Pre-existing Conditions

[Boomer]

(Please pay attention. Pre-existing conditions are on the chopping block, now with Covid as an additional bonus possible for insurance companies.)

It is highly possible, that in the near future, insurance companies -- again -- will be allowed to use pre-existing conditions as their right to deny coverage.

If insurance companies are awarded the unconscionable power to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, it is not a big leap of the imagination to think that having had Covid 19 could be termed a pre-existing condition.

Why do I think that could happen? — because we do not understand where this virus can take us. But we do know that Covid 19 can sometimes leave very serious, and possibly chronic, health problems in its wake — even after supposed recovery.

I realize that most Villagers are comfortably swaddled in Medicare or good coverage from military retirement or previous employers. But, even so, in this time of overwhelming distraction, it is important to stay informed of what is playing out behind the front-and-center chaos.

Gen X and Millennials and younger boomers who get the virus and recover could find themselves saddled with a pre-existing condition — forever— just for having had the virus — even though nothing else has shown up — yet — after recovery.

Maybe I am overthinking this. Gee, could insurance companies ever even consider reaching into such a pot of gold as Covid recovery as an excuse to deny coverage.

No matter where your loyalties lie, no matter whether you have any younger people in your life to love, please pay attention, stay informed — from a variety of sources.

The ultimate decision to protect or to take away the individual’s right to not be denied health insurance coverage due to a pre-existing condition is in the works — with powerful support to take away that right.

Be careful what you wish (wished?) for.

Cassandra Boomer

[Bjeanj]

Yep. Not only that, if they cover you, it could be for a huge premium.

[Dana1963]

(Please pay attention. Pre-existing conditions are on the chopping block, now with Covid as an additional bonus possible for insurance companies.)

It is highly possible, that in the near future, insurance companies -- again -- will be allowed to use pre-existing conditions as their right to deny coverage.

If insurance companies are awarded the unconscionable power to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, it is not a big leap of the imagination to think that having had Covid 19 could be termed a pre-existing condition.

Why do I think that could happen? — because we do not understand where this virus can take us. But we do know that Covid 19 can sometimes leave very serious, and possibly chronic, health problems in its wake — even after supposed recovery.

I realize that most Villagers are comfortably swaddled in Medicare or good coverage from military retirement or previous employers. But, even so, in this time of overwhelming distraction, it is important to stay informed of what is playing out behind the front-and-center chaos.

Gen X and Millennials and younger boomers who get the virus and recover could find themselves saddled with a pre-existing condition — forever— just for having had the virus — even though nothing else has shown up — yet — after recovery.

Maybe I am overthinking this. Gee, could insurance companies ever even consider reaching into such a pot of gold as Covid recovery as an excuse to deny coverage.

No matter where your loyalties lie, no matter whether you have any younger people in your life to love, please pay attention, stay informed — from a variety of sources.

The ultimate decision to protect or to take away the individual’s right to not be denied health insurance coverage due to a pre-existing condition is in the works — with powerful support to take away that right.

Be careful what you wish (wished?) for.

Cassandra Boomer
Currently the Justice Department is involved in repealing what’s left of ACA that is preexisting conditions with no replacement available. This is being taken up by the Supreme Court after election.
“ What do you have to loose”

[graciegirl]

Nothing is free. When the government is involved the wastage makes the cost astronomical. No one wants anyone denied health care because of pre existing conditions.

Too many want health care and have someone else pay for it.

Nothing is free.

We would all like for there to be simple answers and to blame others for problems based on greed, but the truth is that either you self insure or you buy insurance or you HOPE the government will cover you and other people's money doesn't run out.

[Bucco]

Nothing is free. When the government is involved the wastage makes the cost astronomical. No one wants anyone denied health care because of pre existing conditions.

Too many want health care and have someone else pay for it.

Nothing is free.

We would all like for there to be simple answers and to blame others for problems based on greed, but the truth is that either you self insure or you buy insurance or you HOPE the government will cover you and other people's money doesn't run out.

WOW.......I will pay for it myself, but will it be available ?? Everyone is not looking for a handout.....but this is one country....not two (rich and poor)

The oft promised “terrific,” “phenomenal” and “fantastic” new health care plan to replace the Affordable Care Act was to debut so many times since 2015 but never has surfaced in anyway.

We were told this week that the plan "is ready". While before the Supreme court the administration continues to fight to eliminate pre existing conditions in action taken since June we are told even so any plan will allow for pre existing conditions.

So, we shall see......always two or more stories it seems.

