------------------
So, overnight, the US Senate voted on the first of a series of procedural measures to repeal the Affordable Care Act, aka "Obamacare".
They did this despite the fact that no agreement has been reached in either the House or Senate to put forward a replacement.
Which means the protections of the ACA that MOST Americans support -- no denial of insurance for pre-existing conditions, coverage of adult children under parents coverage -- will vanish.
This affects my family very directly: I have Chronic Lymphocitic Leukemia (CLL), a cancer of the blood stream and marrow system. Currently it has mild symptoms and doesn't require treatment, but there IS no cure, and it can and does "switch gears" genetically, and become much more aggressive. At which point expensive treatment will be required. One friend who has the disease required $300,000 in treatment in one year.
Mind you, this is not a "lifestyle choice." The disease has no strong environmental links, but is tied to genetics (mostly affecting white males of eastern European descent).
What are the odds that I'll be able to keep my current insurance once the insurance companies are told they can go back to kicking people off for "pre-existing conditions?"
I think we know the answer to that.
And that is just the half of it. My wife has her own pre-existing health issues which are her business, so I will not discuss them here.
The Republicans have said that they would insure that protections for those with pre-existing conditions continued, but last night they rejected amendments to the budget measure which would have stipulated that those protections continue.
Rep. Dan Newhouse, as one of your constituents, I am hoping that you take note of this and do the right thing when the measure hits the US House. I understand that the Republicans are determined to eliminate the ACA and while I oppose that, there was a promise made that the key protections that thousands of your constituents depend on, would be safeguarded. No repeal until a replacement is agreed upon.
Me The pre-existing exclusion issue only applied to uninsured people.
Kathy: http://www.businessinsider.com/how-many-people-would-lose...
Me: Interesting, but irrelevant to my comments.
Kathy: Not irrelevant. All of those people would then be subject to exclusions related to pre-existing conditions.
Me: No, they have insurance.
Scott: Rich I understand that but it leaves me and those like me at the mercy of my insurance carrier
Me: True. However, the chief complaint from the Left regarding Obamacare is that it is still market-based. Thus, being at the mercy of the insurance company is still true.
Scott: I've got no issue with the market being used as part of the solution so long as people are protected from the basically amoral nature of unfettered markets. I have little faith in markets to do "the right thing" without externally imposed incentive. History simply hasn't given much evidence of that.
Me: There is no such thing as unfettered markets. The health insurance industry, even before ACA, is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the US.
Kathy: Those covered under the ACA will likely lose their coverage. They will therefore have to re-apply for insurance. Not sure why you are ignoring that fact.
Scott: not sufficiently regulated to prevent dumping clients who were sick, or with pre-existing conditions.
Mind you, I understand the basic actuarials of how insurance works and why they would take those actions (if permitted) to reduce costs for the insured pool and to keep a profit margin.
but I happen to think that is precisely why, especially as our generation ages and becomes more and more vulnerable in terms of health, there needs to be some sort of protection beyond the marketplace, IMO.
Me: If I have coverage, and ACA is repealed, my coverage will end at a specified future date. Between now and then I will obtain replacement coverage, and cannot be denied based on pre-existing conditions. I'm not sure why you're ignoring that fact.
Me: More than sufficiently regulated, Scott. Unfortunately, regulation requires enforcement. That's where the weak link is.
Tomiann: You said " is repealed, my coverage will end at a specified future date. Between now and then I will obtain replacement coverage, and cannot be denied based on pre-existing conditions." Why do you think you cannot be denied based on a pre-existing condition? ACA is what required insurance companies to accept people AND to no put in 3 to 9 months "waiting' periods for those few insurance companies that will accept such a condition. IF ACA is gone there is not longer any way to stop insurance companies from returning to their previous behavior.There were people being refused insurance based on Keratosis pilaris as their 'pre-existing condition ffs.
Kathy: That makes no sense. The law will be repealed, but everything will continue as before. I get that the Republicans want to play games with the effective date, but the truth is that affordable coverage for those with pre-existing conditions will disappear. Not to mention the ability of adult children without insurance to be covered on their parents' policies.
Me: Tomiann, I simply stating the verifiable fact that prior to ACA, insurance companies could not deny coverage for pre-existing conditions if you already had coverage. You might not know that there is a waiting period in ACA:
Complying With ACA's 90-Day Waiting Period Limit - Law360
Me: Kathy, apparently you are under the illusion that ACA is affordable.
So, overnight, the US Senate voted on the first of a series of procedural measures to repeal the Affordable Care Act, aka "Obamacare".
