Revived GOP health care talks could hurt those with pre-existing conditions

[Sy_Noe]

The renewed GOP effort to repeal and replace Obamacare could be bad news for those with pre-existing conditions.

The proposal under discussion among conservative House Freedom Caucus members and the White House would allow states to opt out of two key Affordable Care Act provisions: essential health benefits, which require insurers to cover certain services, and community rating, which bars carriers from charging consumers based on their medical history or gender.

Eliminating these federal requirements could greatly erode the safeguards Obamacare put in place for those with pre-existing conditions, violating President Trump and Republicans’ repeated promises to protect these folks. It would leave many enrollees – particularly sicker ones – on the financial hook for much more of their care.

Also, it would allow insurers to effectively cherry-pick the people they want to cover.

Sick people could be charged sky-high premiums commensurate with how much their treatments cost, leaving some unable to afford coverage. And young women might have to pay more since they typically use more health care services and could become pregnant.

money.cnn.com/2017/04/04/news/economy/obamacare-freedom-caucus-pre-existing-conditions/

 

[Michael68]

Unfortunately that’s how it is Sy. The insurance companies only care about making money. I don’t really see how we can force them to lose money. This is a complex issue. I’m not saying I agree with the insurance companies . I have discussed this with people, a very small number, and I get the feeling people don’t want to pay for what they consider unnecessary to their, and their famly’s personal healthcare.

As far as pre-existing conditions, I agree with you!!!
Having said that, I understand why the business philosophy would not allow for such an expense.

What can we do brother?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Use the 1040 MED form.

The provider fills it out and sends it to the IRS and based on data already available as used from HCFA and the EIC, the provider would get paid same day next day.

 

[ndsolt]

Unfortunately that’s how it is Sy. The insurance companies only care about making money. I don’t really see how we can force them to lose money. This is a complex issue. I’m not saying I agree with the insurance companies . I have discussed this with people, a very small number, and I get the feeling people don’t want to pay for what they consider unnecessary to their, and their famly’s personal healthcare.

As far as pre-existing conditions, I agree with you!!!
Having said that, I understand why the business philosophy would not allow for such an expense.

What can we do brother?

Remember that anything can be preexisting.

 

[steve93]

Unfortunately that’s how it is Sy. The insurance companies only care about making money. I don’t really see how we can force them to lose money.
This is a complex issue. I’m not saying I agree with the insurance companies . I have discussed this with people, a very small number, and I get the feeling people don’t want to pay for what they consider unnecessary to their, and their famly’s personal healthcare.

As far as pre-existing conditions, I agree with you!!!
Having said that, I understand why the business philosophy would not allow for such an expense.

What can we do brother?

I don’t see why Europe can but we can’t.

 

[exnihilo]

The renewed GOP effort to repeal and replace Obamacare could be bad news for those with pre-existing conditions.

The proposal under discussion among conservative House Freedom Caucus members and the White House would allow states to opt out of two key Affordable Care Act provisions: essential health benefits, which require insurers to cover certain services, and community rating, which bars carriers from charging consumers based on their medical history or gender.

Eliminating these federal requirements could greatly erode the safeguards Obamacare put in place for those with pre-existing conditions, violating President Trump and Republicans’ repeated promises to protect these folks. It would leave many enrollees – particularly sicker ones – on the financial hook for much more of their care.

Also, it would allow insurers to effectively cherry-pick the people they want to cover.

Sick people could be charged sky-high premiums commensurate with how much their treatments cost, leaving some unable to afford coverage. And young women might have to pay more since they typically use more health care services and could become pregnant.

money.cnn.com/2017/04/04/news/economy/obamacare-freedom-caucus-pre-existing-conditions/

Charging more for pre-existing conditions is how insurance works. I don’t hear people clamoring for car insurance that ignores the driver’s history of wrecks or speeding tickets. If what people want is all the healthcare you want paid for by someone else then they don’t want insurance but socialized medicine. Trying to make insurance into socialized medicine isn’t very cost effective. It means we all get less healthcare then we’d otherwise have.

 

[mary_bobo]

I don’t see why Europe can but we can’t.