I opposed the ACA at the beginning but am getting tired of the same old story......lets tear it down one piece at a time and promise a better one.....but only the tearing down is happening.

The implication that I, or any american is looking for handouts is getting to be a tired old story. Everyone is not as blessed as many others. I am in good shape I think, but the vast and great majority are not blessed with company plans or the money to afford to 'self insure".

[graciegirl]

WOW.......I will pay for it myself, but will it be available ?? Everyone is not looking for a handout.....but this is one country....not two (rich and poor)

The oft promised “terrific,” “phenomenal” and “fantastic” new health care plan to replace the Affordable Care Act was to debut so many times since 2015 but never has surfaced in anyway.

We were told this week that the plan "is ready". While before the Supreme court the administration continues to fight to eliminate pre existing conditions in action taken since June we are told even so any plan will allow for pre existing conditions.

So, we shall see......always two or more stories it seems.

I opposed the ACA at the beginning but am getting tired of the same old story......lets tear it down one piece at a time and promise a better one.....but only the tearing down is happening.

The implication that I, or any american is looking for handouts is getting to be a tired old story. Everyone is not as blessed as many others. I am in good shape I think, but the vast and great majority are not blessed with company plans or the money to afford to 'self insure".

I don't understand your post. Could you simplify?

[claricecolin]

Before ACA an insurance company could refuse to sell you insurance based on preexisting conditions based on state policy. If they did offer insurance there was often no cap on what they could charge for premiums. So not a matter of being unwilling to pay might not be able to get coverage at all or not being able to afford it. You had serious medical issue as a child getting coverage as an adult would be difficult. If preexisting conditions are repealed with no replacement am willing to bet covid becomes one.

[Bucco]

I don't understand your post. Could you simplify?

Sure....

1. I expressed a "WOW" due to the language as if folks were always looking for free, and that is totally not true. I am not, but have an avid interest in whether pre existing conditions will be covered as our government on one had says yes but in June took action to the Supreme court to disallow.

2. The assumption that people are always looking for free is not true and the implication that the many who got coverage from ACA for pre existing are "takers" or whatever term you might use is.....well, can't think of a nice word. Your direct implication that people blame others all the time is not valid.

These are simple generalizations that simply do not stand up.

3. We were told before the election and many times since that there was going to be a “terrific,” “phenomenal” and “fantastic” plan unveiled. Now after all these years we are told "it is ready". We shall see how the balance between actions to derail pre existing conditions as high as the Supreme Court versus promises to keep in this yet unseen plan works out. Many candidates are struggling mightily with this exact issue.

4. As you well know, I adamantly was opposed to the ACA when it passed, and still find fault with much of it, but never the pre existing condition part. It is not right for our government to hold this over peoples head and to have people say those who approve of that act are looking for "handouts". Some are blessed with the ability to buy or self insure......most are not.

Vast majority of Americans do not have company plan, are unable to "self insure" and want to cover their family. My objection with the passed ACA was the lack of involvement by all parties and we are now faced with the same situation but worse because of the timing. COVID is a new ingredient that needs exploring but publicly and not in what appears to be false promises for the last few years

[tvbound]

Covid will most definitely become a pre-existing condition, should the assault on the ACA be successful in the courts. As far as a "replacement plan" that will protect pre-existing conditions, exactly where and what is this plan? I hear certain people talking about it, but have yet to see any details show up in any written form, anywhere. Those of us who were fortunate to belong to a group health plan already had this protection, but prior to the ACA, tens of millions of others did not. I can't help but wonder, if those (or their family members) in a group plan, who have pre-existing conditions, had to actually personally bear the additional premium costs (instead of depending on those in the group plan who were healthy to carry them) had to bear the true costs of their pre-existing condition - would they care more about not repealing the ACA? I bet they would.


Did The ACA Create Preexisting Condition Protections For People In Employer Plans? | Kaiser Health News (https://khn.org/news/did-the-aca-create-preexisting-condition-protections-for-people-in-employer-plans/)

"What we found out is what few people realize: Protections for preexisting conditions for most people with job-based insurance predated the ACA by more than a decade."

[Boomer]

Nothing is free. When the government is involved the wastage makes the cost astronomical. No one wants anyone denied health care because of pre existing conditions.

Too many want health care and have someone else pay for it.

Nothing is free.

We would all like for there to be simple answers and to blame others for problems based on greed, but the truth is that either you self insure or you buy insurance or you HOPE the government will cover you and other people's money doesn't run out.