They did this despite the fact that no agreement has been reached in either the House or Senate to put forward a replacement.
Which means the protections of the ACA that MOST Americans support -- no denial of insurance for pre-existing conditions, coverage of adult children under parents coverage -- will vanish.
This affects my family very directly: I have Chronic Lymphocitic Leukemia (CLL), a cancer of the blood stream and marrow system. Currently it has mild symptoms and doesn't require treatment, but there IS no cure, and it can and does "switch gears" genetically, and become much more aggressive. At which point expensive treatment will be required. One friend who has the disease required $300,000 in treatment in one year.
Mind you, this is not a "lifestyle choice." The disease has no strong environmental links, but is tied to genetics (mostly affecting white males of eastern European descent).
What are the odds that I'll be able to keep my current insurance once the insurance companies are told they can go back to kicking people off for "pre-existing conditions?"
I think we know the answer to that.
And that is just the half of it. My wife has her own pre-existing health issues which are her business, so I will not discuss them here.
The Republicans have said that they would insure that protections for those with pre-existing conditions continued, but last night they rejected amendments to the budget measure which would have stipulated that those protections continue.
Rep. Dan Newhouse, as one of your constituents, I am hoping that you take note of this and do the right thing when the measure hits the US House. I understand that the Republicans are determined to eliminate the ACA and while I oppose that, there was a promise made that the key protections that thousands of your constituents depend on, would be safeguarded. No repeal until a replacement is agreed upon.
Me The pre-existing exclusion issue only applied to uninsured people.
Kathy: http://www.businessinsider.com/how-many-people-would-lose...
Me: Interesting, but irrelevant to my comments.
Kathy: Not irrelevant. All of those people would then be subject to exclusions related to pre-existing conditions.
Me: No, they have insurance.
Scott: Rich I understand that but it leaves me and those like me at the mercy of my insurance carrier
Me: True. However, the chief complaint from the Left regarding Obamacare is that it is still market-based. Thus, being at the mercy of the insurance company is still true.
Scott: I've got no issue with the market being used as part of the solution so long as people are protected from the basically amoral nature of unfettered markets. I have little faith in markets to do "the right thing" without externally imposed incentive. History simply hasn't given much evidence of that.
Me: There is no such thing as unfettered markets. The health insurance industry, even before ACA, is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the US.
Kathy: Those covered under the ACA will likely lose their coverage. They will therefore have to re-apply for insurance. Not sure why you are ignoring that fact.
Scott: not sufficiently regulated to prevent dumping clients who were sick, or with pre-existing conditions.
Mind you, I understand the basic actuarials of how insurance works and why they would take those actions (if permitted) to reduce costs for the insured pool and to keep a profit margin.
but I happen to think that is precisely why, especially as our generation ages and becomes more and more vulnerable in terms of health, there needs to be some sort of protection beyond the marketplace, IMO.
Me: If I have coverage, and ACA is repealed, my coverage will end at a specified future date. Between now and then I will obtain replacement coverage, and cannot be denied based on pre-existing conditions. I'm not sure why you're ignoring that fact.
Me: More than sufficiently regulated, Scott. Unfortunately, regulation requires enforcement. That's where the weak link is.
Tomiann: You said " is repealed, my coverage will end at a specified future date. Between now and then I will obtain replacement coverage, and cannot be denied based on pre-existing conditions." Why do you think you cannot be denied based on a pre-existing condition? ACA is what required insurance companies to accept people AND to no put in 3 to 9 months "waiting' periods for those few insurance companies that will accept such a condition. IF ACA is gone there is not longer any way to stop insurance companies from returning to their previous behavior.There were people being refused insurance based on Keratosis pilaris as their 'pre-existing condition ffs.
Kathy: That makes no sense. The law will be repealed, but everything will continue as before. I get that the Republicans want to play games with the effective date, but the truth is that affordable coverage for those with pre-existing conditions will disappear. Not to mention the ability of adult children without insurance to be covered on their parents' policies.
Me: Tomiann, I simply stating the verifiable fact that prior to ACA, insurance companies could not deny coverage for pre-existing conditions if you already had coverage. You might not know that there is a waiting period in ACA:
Complying With ACA's 90-Day Waiting Period Limit - Law360
Me: Kathy, apparently you are under the illusion that ACA is affordable.
http://kff.org/.../2017-premium-changes-and-insurer.../
Kathy: People with pre-existing conditions are far better off with ACA than without it.
Me: There is no evidence for such an astounding generalization.
