OMG Politics, I'm over it already.

Status
Not open for further replies.
micwalt said:
Good read.
However, I disagree with the following assessment:
"At least Obamacare drove more people to recognize that government wasn’t the solution."
I don't think it did that at all. I think it drove (and is driving) more people to recognize that single-payer is, ultimately, the solution.
Click to expand...

Agreed. And though he never says it outright, that's obviously his worst fear.
 
when I hear people on the news it seems everyone forgot how pre-existing conditions were treated before ACA. It usually hit working people when you changed jobs and started new healthcare. The rule was you couldn't get treatment for a pre-existing condition until a certain period of time with no treatment had passed (6 months I think). That meant cancer patients would have had to stop treatments for 6 months (meaning death for many people) in order to be covered at the end of that period by their new insurance.

In the present bill that the House just passed, pre-existing conditions are put into a high-risk pool, and the people never get normal coverage - if their state's funds even cover them at all. That's worse than before ACA.

Maybe I missed something and someone can point out something I misstated.
 
18222002_10155909686725021_80847092320006857_n.jpg
 
rickenvox said:
when I hear people on the news it seems everyone forgot how pre-existing conditions were treated before ACA. It usually hit working people when you changed jobs and started new healthcare. The rule was you couldn't get treatment for a pre-existing condition until a certain period of time with no treatment had passed (6 months I think). That meant cancer patients would have had to stop treatments for 6 months (meaning death for many people) in order to be covered at the end of that period by their new insurance.

In the present bill that the House just passed, pre-existing conditions are put into a high-risk pool, and the people never get normal coverage - if their state's funds even cover them at all. That's worse than before ACA.

Maybe I missed something and someone can point out something I misstated.
Click to expand...

ummm.....yea. covering pre-existing conditions is not profitable for big insurance and pharma. so this plan is doing exactly what it was designed to. remember who wrote the plan.
 
mongooz said:
ummm.....yea. covering pre-existing conditions is not profitable for big insurance and pharma. so this plan is doing exactly what it was designed to. remember who wrote the plan.
Click to expand...

I guess my point was it's worse than before ACA where you could just sit it out for 6 months and if you didn't die you got full coverage for all conditions again.
 
Mark Wein said:
It's amazing that this was considered "normal" and "acceptable" for so many years.
Click to expand...

yes, it was always scary. The great thing was you got 90 days to sign up for COBRA benefits retroactively and you could just wait it out without signing up until your new insurance kicked in. If something happened (usually I was worried about an ER visit from a bicycle crash) you could just sign up for COBRA after getting treatment with no penalties. When ACA came into play I was charged for that time I went without insurance between jobs. Wasn't too much though, so I didn't mind. It was a better system.
 
rickenvox said:
when I hear people on the news it seems everyone forgot how pre-existing conditions were treated before ACA. It usually hit working people when you changed jobs and started new healthcare. The rule was you couldn't get treatment for a pre-existing condition until a certain period of time with no treatment had passed (6 months I think). That meant cancer patients would have had to stop treatments for 6 months (meaning death for many people) in order to be covered at the end of that period by their new insurance.

In the present bill that the House just passed, pre-existing conditions are put into a high-risk pool, and the people never get normal coverage - if their state's funds even cover them at all. That's worse than before ACA.

Maybe I missed something and someone can point out something I misstated.
Click to expand...
If a person leaves one job/insurance plan for another without letting coverage lapse then one's medical condition is not considered a pre existing condion by the new insurance company. There are tricks to bridge short gaps in coverage using COBRA bebefits. (I just don't want to explain through my phone) The point of the clause is so that people can't buy coverage after they know they are sick. Like buying auto insurance after you wreck.

Also any insurance I had said that they won't cover pre-existing conditions for one year.
 
Dudeman1967 said:
If a person leaves one job/insurance plan for another without letting coverage lapse then one's medical condition is not considered a pre existing condion by the new insurance company. There are tricks to bridge short gaps in coverage using COBRA bebefits. (I just don't want to explain through my phone) The point of the clause is so that people can't buy coverage after they know they are sick. Like buying auto insurance after you wreck.

Also any insurance I had said that they won't cover pre-existing conditions for one year.
Click to expand...

OK, I never really explored it since I don't have any ongoing medical issues. I will say that the auto wreck comparison is not a good one since most people don't get sick out of negligence (yes I know diet, weight, and other factors lead to bad health, but those fat people are mostly Trump supporters anyway). I do think that health coverage is a right and if you were an alien visiting this planet and looking at the health care of democratic wealthy countries, you would be at a loss to figure out why independent financial/insurance companies are involved in the health industry at all. Wrong people at the helm who don't really care about the quality of most American's lives. Same with the bio-med industry, people who don't care creating dangerous drugs that will never get you well for profit.
 
i don't know what you guys think COBRA is.....but when i got laid off (10 years ago) COBRA said they could cover me for $650 per month.....while i'm on unemployment? are you fucking kidding me??

COBRA is nothing more than highway robbery!!
 
mongooz said:
i don't know what you guys think COBRA is.....but when i got laid off (10 years ago) COBRA said they could cover me for $650 per month.....while i'm on unemployment? are you fucking kidding me??

COBRA is nothing more than highway robbery!!
Click to expand...
That is what you and your company were paying for your insurance premiums.
 
???

I admit I forgot the 2% fee.

I guess I'm done here. No point in trying to educate the forum bloviating buffoon.

Now I remember you were the one who thought 401K plans were some conspiricy against the worker.

Sorry to get involved. No helping you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top