May I clarify — what is happening now is the case that is about to be heard has the goal of completely dismantling the protection that says insurance companies cannot deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions.

This is not about people wanting a free ride.

This is about people who want to be able to buy “a ticket to ride.” ‘Buy’ is the operative word.

We are a nation of amnesiacs. There was a time when people who were trying to buy insurance on the open market — before the pre-existing conditions protection — either could not find coverage — or if they did find it, but needed to use it, they faced loophole after loophole.

We are very close to going back to that but people are not paying attention. The case is circling to land.

There are a lot of hardworking people who stand to lose healthcare coverage — when all they want is to be able to buy decent, affordable health insurance.

At this point, Me, Me, Me and mine have what we need. But I dare to care about those who do not. It is not fair to penalize people for pre-existing conditions by making healthcare practically unavailable to them. In fact, to do that is just plain cruel.

Cassandra Boomer

[retiredguy123]

To suggest that people are willing to pay their own way is laughable. The national debt, when divided up among the population is about $94,000 per person. I don't hear very many people, who want to pay their own way, offering to pay off their share of the debt. They are happy to force future generations to assume the debt. This applies to health care and almost everything else.

[tvbound]

May I clarify — what is happening now is the case that is about to be heard has the goal of completely dismantling the protection that says insurance companies cannot deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions.

This is not about people wanting a free ride.

This is about people who want to be able to buy “a ticket to ride.” ‘Buy’ is the operative word.

We are a nation of amnesiacs. There was a time when people who were trying to buy insurance on the open market — before the pre-existing conditions protection — either could not find coverage — or if they did find it, but needed to use it, they faced loophole after loophole.

We are very close to going back to that but people are not paying attention. The case is circling to land.

There are a lot of hardworking people who stand to lose healthcare coverage — when all they want is to be able to buy decent, affordable health insurance.

At this point, Me, Me, Me and mine have what we need. But I dare to care about those who do not. It is not fair to penalize people for pre-existing conditions by making healthcare practically unavailable to them. In fact, to do that is just plain cruel.

Cassandra Boomer


"At this point, Me, Me, Me and mine have what we need. But I dare to care about those who do not. It is not fair to penalize people for pre-existing conditions by making healthcare practically unavailable to them. In fact, to do that is just plain cruel."


THAT is what it really boils down to.

[graciegirl]

May I clarify — what is happening now is the case that is about to be heard has the goal of completely dismantling the protection that says insurance companies cannot deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions.

This is not about people wanting a free ride.

This is about people who want to be able to buy “a ticket to ride.” ‘Buy’ is the operative word.

We are a nation of amnesiacs. There was a time when people who were trying to buy insurance on the open market — before the pre-existing conditions protection — either could not find coverage — or if they did find it, but needed to use it, they faced loophole after loophole.

We are very close to going back to that but people are not paying attention. The case is circling to land.

There are a lot of hardworking people who stand to lose healthcare coverage — when all they want is to be able to buy decent, affordable health insurance.

At this point, Me, Me, Me and mine have what we need. But I dare to care about those who do not. It is not fair to penalize people for pre-existing conditions by making healthcare practically unavailable to them. In fact, to do that is just plain cruel.

Cassandra Boomer

It isn't that people are uncaring. Somebody has to pay for all medical procedures. It is based on graphs and numerical formulas. Insurance is based on paying in and paying out and has to have money "in" to pay "out". It isn't about the haves or have nots and has nothing really to do with our moral responsibility. It is numbers.

You cannot get blood out of a turnip. You know that. You are from Ohio.

Using software that computes a predetermined algorithm, insurance underwriters gauge the risk that you may file a claim against your policy. These algorithms are based on key indicators about you and then measured against a data set to weigh risk.

[dewilson58]

To eliminate = political suicide.


No one will do it.


Sky is not falling.

[Bucco]

To suggest that people are willing to pay their own way is laughable. The national debt, when divided up among the population is about $94,000 per person. I don't hear very many people, who want to pay their own way, offering to pay off their share of the debt. They are happy to force future generations to assume the debt. This applies to health care and almost everything else.

That national debt you speak of has risen out of the reach of any estimate ever heard, and most was not incurred by those you are blaming.

Prior to Covid, we were told the national debt would actually be eliminated..actual words. Instead it has increased exponentially, and Covid will add to that.

Not sure what you want citizens who have no control to do. Tax cuts were not for average folks, and had we actually gotten the growth promised (we didn't even get half) it would have been a good idea.

