Alabama Week - Prejudice and Pigskin

[aubearcat 2,138]

@GiveEmElle is your daughter not going to be able to stay on your insurance? 

[AUFAN78 3,952]

5 hours ago, GiveEmElle said:

I hope not. And I appreciate your prayers. 

Welcome. Best of luck to you.

[SaltyTiger 7,988]

6 hours ago, Grumps said:

This post is not meant to be offensive to anyone, and I am looking at this through a wide-angle lens- not on a personal level.

I just can't see how anyone could think it is okay to force insurance companies to take huge losses on people with pre-existing conditions. If a person will consume 10X the healthcare dollars then why should they pay the same price for insurance? If I consume 10X the food at a restaurant then I don't think the restaurant should be forced to charge me the same amount as the person who consumed 1/10 of what I ate. How am I seeing this wrong? If a person cannot afford their medications or their doctor visits then I am all for helping them. Our government spends billions to help people. But I don't see forcing insurance companies to pay for the care, especially since they just raise premiums and make the other insured people pay for it.

You see it correct IMO. 

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

8 hours ago, aubearcat said:

@GiveEmElle is your daughter not going to be able to stay on your insurance? 

Currently she is on the CHIP insurance which the GOP wants to eliminate. She can then get on her father's insurance but if the new healthcare plan removes pre existing conditions then she could be denied coverage. 

[homersapien 11,613]

9 hours ago, Grumps said:

This post is not meant to be offensive to anyone, and I am looking at this through a wide-angle lens- not on a personal level.

I just can't see how anyone could think it is okay to force insurance companies to take huge losses on people with pre-existing conditions. If a person will consume 10X the healthcare dollars then why should they pay the same price for insurance? If I consume 10X the food at a restaurant then I don't think the restaurant should be forced to charge me the same amount as the person who consumed 1/10 of what I ate. How am I seeing this wrong? If a person cannot afford their medications or their doctor visits then I am all for helping them. Our government spends billions to help people. But I don't see forcing insurance companies to pay for the care, especially since they just raise premiums and make the other insured people pay for it.

Or, in simpler terms, you feel insurance companies have a right to profits, but you don't feel a citizen has a right to healthcare.

That's the bottom line.  You have to accept the latter before a solution can be devised.

(It's not that hard from a design standpoint - other countries do it.  It's a political problem.)

[SaltyTiger 7,988]

42 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Or, in simpler terms, you feel insurance companies have a right to profits, but you don't feel a citizen has a right to healthcare.

That's the bottom line.  You have to accept the latter before a solution can be devised.

(It's not that hard from a design standpoint - other countries do it.  It's a political problem.)

Tell us the rest of the story. You know that insurance companies have to be profitable to function. Not an actuary guy but they need enough to invest were the real money is made.

Who is prohibiting a citizen from healthcare? i.e. opted out of my old old dental plan last year. great dental care today. pay for it with a check or visa and they accept it.  

[homersapien 11,613]

19 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Tell us the rest of the story. You know that insurance companies have to be profitable to function. Not an actuary guy but they need enough to invest were the real money is made.

Who is prohibiting a citizen from healthcare? i.e. opted out of my old old dental plan last year. great dental care today. pay for it with a check or visa and they accept it.  

1) Assuming one concedes healthcare insurance is a right, actuarial science needs to be applied to the entire country.  Insurance companies are making profits by trying to cherry-pick the least risky.  

For-profit insurers - with their profit and marketing requirements - also have an inefficient medical payout ration compared to the government.

Bottom line, for-profit health insurance companies are somewhat archaic.  We don't need them.

2) I agree that any insurance policy should have high deductibles so that market forces will better influence prices.  I paid less than $200 (cash) for a procedure that would have been billed to an insurance company for $1,200.

Insurance is for avoiding the risk of very expensive treatment. Dental care doesn't really qualify (even though I have one tooth I've sunk $10,000 into.)  But we don't use car insurance for buying tires (for example). Having said that, there is a case to be made for covering "preventative maintenance" if it saves money longer term.

[SaltyTiger 7,988]

22 minutes ago, homersapien said:

1) Assuming one concedes healthcare insurance is a right, actuarial science needs to be applied to the entire country.  Insurance companies are making profits by trying to cherry-pick the least risky.  

For-profit insurers - with their profit and marketing requirements - also have an inefficient medical payout ration compared to the government.

Bottom line, for-profit health insurance companies are somewhat archaic.  We don't need them.

2) I agree that any insurance policy should have high deductibles so that market forces will better influence prices.  I paid less than $200 (cash) for a procedure that would have been billed to an insurance company for $1,200.

Insurance is for avoiding the risk of very expensive treatment. Dental care doesn't really qualify (even though I have one tooth I've sunk $10,000 into.)  But we don't use car insurance for buying tires (for example). Having said that, there is a case to be made for covering "preventative maintenance" if it saves money longer term.

I do not think i understand what you saying with 1. Perhaps choose not to to at this late hour. Get #2 in part but define "preventative maintenance". 

[bigbird 60,596]

11 hours ago, GiveEmElle said:

Currently she is on the CHIP insurance which the GOP wants to eliminate. She can then get on her father's insurance but if the new healthcare plan removes pre existing conditions then she could be denied coverage. 

Elle, my son is a severe hemophiliac. We spend 1-2 million a month on his medication.  I went into teaching/coaching in order to keep him on Medicaid/chips and have had to turn down jobs because they paid too much.  With the ACA, I have been able to work at larger districts and we were able to transition to employer coverage due to the preexisting conditions and no lifetime max stipulations.  This bill has made my family and I very nervous.  I completely understand your angst and pray that things work out for families like ours. 