Most European countries are not as large and the USA and they have not experienced the quality care that we have here. They have come to accept the care and rationing of that care that would not be well accepted here. They also do not have the population numbers that we have nor the number of illegals that do receive medical care here one way or the other.

The ACA disrupted the entire healthcare delivery system for a very large percentage of citizens in order to provide for those who could not or would not have coverage thru insurance plans provided by employers. They could have planned government healthcare for those people and left the rest of us alone.

 

[mikekle]

Why is it, the US is about the only nation in the world that cannot seem to put some kind of good health care plan together for their people. This is not even an issue in most other countries??

 

[mary_bobo]

Why is it, the US is about the only nation in the world that cannot seem to put some kind of good health care plan together for their people. This is not even an issue in most other countries??

We can, but not the way the ACA went about it. I believe in helping those who are truly in need of help and we can do this. But what I was pointing out in my previous post is that we, in this country, have come to expect the very best and often at very high costs. Someone pays for that. And I don’t think we would expect there to be rationing as is true in other countries. As I said before, the ACA went about it all wrong and now we are in a mess that I am not sure can be solved. Many areas of the country have only one provider and Knoxville, TN now has no providers as Humana is pulling out of the ACA.

Sadly, we may yet end up with a single payer plan, which is what the Dems have wanted all along, and speaking as one who experienced a life-threatening illness in a country with single payer, I can tell you it was not the experience I would have had in the States. I darn near died and that would not have happened here.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

The European political system evolved totally differently from that of the United States.

In Europe they had monarchies and the king would deign to “give” benefits to the people.

In the United States, the benefits were provided by the people themselves.

 

[randomuser]

And young women might have to pay more since they typically use more health care services

Which is inherently at odds with what it means to be “pro-life,” because those higher costs will lead many to contracept or to kill their babies if the contraception fails. The state should have a genuine interest in preserving the Right to Life. Don’t we all share an interest in having insurance regs be more pro-life?

 

[Jeanne_S]

Most European countries are not as large and the USA and they have not experienced the quality care that we have here. They have come to accept the care and rationing of that care that would not be well accepted here. They also do not have the population numbers that we have nor the number of illegals that do receive medical care here one way or the other.

The ACA disrupted the entire healthcare delivery system for a very large percentage of citizens in order to provide for those who could not or would not have coverage thru insurance plans provided by employers. They could have planned government healthcare for those people and left the rest of us alone.

This !

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Health care systems in other countries evolved from their systems of government. They were all monarchies or dictatorships or tribal “entities” in which the government owned and controlled EVERY THING.

The United States of America evolved totally differently.

Everything in the United States is an outgrowth of free voluntary associations among the citizens.

Tocqueville’s book: “Democracy in America” is still valid even after all these years!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexis_de_Tocqueville

Local hospitals originated from individual doctors who established philanthropic clinics that they ran themselves. Private clinics were established by individuals to offer premium care. The Catholic Church in the USA also established prominent hospitals as a philanthropy … part of its call for charity … subsidized by parishioners and the local dioceses. Government run hospitals evolved to care for indigent people. Doctors made house calls and were paid in cash. Pharmacists performed minor surgery *

The Packard automobile was famous where I lived because it was reliable and they were purchased by doctors so they could make house calls in all weathers.

Numerous hospitals such as Shriners and St. Jude’s are famous for not charging.

Medical insurance in the United States emerged during World War Two because the government imposed a wage freeze. So employers offered their employees hospitalization insurance as a form of compensation. The government imposed more and more regulations on that semi-voluntary system.

And then over time, the government got more and more involved AND thanks to Senator Teddy Kennedy D-Mass … RIP … who wanted to impose a system of socialism, more and more restrictions were placed on voluntary associations. So you can buy car and house insurance across state lines, but NOT medical cost insurance.*

 

[Thorolfr]

Most European countries are not as large and the USA and they have not experienced the quality care that we have here. They have come to accept the care and rationing of that care that would not be well accepted here. They also do not have the population numbers that we have nor the number of illegals that do receive medical care here one way or the other.