I have suggested that the national debt is a moral crisis, an unspoken evil, but always, on this forum am told I know not of what I speak.

Increase in debt is not because if people wanting freebies. It was getting under some control just a few years ago, but....you can't blame everything on people wanting freebies. Folks should pay attention to actual spending numbers, who is actually making money off the government....they are all labeled "fake news" but if you read, it is real

[retiredguy123]

Sure....

1. I expressed a "WOW" due to the language as if folks were always looking for free, and that is totally not true. I am not, but have an avid interest in whether pre existing conditions will be covered as our government on one had says yes but in June took action to the Supreme court to disallow.

2. The assumption that people are always looking for free is not true and the implication that the many who got coverage from ACA for pre existing are "takers" or whatever term you might use is.....well, can't think of a nice word. Your direct implication that people blame others all the time is not valid.

These are simple generalizations that simply do not stand up.

3. We were told before the election and many times since that there was going to be a “terrific,” “phenomenal” and “fantastic” plan unveiled. Now after all these years we are told "it is ready". We shall see how the balance between actions to derail pre existing conditions as high as the Supreme Court versus promises to keep in this yet unseen plan works out. Many candidates are struggling mightily with this exact issue.

4. As you well know, I adamantly was opposed to the ACA when it passed, and still find fault with much of it, but never the pre existing condition part. It is not right for our government to hold this over peoples head and to have people say those who approve of that act are looking for "handouts". Some are blessed with the ability to buy or self insure......most are not.

Vast majority of Americans do not have company plan, are unable to "self insure" and want to cover their family. My objection with the passed ACA was the lack of involvement by all parties and we are now faced with the same situation but worse because of the timing. COVID is a new ingredient that needs exploring but publicly and not in what appears to be false promises for the last few years
Regarding your Item No. 1, the last time I checked, the Supreme Court is part of "our Government".

So, what is wrong with the Supreme Court deciding if the ACA is constitutional?

[Boomer]

It isn't that people are uncaring. Somebody has to pay for all medical procedures. It is based on graphs and numerical formulas. Insurance is based on paying in and paying out and has to have money "in" to pay "out". It isn't about the haves or have nots and has nothing really to do with our moral responsibility. It is numbers.

You cannot get blood out of a turnip. You know that. You are from Ohio.

Using software that computes a predetermined algorithm, insurance underwriters gauge the risk that you may file a claim against your policy. These algorithms are based on key indicators about you and then measured against a data set to weigh risk.



United Healthcare (UNH) is at close to its 52-week high right now. The 52 week range is $187.72–$324.57. That means about a 34% increase in the past 52 weeks.

Healthcare stocks took a little hit at the beginning of Covid but have bounced way back. (Of course, maybe the execs are doing stock buybacks with their corporate tax break money. Companies have spent trillions of their tax break dollars buying back their own stock.

Unrestrained greed is bad economics.

Insurance companies sure seem happy lately and I do not think it is because they are losing money — or think they are going to.

[njbchbum]

Wait! I thought there was a possibility that we could be getting government healthcare where everything will be covered - no?

[John41]

If the country expels all the illegal aliens, builds the wall and restricts immigration as Canada does to immigrants who will benefit Canada then there should be free basic health insurance to all Americans who respect the flag and our laws. No pre existing conditions. This would be like the hurricane insurance pool for those who can not get hurricane insurance. The ACA was a flop for the middle class. Contrary to those who say there is no free lunch, keeping Americans healthy and productive is better and cheaper than go to emergency rooms for a condition that could have been treated preventatively. And unless the country is at full employment there will be no inflation penalty. For those who come to this country and then bad mouth it they get a one way ticket back to where they came from.

[Bucco]

If the country expels all the illegal aliens, builds the wall and restricts immigration as Canada does to immigrants who will benefit Canada then there should be free basic health insurance to all Americans who respect the flag and our laws. No pre existing conditions. This would be like the hurricane insurance pool for those who can not get hurricane insurance. The ACA was a flop for the middle class. Contrary to those who say there is no free lunch, keeping Americans healthy and productive is better and cheaper than go to emergency rooms for a condition that could have been treated preventatively. And unless the country is at full employment there will be no inflation penalty. For those who come to this country and then bad mouth it they get a one way ticket back to where they came from.

The ACA specifically prevents non-lawfully present immigrants from enrolling in coverage through the exchanges [section 1312(f)(3)]. And they are also not eligible for Medicaid under federal guidelines. So the two major cornerstones of coverage expansion under the ACA are not available to undocumented immigrants.

