<p>CF, you didn’t read the NY Post article, did you? I know it may be beneath you but you may be surpised at what you learn. You obviously didn’t read the article about the Covered California exchange in the San Francisco Chronicle. Do you consider this newspaper a tabloid, too?</p>
<p>Also, why you’re at it, reread the article in the NY Daily News regarding Medicaid. </p>
<p>Calmom, harming the healthcare for millions of people to provide healthcare for thousands of people who didn’t have insurance because of preexisting conditions is not a good solution.</p>
<p>^goldenpooch, why do keep blaming THE LAW instead of the PERPETRATORS?</p>
<p>Saying that THE LAW is to blame for the decisions of the INSURANCE Cos. and the so-called HEALTHCARE providers who refuse to participate is like saying a woman was raped because of the dress she wore :)</p>
<p>Stop being so naive and let your treasured free market ADJUST to it new world order ;)</p>
<p>GP - In the end, despite the law, economic disparity comes through as far as care is concerned. You were able to find a group plan to join since you are a full pay and find that treasured Cedar Sinai on that plan. People who are very conscious about what they want and have money will find other alternatives. </p>
<p>Despite being a non-supporter of the law, I agree with most people here - The law is based on the greater good at the expense of some (probably a temporary thing until those hospitals cave in with lower rates) and so more people getting care at a controlled cost is a good thing. Whether you like what you got out of it is what determines what happens at the end the of the year.</p>
<p>Golden pooch. You stated that there were only thousands of people with preexisting conditions that could not get health insurance before. I find this low number extremely hard to believe. Can you back that up with data? Your post dated jan 26 </p>
<p>sax,
I know your question wasn’t directed at me, but we had a discussion about this months (?) ago related to your question. From my memory, there are no hard data on the number of people who were denied insurance due to pre-existing conditions, but the fed gov’t conducted a 3-year, $5mill pilot program to provide such coverage and could come up with only 110,000 such people to treat despite efforts to find them, and ran out of money in two years versus three anticipated. There are many opinions as to why it turned out this way, but as far as I know, that is the only solid information we have on that cohort of people.</p>
<p>So let me ask a few questions that are more related than it seems:</p>
<p>If you knew that only 100,000 people were “muzzled” without the constitutional protection of free speech, does that make free speech unnecessary?</p>
<p>If you knew that only 100,000 people were murdered each year, does that make the law against murder and the jurisprudence system unnecessary?</p>
<p>If only 100,000 children were raped each year, does that likewise make laws against pedophilia a governmental intrusion?</p>
<p>These laws protect people’s rights to enjoy an existence theoretically unencumbered by unethical treatment, and are very expensive to maintain.</p>
<p>I think that government policy against unethical treatment of a person by a company warrants every bit as much attention and resource regardless of the number said law was designed to protect. If you accept that it is inhumane to cancel a sick customer or deny similar (and economically similar) access to healthcare despite predispositions, and if you believe that regulation can prevent the exploitation of a human in a life or death situation, then you might be inclined to realize that its the principal inherent that counts, not the numbers :)</p>
<p>Fwiw, Bay, in MI I had never heard of the pre-existing conditions program (I would’ve qualified) until it was “full” according to the state. I have no idea why it worked or didn’t work other places.
ETA: I tried to find the website that MI used to have up for pre-existing conditions but it appears as though it’s been removed. </p>
<p>Kmcmom13 - No-one was ever opposed to fixing the pre-existing conditions problem. That likely includes GP. It is possible to believe both that there were problems before and that this law creates new problems. The pre-existing conditions issue is a teeny part of this 2-foot tall law.</p>
<p>Also, if there were 40-million people desperate for health insurance why is everyone so excited about 3-million sign-ups? That’s not even half the number of cancellations. Where is everybody else? </p>
<p>We did cover this- and many of the reasons the “reach” was limited. It included the limitations on how people were identified (by those state programs charged with this) and enrolled. One bullet was how to identify those who might qualify and inform them,. Eg, Romani. Former efforts might be called Phase One or First Try. NOT the one and only ultimate trial, enough to put the intentions to rest. </p>
<p>Sometimes, “critical thinking” needs us to step back and think. Not just hang our hats on the first points that make some easy sense to us. Not just say, “well, so-and-so says.” Vet.</p>
<p>Were you uninsured or denied coverage in the past? I was under the impression that you have had coverage through your university or somewhere else, since you are renewing it for next year. Perhaps I misunderstood.</p>
<p>Flossy, the 48 mil number has been questioned by some. Sometimes, you gotta be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water. It’s possible to stand back and still look at the intentions, critique, but still see how we progress. No, it’s not perfect. Do we give up? Do we hyper-focus on one or two elements? </p>
<p>Yes, I was uninsured for most of my sophomore-senior years of college. I couldn’t afford the school’s plan. I tried to get insurance my sophomore year and was denied. In my junior year, I couldn’t afford a private plan. I only got insurance in April of 2013 which is the plan I renewed and it was grandfathered in. </p>
<p>It would be helpful to know what would have happened to the 110,000 people if their treatment had not been paid for by the federal government. The logical assumption is that they would have died, and that could be true, but we have no way of knowing. I am aware that there are numerous non-profit and charitable organizations (and even for-profit drug companies) that provided charitable medical care to people without sufficient resources. I imagine those organizations will cease to exist, at least with respect to that service, with the new law in place.</p>
<p>Bay, the charitable sector cannot begin to cover all the medical care needed by all the previously uninsured. Even if they could, it’s <em>charity</em> – depending on the kindness of someone else for your healthcare. ACA established that we have a right to decent health care. </p>
<p>Please stop saying that there are more uninsured now than there were before. 3.75 million more people are insured in January than in December, according to Gallup. That’s a lot of people! Twenty-two states have populations less than 3.75 million.</p>
<p>That’s not a logical assumption at all. Many (probably most) pre-existing conditions are not necessarily life-threatening. They’re just chronic conditions that are cheaper and better for the individual if they are maintained rather than letting it go.
The pre-existing condition that I was denied because of as a child (asthma) can be fatal but the one that caused my denial around 09 or 10 (can’t remember off the top of my head) is not fatal- just very expensive when not maintained. </p>