The ACA disrupted the entire healthcare delivery system for a very large percentage of citizens in order to provide for those who could not or would not have coverage thru insurance plans provided by employers. They could have planned government healthcare for those people and left the rest of us alone.

Didn’t Jesus say, “I wish those sick people would just leave me alone! Let the government take care of them.”

 

[PapyrusDouay]

Charging more for pre-existing conditions is how insurance works. I don’t hear people clamoring for car insurance that ignores the driver’s history of wrecks or speeding tickets. If what people want is all the healthcare you want paid for by someone else then they don’t want insurance but socialized medicine. Trying to make insurance into socialized medicine isn’t very cost effective. It means we all get less healthcare then we’d otherwise have.

The difference is car insurance affects those wrecks which in which the individual is at fault, and of course the driver is at fault for speeding tickets. Health problems don’t always work that way. Most cancers, asthma, some diabetes, allergic reactions, are not always preventable. The person afflicted is not always “at fault”. It’s much easier to accept responsibility and pay the cost when you have control over how fast you’re driving. It’s a consequence of actions. The same cannot be said type 1 diabetes and so many other pre-existing conditions.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Most European countries are not as large and the USA and they have not experienced the quality care that we have here. They have come to accept the care and rationing of that care that would not be well accepted here. They also do not have the population numbers that we have nor the number of illegals that do receive medical care here one way or the other.

The ACA disrupted the entire healthcare delivery system for a very large percentage of citizens in order to provide for those who could not or would not have coverage thru insurance plans provided by employers. They could have planned government healthcare for those people and left the rest of us alone.

Absolutely correct!

I have a map published by Doctors Without Borders / Medicins Sans Frontiers * [copyrighted by Rand McNally] … and the relative sizes of the countries is astonishing … yes, there is some distortion owing to the Mercator Projection (or whatever).

Nevertheless, all of Europe would fit into the northeastern United States. Europe is very small in comparison.

[They have high speed rail in Europe because it is not only small but also flat.]

There just is no comparison.

I’m guessing that most everyone here at Catholic Answers Forums gets the Doctors Without Borders world map … so dig out the map and stare at it. [Allowing for the distortion of the map.] Just look at the relative sizes of the various countries. There are only 200 countries in the world. Look at the locations with respect to one another.

Tape the map to your wall.*

 

[ProVobis]

Charging more for pre-existing conditions is how insurance works. I don’t hear people clamoring for car insurance that ignores the driver’s history of wrecks or speeding tickets. If what people want is all the healthcare you want paid for by someone else then they don’t want insurance but socialized medicine. Trying to make insurance into socialized medicine isn’t very cost effective. It means we all get less healthcare then we’d otherwise have.

So those who are born with diabetes or other diseases deserve to pay more than those who have been blessed with good health?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

So those who are born with diabetes or other diseases deserve to pay more than those who have been blessed with good health?

Everybody has something.

Some medications are very inexpensive. A few are very costly.

Sometimes you can get expensive meds for free.

I have to wear eyeglasses. I could pay to get eye surgery. Or I could pay to get new glasses each year. Or I could just put up with cheap eyeglasses and bear up with them. A friend of a friend told me about a place where I could get new glasses for only a couple of dollars … so I checked them out and it was true … they let you keep your old frames. I only paid for the new lenses. You can ask around for a place like that near you. I have moved away, and I am famous for using epoxy for repairing my old frames.

One place … the eyeglass place wanted more than my paycheck … so I whined and a clinic GAVE me new frames. They were plastic and only cost a few pennies.

 

[Jeanne_S]

So those who are born with diabetes or other diseases deserve to pay more than those who have been blessed with good health?

The issue for me as one who values the freedom to make my own choices re health care is the attempt to quash that freedom by a universal or single payer system.As was offered by !Mary,.why not have a gov’t program for those in need due to issues as pre existing!?
Allow the rest of us the ability to choose the type and cost of our care.

 

[Michael68]

So those who are born with diabetes or other diseases deserve to pay more than those who have been blessed with good health?

I know it seems cruel, but in the business world the one with diabetes is more of an expense so would be asked to pay more. That’s how business works. I know its not fair and cruel, but this is our system, insurance companies have the say as to what they provide and who pays what on a scale