But keep saying it, if you are pleased

An updated KFF analysis estimates that almost 54 million people – or 27% of all adults under 65 —have pre-existing health conditions that would likely have made them uninsurable in the individual markets that existed in most states before the Affordable Care Act.

[John41]

The ACA specifically prevents non-lawfully present immigrants from enrolling in coverage through the exchanges [section 1312(f)(3)]. And they are also not eligible for Medicaid under federal guidelines. So the two major cornerstones of coverage expansion under the ACA are not available to undocumented immigrants.

But keep saying it, if you are pleased

An updated KFF analysis estimates that almost 54 million people – or 27% of all adults under 65 —have pre-existing health conditions that would likely have made them uninsurable in the individual markets that existed in most states before the Affordable Care Act.

Please read what I said. I propose FREE basic health insurance for ALL AMERICANS. The ACA insurance is not free unless you have very low income. ACA pre existing condition exclusion was only worthwhile if you could find affordable insurance which many middle income Americans could not, and the exchanges were failing. My proposal is more inclusive than ACA thus the requirement for American citizenship.

[tophcfa]

For a very long time insurance companies have not been allowed to use pre-existing conditions to CANCEL insurance for anyone with continuous insurance coverage. The issue is can people opt to not have insurance, saving big $$$$, and then suddenly decide to sign up for insurance when they find out they have a condition that could cost them lots of money. As long as they can not CANCEL already in-force policies when someone unfortunately gets diagnosed with a serious health condition, I do not see an issue. Otherwise, most younger healthy people would not bother to pay for insurance until they need it. That would seriously change the pricing of insurance for responsible people who always carry health insurance.

[retiredguy123]

Please read what I said. I propose FREE basic health insurance for ALL AMERICANS. The ACA insurance is not free unless you have very low income. ACA pre existing condition exclusion was only worthwhile if you could find affordable insurance which many middle income Americans could not, and the exchanges were failing. My proposal is more inclusive than ACA thus the requirement for American citizenship.
I agree with deporting illegal aliens. But, until you do, they will be getting free health care one way or another. It's nice to say that they are not eligible for the ACA or Medicaid, but those who cannot afford it will get it at taxpayer expense anyway.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

It isn't that people are uncaring. Somebody has to pay for all medical procedures. It is based on graphs and numerical formulas. Insurance is based on paying in and paying out and has to have money "in" to pay "out". It isn't about the haves or have nots and has nothing really to do with our moral responsibility. It is numbers.

You cannot get blood out of a turnip. You know that. You are from Ohio.

Using software that computes a predetermined algorithm, insurance underwriters gauge the risk that you may file a claim against your policy. These algorithms are based on key indicators about you and then measured against a data set to weigh risk.

All of the people who pay for insurance and end up NOT needing it - are paying for all the people who pay for it and DO need it. You might not understand how insurance works. But that's basically how it works. The more people who can buy into it, the more money is available to pay for those who actually end up making use of it.

That is true in ALL insurance, not just health insurance. It's also true in car insurance, life insurance, property insurance.

It's a gamble. YOu are betting that you will need to cash in. The insurance company is betting that you won't need to cash in. The insurance company is the "house." The "house" is betting the odds. You are betting against them.

Pre-existing conditions means - if you ever broke a bone in school, and you have arthritis now, then your insurance company will tell you that all those premiums you've paid for years and years, all your Medicare Part Whatever - don't amount to a hill of beans. You are NOT covered, because you have a pre-existing condition, and your current diagnosis is a result of that pre-existing condition. If you hadn't broken your bone, then you wouldn't have been at risk of getting arthritis. Suck it up buttercup, you want treatment it'll cost you $40,000, full price, no discounts, no coverage. You want surgery, you're looking at over $100,000. Payable in full in 30 days.

That's what pre-existing condition coverage is all about. If you ever had a cold sore - well that's herpes. So if you end up with cervical cancer, you're out of luck. Pay in full. Herpes is the #1 cause of cervical cancer. Never mind that in your case, it isn't what caused it. They have the right not to cover it, because you had that condition.

But hey you're gonna live forever right Gracie? or maybe you'll die in your sleep, 100% healthy, without anyone having to pay the hospital bill because you've never had any medical problem ever in your entire life. Including the medical pre-existing condition of giving birth. Or going through menopause. Those are pre-existing medical conditions too. You want any possible future medical problem to be refused coverage, and have to pay 100% of the full price because the insurance company has chosen not to cover pre-existing conditions? You got it. Good luck to ya.