Collin: Rich, my family will go from $275/month on ACA, back to $950/month for "catastrophic insurance" and I have a major surgery next month. I think it is you that is under the illusion, the ACA gave 30 million people including myself access to low priced insurance for the first time in their lives and are now about to lose it. My family will be losing more than $8000/year (plus an extra $4,000 for my deductible) on just paying the new premiums now, that is 20% of my entire income. Insurance companies leave people with pre-existing conditions a $5-10,000 deductible, and outrageous premiums. We will now struggle to make ends meet simply because my wife and I have chronic illnesses.
Me: Collin, you can thank me for your low cost insurance, since I am the one whose plan costs $1900/month.
Kathy: Ah, the truth comes out. Rich doesn't REALLY believe in the concept of insurance, which spreads the risk between those who need it and those who don't. Either that, or he doesn't believe in letting the market take charge. Or both! My son (Rich's nephew) is one of those who incurs a lot of medical expenses, through no fault of his own. He benefits - or rather, requires for survival - an affordable way to manage his health.
Rich: What makes you think the ACA is insurance? Rates are determined by income, not health. Income is not an indicator of risk. That makes ACA a wealth transfer program.
Again, you might want to thank those who are paying your way.
Tomiann: Rich, taxes are a wealth transfer program- did you thank those who paid your way?
Me: Some taxes are, most are not. And yes, I am very thankful for those who are much richer than I who are bearing such a disproportionate amount of the tax burden.
Collin: They made their success and wealth through a system that was created by all of us. The rich didn't pave their own way, no one has become rich on their own. Without the consumers and low-level workers, they would have never amassed that wealth. We are all in this together.
$1,900/month?! That is outrageous, I will give you that, but I have so many questions... Is that premium more than 20% of your income? Is the $1,900/month making it so you can't survive financially? Do you incur more than $24,000/year in medical expenses to make that price worth it? Are you over the age of 50? I'm only 31, so ours should be MUCH lower than someone in their 50's or 60's.
Me: It's a bit of a shame that you would resort to "you didn't build that, " since you seem to be someone who thinks about things. I made no claim about how people make money.
However, since we are here, there is no "system created by all of us." Voluntary exchange is part of the human creature, present before any "systems" were instituted. These "systems" were simply a codification of what people were already doing. "We" didn't do anything. These people who through their own ingenuity and risk taking created and innovated their way into prosperity.
I suspect that the reason you made those assertions was to legitimize government's claim to peoples' hard earned money. That is, society "helped," so they deserve their cut. And those that have more, well, they need to be made to pay more.
Scott: that (Government) is in fact, one of the constructs that we made, Rich. In part to accomplish feats that could not be accomplished, either pragmatically or in fact, through other means. And collaboratively, we've accomplished amazing things: put people on the moon, created a world wide network that allows us to debate these things in real time via a wide array of interconnected devices, retrieve our national symbol, the Bald eagle, from the precipice of extinction, where it found itself as a result of insufficient caution on the part of the private sector......it's neither perfect nor the best solution in all instances, but I for one believe that its' a large part of what makes our society successful and paves the way for those who are successful in the private sector.
Collin: They would have never become rich without this well established economic system, not to mention their parents, teachers, previous bosses, consumers, and their own workers who hold their business up. All they did was have an idea (an idea that was inspired by a lifetime of influence from others) that would be impossible to implement without an economic system and people to support the idea. This isn't the 18th or 19th century anymore, we aren't a bunch of independent farmers and artisans that do all business operations independently from the government.
Who created the freeways, railroads, and ports businesses use to transport all these goods? Who created the infrastrcuture to deliver utilities to businesses all over the the US? Who paid for the education of the rich person's entire workforce? Who created the telecommunications infrastucture that every business utilizes to network their businesses and maximize their revenue? No one gets rich on their own, they use well established systems that were put in place by our tax dollars (i.e. systems created by all of us), not to mention the hundreds/thousands of individuals that help educate and grow your success.
Me: We made? Scott, what was your vote on the omnibus spending bill? Did you cast a nay vote for repealing ACA? What about the defense appropriations bill?
Ok, so I'll grant your point temporarily in order to point out that the government created in 1798 bears no resemblance to present day government. Whatever "we" might have created 200+ years ago is irrelevant. I want no part of this present oppressive, profligate, overbearing "we."
Further, "we" didn't "collaborate" on anything. Government took my money and spent it wherever the hell they wanted, regardless of my desire. The fact that there were some good outcomes doesn't justify the act. For every bald eagle saved there was 100 families who had less to spend on themselves. For every mission to the moon there was a hundred thousand families who lost their jobs.
These things do not happen in a vacuum, Scott. The dollars had to come from somewhere.
No comments:
Post a Comment