[AUUSN 823]

Bird's and Elle's stories is what upsets me about this. Families who have to constantly relive their fears because of the whims of politicians. Disgusting.

[bigbird 60,596]

1 hour ago, AUUSN said:

Bird's and Elle's stories is what upsets me about this. Families who have to constantly relive their fears because of the whims of politicians. Disgusting.

To me, some of the things are/should be no brainers.  Some Pre-existing conditions, the ones that can't be lessoned or changed, should be covered. AIDS, Cancer, Hemophilia, and Diabetes are some of those. Those are different than acne, obesity, acid reflux.  

If they truly want to lower healthcare cost, control my son's medication cost.  No way should it cost $10-12,000 per dose.

[aubearcat 2,138]

I agree with you bird about the cost of medicine. It takes supply and demand to an evil level. My daughter requires medicine because of allergies to peanuts, milk, eggs, and wheat. Weekly injections, daily oral tablets, and of course we have to keep epipen available for home and school use. Thanks be to God our family insurance covers the injections and pills but until the recent outcry about the cost of epipen, I can't imagine having to attempt to pay for them without a good paying job. 

[bigbird 60,596]

2 hours ago, aubearcat said:

I can't imagine having to attempt to pay for them without a good paying job. 

We literally couldn't. My wife has marketing and economics degrees, and I have one in molecular biology and organic chemistry degrees. After he was diagnosed, we made the decision, or better, it was made for us, that only one of us could work and it had to not pay very well in order for James to be on Medicaid/chips so he could get his medicine. That is why I now teach HS biology and coach. Only after the ACA was passed with the preexisting and lifetime max stipulations were we able to get him on employer based insurance and begin to get ahead a little.

All that said, I did not like the ACA in its entirety and thought it could have been restructured better. Removing one of the most integral parts of it was not how it should've been handled. I do not think it will pass the senate as is. I think it will most likely die or be ratified to reinclude those with pre-existing conditions.

 

[homersapien 11,613]

1 hour ago, bigbird said:

We literally couldn't. My wife has marketing and economics degrees, and I have one in molecular biology and organic chemistry degrees. After he was diagnosed, we made the decision, or better, it was made for us, that only one of us could work and it had to not pay very well in order for James to be on Medicaid/chips so he could get his medicine. That is why I now teach HS biology and coach. Only after the ACA was passed with the preexisting and lifetime max stipulations were we able to get him on employer based insurance and begin to get ahead a little.

All that said, I did not like the ACA in its entirety and thought it could have been restructured better. Removing one of the most integral parts of it was not how it should've been handled. I do not think it will pass the senate as is. I think it will most likely die or be ratified to reinclude those with pre-existing conditions.

 

That's awful!   It sounds like a slightly different version of declaring personal bankruptcy because of your medical debts. 

The ACA was nothing more than a step.  One can argue whether or not it was a step in the right direction, but at least it was a step.  It put the "ball in play".

We'll see if an alternative plan passes - I'm skeptical - and then we'll see if it broadens or improves coverage or lowers costs.  I seriously doubt that also. 

 

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

10 hours ago, bigbird said:

Elle, my son is a severe hemophiliac. We spend 1-2 million a month on his medication.  I went into teaching/coaching in order to keep him on Medicaid/chips and have had to turn down jobs because they paid too much.  With the ACA, I have been able to work at larger districts and we were able to transition to employer coverage due to the preexisting conditions and no lifetime max stipulations.  This bill has made my family and I very nervous.  I completely understand your angst and pray that things work out for families like ours. 

I do not understand how a party can be so heartless. They actually celebrated with beer over this passing through the house. Their pro-life rhetoric has just been proven false. 

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

8 hours ago, bigbird said:

To me, some of the things are/should be no brainers.  Some Pre-existing conditions, the ones that can't be lessoned or changed, should be covered. AIDS, Cancer, Hemophilia, and Diabetes are some of those. Those are different than acne, obesity, acid reflux.  

If they truly want to lower healthcare cost, control my son's medication cost.  No way should it cost $10-12,000 per dose.

And here's the kicker. Drug costs are outrageous. Combating that would help lower costs. 

[bigbird 60,596]

10 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

And here's the kicker. Drug costs are outrageous. Combating that would help lower costs. 

A lot more than other step being talked about and it would help everyone.

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

32 minutes ago, bigbird said:

A lot more than other step being talked about and it would help everyone.

Verily verily

[Strychnine 1,804]

13 hours ago, bigbird said:

Elle, my son is a severe hemophiliac. We spend 1-2 million a month on his medication.  I went into teaching/coaching in order to keep him on Medicaid/chips and have had to turn down jobs because they paid too much.  With the ACA, I have been able to work at larger districts and we were able to transition to employer coverage due to the preexisting conditions and no lifetime max stipulations.  This bill has made my family and I very nervous.  I completely understand your angst and pray that things work out for families like ours. 

 

In 2017, at our stage of technological development, cost/benefit analysis should be applied to no human life.  The ability of your son to obtain care (also without bankrupting your family) should not be a matter open to discussion, and anyone that suggests it should be, needs to experience it.

[aubearcat 2,138]

@bigbird and @GiveEmElle, I hope this means what I think it does and I hope it is good news for you guys and all the others that need it. 

 

http://.nationalreview.com/article/447430/acha-pre-existing-conditions-big-lie-democrats-are-telling