[Northwoods]

(Please pay attention. Pre-existing conditions are on the chopping block, now with Covid as an additional bonus possible for insurance companies.)

It is highly possible, that in the near future, insurance companies -- again -- will be allowed to use pre-existing conditions as their right to deny coverage.

If insurance companies are awarded the unconscionable power to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, it is not a big leap of the imagination to think that having had Covid 19 could be termed a pre-existing condition.

Why do I think that could happen? — because we do not understand where this virus can take us. But we do know that Covid 19 can sometimes leave very serious, and possibly chronic, health problems in its wake — even after supposed recovery.

I realize that most Villagers are comfortably swaddled in Medicare or good coverage from military retirement or previous employers. But, even so, in this time of overwhelming distraction, it is important to stay informed of what is playing out behind the front-and-center chaos.

Gen X and Millennials and younger boomers who get the virus and recover could find themselves saddled with a pre-existing condition — forever— just for having had the virus — even though nothing else has shown up — yet — after recovery.

Maybe I am overthinking this. Gee, could insurance companies ever even consider reaching into such a pot of gold as Covid recovery as an excuse to deny coverage.

No matter where your loyalties lie, no matter whether you have any younger people in your life to love, please pay attention, stay informed — from a variety of sources.

The ultimate decision to protect or to take away the individual’s right to not be denied health insurance coverage due to a pre-existing condition is in the works — with powerful support to take away that right.

Be careful what you wish (wished?) for.

Cassandra Boomer

Why do you think that? What are you reading that makes you think this could happen? Is this something coming out of the mouths of someone who could make this happen? (Can you show a video where they are saying this?) Or give a site that is stating the viewpoint of someone?
I don't know of anyone in power on both sides of the aisle who have said they would repeal pre-existing conditions. So I am curious why you feel this way.

[claricecolin]

Why do you think that? What are you reading that makes you think this could happen? Is this something coming out of the mouths of someone who could make this happen? (Can you show a video where they are saying this?) Or give a site that is stating the viewpoint of someone?
I don't know of anyone in power on both sides of the aisle who have said they would repeal pre-existing conditions. So I am curious why you feel this way.

The case that will be argued before the supreme court a week after the election is to have the aca declared unconstitutional, the current administration is arguing that side. The aca is what provided for preexisting conditions protections. No plan is known exactly how this will be protected if aca is repealed.

[Worldseries27]

Please everyone dont be distracted by individual concerns about health issues. The real issue is the communist anarchists trying to destroy this country from within. They are not providing alternative soultions to problems. They are destroying the social fabric of this country by attacking its citizenry and police. They are terrorists being given cover by cowardly leaders. Of an unrecognizsble party that no longer has a voice for most of its members. Their mission is to bring their hate to your front door. Wake up please. Session over

[Leadbone1]

(Please pay attention. Pre-existing conditions are on the chopping block, now with Covid as an additional bonus possible for insurance companies.)

It is highly possible, that in the near future, insurance companies -- again -- will be allowed to use pre-existing conditions as their right to deny coverage.

If insurance companies are awarded the unconscionable power to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, it is not a big leap of the imagination to think that having had Covid 19 could be termed a pre-existing condition.

Why do I think that could happen? — because we do not understand where this virus can take us. But we do know that Covid 19 can sometimes leave very serious, and possibly chronic, health problems in its wake — even after supposed recovery.

I realize that most Villagers are comfortably swaddled in Medicare or good coverage from military retirement or previous employers. But, even so, in this time of overwhelming distraction, it is important to stay informed of what is playing out behind the front-and-center chaos.

Gen X and Millennials and younger boomers who get the virus and recover could find themselves saddled with a pre-existing condition — forever— just for having had the virus — even though nothing else has shown up — yet — after recovery.

Maybe I am overthinking this. Gee, could insurance companies ever even consider reaching into such a pot of gold as Covid recovery as an excuse to deny coverage.

No matter where your loyalties lie, no matter whether you have any younger people in your life to love, please pay attention, stay informed — from a variety of sources.

The ultimate decision to protect or to take away the individual’s right to not be denied health insurance coverage due to a pre-existing condition is in the works — with powerful support to take away that right.

Be careful what you wish (wished?) for.

Cassandra Boomer

Absolutely wrong. If anything there’s a bigger push right now to be sure that pre-existing conditions are covered than the other way around. Don’t know where you’re getting your information?

[J1ceasar]

Debt is not increasing exponentially. Learn what the term means please.

