiums for those six months. My health insurance cost $12,780 that year. Just for me. My alternative was to lose everything I had if I had another major event. It was a no-brainer.

 

[Baralis]

If you have been running around without health insurance, your opinion is superfluous.

Anytime I have had medical care even emergency medical care I have always payed out of pocket even if it required working out a payment plan with the hospital. It has never been an issue. I probably also have a different outlook on medical care then most people. If I am going to be unable to pay for treatment I wont take that treatment. If they told me that I had cancer for example and that treatment would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars I would seek no further treatment. I would go home and live out my life the best I could. If I am in an accident or emergency and cannot grant permission to receive care I have asked my family to refuse treatment. If someone, family or hospital, goes against my wishes then that becomes their responsibility as far as Im concerned.

 

[MaggieD]

Anytime I have had medical care even emergency medical care I have always payed out of pocket even if it required working out a payment plan with the hospital. It has never been an issue. I probably also have a different outlook on medical care then most people. If I am going to be unable to pay for treatment I wont take that treatment. If they told me that I had cancer for example and that treatment would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars I would seek no further treatment. I would go home and live out my life the best I could. If I am in an accident or emergency and cannot grant permission to receive care I have asked my family to refuse treatment. If someone, family or hospital, goes against my wishes then that becomes their responsibility as far as Im concerned.

You're the person this healthcare plan is meant to help. I'm sorry you don't see it as such. Many forms of cancer are highly treatable and have extended survival rates -- yet treatment is very expensive. To refuse chemotherapy or radiation is to sentence yourself to, possibly, a premature and excessively painful demise.

If you are young, you may beat the odds for quite some time. As you get older, you are rolling the dice big time. Heavy duty pain medications alone may cost over $1,000 a month. Perhaps you can afford that... ?

At any rate, I hope this new program affords you a choice.

 

[GottaGo]

I think you're right that they'll settle. But you're wrong on how insurance works with pre-existing conditions today. I know. I've bought private insurance my entire life. Not Cobra; not through employers; but individually. Brief description:

Insurance companies in the past set up their own little groups where enrollment is, for instance, from January 1st until March 31, 2013. Then they close that little group ... which may have 5,000 or more people in it, by the way. They all start out healthy, because that's the only way, at the present time, you can get individual insurance. As they begin to get sick, their claims ratio rises and policy premiums go up. When they begin to rise somewhat exponentially, all the healthy people bailed to other insurance companies "little groups." Those who found themselves with pre-existing conditions and unable to switch insurance companies paid astronomical premium increases and had no choice -- until they couldn't afford the premiums anymore and had to drop their coverage.

I have a pre-existing condition. Before I was able to enroll in Illinois' ICHIP program (subsidized), I was paying $850 a month for my insurance -- with a $5,200 deductible. How many people do you think could have afforded that? Few. I couldn't switch to another policy because I was virtually uninsurable. With ICHIP, I still have a $5,200 deductible but pay $640/month for my insurance. And it's been relatively stable for five years.

I think you have an excellent idea -- that those who've "ridden the hot rail" by finally dropping their insurance because of my description above (or those who chose not to have any insurance at all, but also have pre-existing conditions) should pay some extra. This is where I think you're correct that it'll "settle in."

By the way, when I bought my ICHIP coverage, they have a six-month pre-existing conditions clause. So I paid both premiums for those six months. My health insurance cost $12,780 that year. Just for me. My alternative was to lose everything I had if I had another major event. It was a no-brainer.

I deal with employer based small group policies (3 'different' employers), and when a new employee would join the group, the insurance covered them at our existing rates. It was on renewal that we would feel the bite in premiums.

I haven't dealt with individual policies, though I did look into them for some employees who are not eligible under our group plan, and was pretty much told some were not insurable under indivual plans as you described. They were directed to our State plan, TennCare. I have no clue what those premiums are like, but they did cover PE as I explained, with exclusions and limitations.

