“FYI: on Trump’s recent 60 Minute interview, he stated that they should keep the pre-existing conditions and age 26 provisions in whatever replacement gets proposed for the ACA. Both are extremely popular provisions.”
“They are not planning to get rid of the law entirely, just revise it. the soon to be new administration says they will keep the provisions to accept people with Pre-Ex and to allow children to be covered to age 26.”
He has no plan yet. He had no plan before being elected and he’s flying by the seat of his pants. He said he would repeal, now he’s saying he might modify. You can’t modify by keeping the pre-existing conditions protection while forgoing the mandatory insurance portion. It’s not going to work.
ACA has allowed my D to join my H and her grandfather in our small family business. Without the pre existing provision she would have had to keep working for a large company that provided her with health benefits.
He also is going to have to get the insurance companies to go along with whatever, too. He cannot just order them to do stuff.
What I believe is going to happen is health ins. coverage will go back to each individual state where each state will need to come up with their own plans. They will fund it with block grants to the states but not give enough money towards it and block grants are easy it cut when budgeting versus money for fed programs.
That allows the fed govt to wash their hands of the problem of figuring out how to make it work and paying nearly as much as they are now.
“What I believe is going to happen is health ins. coverage will go back to each individual state where each state will need to come up with their own plans.”
And, regardless of any block grants to states, that will hurt some states more than others, and ironically, many of the states that will have a harder time will be red states.
Both of my parents are permanently disabled and I aged off of medicaid when I was 19, the year the ACA passed. I couldn’t afford my school’s plan nor any other plan so I was uninsured from 2010-2014 when the exchange opened. During that time, I developed gallstones but couldn’t get help because I was uninsured and even if I had insurance, it would be considered a pre-existing condition.
As soon as I got my BCBS plan through the exchange, I went to the ER and was rushed into surgery. My gallbladder was so full of gallstones that they couldn’t believe it hadn’t ruptured (which it did partially in surgery). The doctor didn’t think it would have held out much longer and you can die from a gallbladder rupture.
This year, I have been diagnosed with a litany of conditions that will never leave me insurable: lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, central pain syndrome, Sjorgens, and on and on. Lupus can kill me. CPS makes my life miserable.
Also this year, I’ve accumulated over 200k in medical bills (and that doesn’t include any prescriptions!). I am only 25 and all of these are lifelong conditions. If the lifetime limits are repealed, I’ll probably hit it before 30.
So yup. I’m not being hyperbolic when I say that I can die without the ACA protections. So much so that my partner, parents, and I have discussed seriously which country we will move to if I lose these protections.
I wish we can get rid of all insurance companies. What do they do to deserve a huge portion of the money from our pocket while interfering with our treatment? Healthcare professionals and hospitals should dump all of them.
Yes, I should have clarified that no one’s INDIVIDUALLY PURCHASED plans were fully compliant. I had no opportunity as an individual (including through any organizations I belonged to, because I checked) to purchase insurance that complied with all of the ACA rules. And that is the area that the ACA is primarily focused on. And one reason many people have a poor understanding of the ACA or consider it not relevant to their lives (and thus not necessary) – they work for organizations that negotiate all those types of rules for them. The individual market to some extent has born the brunt of toughly negotiated corporate or organization plans – they make up some of the money they give up on those plans via a more “wild west” individual market. (Just like health care providers pay reduced rates to insurance companies, and stick individuals who are self pay with much higher prices – a whole different part of crazy in our health care system).
It would be great if we had a single payer system that covered basic services for everyone and private insurers could allow people to buy up to a higher level if that’s what they wanted. Sort of like Medicare! (Or NHS in the UK.) I am glad to be able to access insurance if I don’t work for a company that offers coverage (too small ) and glad that so many have been offered health care through the ACA.
Linking coverage to employment automatically makes the pool healthier as it excludes singles, couples, and families who can’t work because of health related issues. I’m glad to see coverage extended to more folks.
“I wish we can get rid of all insurance companies. What do they do to deserve a huge portion of the money from our pocket while interfering with our treatment? Healthcare professionals and hospitals should dump all of them.”
HUH?
:-/
X_X
~O)
Try paying for medical care without it for something major, especially when you aren’t going to enjoy the insurance contracted rates so will be paying 50-200% more.
“The world has countries that don’t have insurance companies.”
Have you looked at their health conditions and the health of their populations? Average life expectancy? Infant mortality rates? Have you ever visited or lived in one of these countries?
All countries 1st world and many countries developing world have universal healthcare.
ETA: If you mean replacing insurance companies with universal healthcare, I’m totally okay with that. There are countries however who have neither.
We couldn’t even get a public option into the ACA law.
Our whole system will have to completely explode to get real national health care. We’ll all be dead before that happens. As long as the rich and rich companies/entities can afford their great insurance nothing will change.
I think what coolweather’s saying (and I could be mistaken) is that these countries don’t have insurance companies BECAUSE there is universal health coverage. Therefore, no need for insurance companies.
@doschicos - Infant mortality rate and other health conditions depend on the wealth of society and the efficiency of healthcare, not on the service of the health insurance companies. The US has a big health insurance system but it does not have the lowest infant mortality rate.
You’re right, it has a pretty shameful infant mortality rate for the “leader of the free world”. Less to do with the insurance companies, IMO, than the state of continued underinsurance, education levels, and poverty. You’re also right that our healthcare is inefficient. ACA was a bandaid on fixing that by getting more people insured and changing the landscape with the pre-existing condition coverage. It was so watered down by the time it got passed but did bring some improvements to our country’s healthcare landscape.
I misinterpreted your comments before as saying no insurance at all rather than universal coverage as @romanigypsyeyes says. Is that what you mean by your comments? To me, universal insurance is just one giant insurance pool, not no insurance.
Like I said, that’s just my guess. Coolweather, can you confirm or deny?
I worked in MCH in Detroit for a while and the rates of infant and maternal mortality there are higher than in many so-called “third world” countries. Anecdotally, things have been getting better there since the ACA passed but I have no data to prove it.
I also agree with @doschicos. There are insurance companies in countries that have universal healthcare. But the customers don’t have a lot of headache and fear like we do with our insurance companies. Japan is an example.