[J1ceasar]

Fake news .

[J1ceasar]

First this is not a Political statement I'm just talkin about facts.
If you really want to talk about the national debt you have to go back about 10 years when a certain president double the debt and 8 years of his term. Both parties should be blamed 4 the lack of balls to either raise taxes or cut back on expenses. There are many years where the difference could have been five or 10% raising taxes and lowering expenses to have least balance a budget. The current president just like the last one from the other party blames current conditions for all the expenses incurred to protect the US citizen and the economy I truly doubt either party will ever get a handle on a budget the best we can ever hope for his continuing lowest ever interest rates in the world so that the US Treasury and continue borrowing at near zero rates. The really scary thing would be for inflation to get out of control and going back to when Carter was president at 12 - 18% interest rates. In that case you would see, 100% oh tax revenue going towards paying the national debt, then we would have spiraling inflation like Argentina or were there third world countries where a Dollar would be worthless

[jbrown132]

(Please pay attention. Pre-existing conditions are on the chopping block, now with Covid as an additional bonus possible for insurance companies.)

It is highly possible, that in the near future, insurance companies -- again -- will be allowed to use pre-existing conditions as their right to deny coverage.

If insurance companies are awarded the unconscionable power to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, it is not a big leap of the imagination to think that having had Covid 19 could be termed a pre-existing condition.

Why do I think that could happen? — because we do not understand where this virus can take us. But we do know that Covid 19 can sometimes leave very serious, and possibly chronic, health problems in its wake — even after supposed recovery.

I realize that most Villagers are comfortably swaddled in Medicare or good coverage from military retirement or previous employers. But, even so, in this time of overwhelming distraction, it is important to stay informed of what is playing out behind the front-and-center chaos.

Gen X and Millennials and younger boomers who get the virus and recover could find themselves saddled with a pre-existing condition — forever— just for having had the virus — even though nothing else has shown up — yet — after recovery.

Maybe I am overthinking this. Gee, could insurance companies ever even consider reaching into such a pot of gold as Covid recovery as an excuse to deny coverage.

No matter where your loyalties lie, no matter whether you have any younger people in your life to love, please pay attention, stay informed — from a variety of sources.

The ultimate decision to protect or to take away the individual’s right to not be denied health insurance coverage due to a pre-existing condition is in the works — with powerful support to take away that right.

Be careful what you wish (wished?) for.

Cassandra Boomer
I believe the rates you pay for health insurance already have the cost of pre-existing conditions factored in. This is why the cost of health insurance went through the roof after the passage of the ACA when costs were supposed to have gone down. If they do not cover pre-existing conditions then I doubt anyone over 40 will ever be able to get health insurance. Would be bad business for the insurance companies.

[RoadToad]

"..No one wants anyone denied health care because of pre existing conditions.. "

Whoa! What planet have you been on?
Totally false statment.

[billyb1950]

To eliminate = political suicide.


No one will do it.


Sky is not falling.

Agree wholeheartedly! Pre-ex health conditions and social security's demise are always part of fear mongering put forth during a given political season, mostly by those not in power.

[kenoc7]

Nothing is free. When the government is involved the wastage makes the cost astronomical. No one wants anyone denied health care because of pre existing conditions.

Too many want health care and have someone else pay for it.

Nothing is free.

We would all like for there to be simple answers and to blame others for problems based on greed, but the truth is that either you self insure or you buy insurance or you HOPE the government will cover you and other people's money doesn't run out.
What you. need is universal health care - it gets better outcomes at a lower cost.

[davem4616]

IMHO, this thread seems like a bunch of malarkey by a bunch of old people, with no hard facts and nothing better to do but look for something to complain about that hasn't happened.....wow

[Bucco]

Absolutely wrong. If anything there’s a bigger push right now to be sure that pre-existing conditions are covered than the other way around. Don’t know where you’re getting your information?

Not sure where you get your information, but hoping you will share it.

Center for Budget and Policy lays it out clearly so to understand what is going before the Supreme Court, but then again we have been promised an alternative over the past years.

Suit Challenging ACA Legally Suspect But Threatens Loss of Coverage for Tens of Millions | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (https://www.cbpp.org/research/health/suit-challenging-aca-legally-suspect-but-threatens-loss-of-coverage-for-tens-of)

[vilger]

There's a lot of tough talkers on this forum. It's easy to talk tough when you get relatively free Medicare on the taxpayer's dime. Let's see how tough you talk if and when you are thrown into the same boat as those who have to worry about getting private health insurance, and protection for pre-existing conditions is no longer a right. I heard there is a new Obamacare replacement plan to be announced in just a couple of weeks; but then again, I have been hearing this for the last 3 years.