Depending on the condition, if people figure it out with pen and paper, quite often the premium they pay each month exceeds what paying for the cost of their basic health care would be out of pocket. For those with conditions, barring complications, it was a 50/50 gamble. Anyone with an expensive condition really couldn't afford to skip the insurance. We've been fortunate that our groups are generally healthy, but still got slammed with a 40% increase right before the ACA passed. IMO, a preemptive strike on the insurance company's side.

Ouch on paying for both premiums.

 

[Baralis]

You're the person this healthcare plan is meant to help. I'm sorry you don't see it as such. Many forms of cancer are highly treatable and have extended survival rates -- yet treatment is very expensive. To refuse chemotherapy or radiation is to sentence yourself to, possibly, a premature and excessively painful demise.

If you are young, you may beat the odds for quite some time. As you get older, you are rolling the dice big time. Heavy duty pain medications alone may cost over $1,000 a month. Perhaps you can afford that... ?

At any rate, I hope this new program affords you a choice.

Thank you MaggieD.

I have nothing against persons seeking treatment even treatments they may not be able to afford. I realize that for most people prolonging life is a most basic natural instinct and many fear or wish to avoid death at all costs. I would however like to see everyone having the ability to get quality medical care at an affordable price. I just have a little bit different of an outlook for myself. I see life as a means to an end. An end I do not fear and I feel that at some point the cost becomes to high to continue trying to avoid the inevitable. If I cannot afford treatments that will prolong my life I am OK with not receiving them. I have had great times in my life and I have known some wonderful people. Im satisfied with what I have been lucky enough to have. What more could I ask for in a life.

 

[MaggieD]

Thank you MaggieD.

I have nothing against persons seeking treatment even treatments they may not be able to afford. I realize that for most people prolonging life is a most basic natural instinct and many fear or wish to avoid death at all costs. I would however like to see everyone having the ability to get quality medical care at an affordable price. I just have a little bit different of an outlook for myself. I see life as a means to an end. An end I do not fear and I feel that at some point the cost becomes to high to continue trying to avoid the inevitable. If I cannot afford treatments that will prolong my life I am OK with not receiving them. I have had great times in my life and I have known some wonderful people. Im satisfied with what I have been lucky enough to have. What more could I ask for in a life.

What a wonderful attitude, Baralis. Not unlike mine, actually.

 

[274ina]

I have had healthcare for only 6 years leaving 22 years in the USA as an adult with no helathcare.

Still hoping to get out of this **** hole of a country.


ACA is a tiny band aid for the biggest slave/torutre/war nation in history

 

[274ina]

I do not have medical care insurance and am against the PPACA. I make too little to be covered by PPACA, yet have no dependents or disability to qualify for Medicaid.

Are you sure your not covered by the 100% to 133% of poverty exemption allowed in no medicaid states that allows you to go on the exchanges?

 

[274ina]

My wife is a federal employee and her work covers both of us. The rates she paid increased enough to reduce her take home pay 2% this year and on top of the social security 2% change she lost 4% of her take home pay. Next year doesn't look like its going to be very good as its likely Kaiser will jack their rates even higher so they can issue insurance to those they previously rejected due to cost.

Hate to tell you but insurance is capped at 4 to 8% of a persons pay.............so she WILL NOT pay more....after Jan 1 2014.

(or 2% of pay if very poor)

 

[274ina]

I do not have insurance and I am against the ACA.

Mandating the purchase of a good from a private company or face a (fine) tax penalty is setting very bad precedence and should never have been allowed. I feel that if the government were to get involved at all it should have been done very differently, even UHC is preferable to the ACA and I think that is exactly why they put the ACA into play.

Personally I feel health care should be left to the states and if a state has the support and wants to add state run UHC and finance it with a flat sales tax % then the people can decide for themselves. What I am sick of is our country adding services and then excluding persons from having to pay for those services via the tax code because they are lower income.

Only a PAID SHILL would spout such BS.........

And you want 50 different places to treat one rare kind of cancer?
How about 50 FBI's?
Or 50 CDC's?
The state argumant and "i love no HC" is just plain dumb.