[MandoMan]

(Please pay attention. Pre-existing conditions are on the chopping block, now with Covid as an additional bonus possible for insurance companies.)

It is highly possible, that in the near future, insurance companies -- again -- will be allowed to use pre-existing conditions as their right to deny coverage.

If insurance companies are awarded the unconscionable power to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, it is not a big leap of the imagination to think that having had Covid 19 could be termed a pre-existing condition.

Why do I think that could happen? — because we do not understand where this virus can take us. But we do know that Covid 19 can sometimes leave very serious, and possibly chronic, health problems in its wake — even after supposed recovery.

I realize that most Villagers are comfortably swaddled in Medicare or good coverage from military retirement or previous employers. But, even so, in this time of overwhelming distraction, it is important to stay informed of what is playing out behind the front-and-center chaos.

Gen X and Millennials and younger boomers who get the virus and recover could find themselves saddled with a pre-existing condition — forever— just for having had the virus — even though nothing else has shown up — yet — after recovery.

Maybe I am overthinking this. Gee, could insurance companies ever even consider reaching into such a pot of gold as Covid recovery as an excuse to deny coverage.

No matter where your loyalties lie, no matter whether you have any younger people in your life to love, please pay attention, stay informed — from a variety of sources.

The ultimate decision to protect or to take away the individual’s right to not be denied health insurance coverage due to a pre-existing condition is in the works — with powerful support to take away that right.

Be careful what you wish (wished?) for.

Cassandra Boomer

Requiring companies to insure people with preexisting conditions has only been since the Affordable Care Act began. Before then, companies weren’t required to accept them, usually. (The big exception was in employment that came with insurance.) This was VERY expensive for those with pre-existing conditions, but we didn’t hear about it much, or we just turned away. Getting rid of that requirement was something that half the people in the country voted for, however, in 2016. That requirement is very expensive. Now that we have experienced it, however, we don’t want to give it up because we realize that we could be in a position to need that coverage.

It comes down to what is the insurance pool. Should it include everyone who pays, or should it exclude those we know will have a lot of expenses? Imagine if, say, you have diabetes, and your insurance is quadruple the price of your neighbor who has the good sense to come down with diabetes after he signs up. Imagine deciding to go without insurance because $20,000 a year is more than you can afford, but knowing that this may be a death sentence. We are right to think about this and be concerned. Even among the retired, there are plenty who get Medicare Part A but can’t afford Part B. They take the risk and hope they don’t get sick until the day they die.

[Dana1963]

I don't understand your post. Could you simplify?
He’s trying not to be political your President is lying about replacement healthcare!

[Marine1974]

One might consider most people who worked paid 1.45% of there
FICA also matched by their employers for Medicare coverage which you can’t tap into until age
65 , unless your collecting social security disability. What exactly does one mean free ?

[MDLNB]

(please pay attention. Pre-existing conditions are on the chopping block, now with covid as an additional bonus possible for insurance companies.)

it is highly possible, that in the near future, insurance companies -- again -- will be allowed to use pre-existing conditions as their right to deny coverage.

If insurance companies are awarded the unconscionable power to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, it is not a big leap of the imagination to think that having had covid 19 could be termed a pre-existing condition.

Why do i think that could happen? — because we do not understand where this virus can take us. But we do know that covid 19 can sometimes leave very serious, and possibly chronic, health problems in its wake — even after supposed recovery.

I realize that most villagers are comfortably swaddled in medicare or good coverage from military retirement or previous employers. But, even so, in this time of overwhelming distraction, it is important to stay informed of what is playing out behind the front-and-center chaos.

Gen x and millennials and younger boomers who get the virus and recover could find themselves saddled with a pre-existing condition — forever— just for having had the virus — even though nothing else has shown up — yet — after recovery.

Maybe i am overthinking this. Gee, could insurance companies ever even consider reaching into such a pot of gold as covid recovery as an excuse to deny coverage.

No matter where your loyalties lie, no matter whether you have any younger people in your life to love, please pay attention, stay informed — from a variety of sources.

The ultimate decision to protect or to take away the individual’s right to not be denied health insurance coverage due to a pre-existing condition is in the works — with powerful support to take away that right.

Be careful what you wish (wished?) for.

Cassandra boomer


fake news

[Marine1974]

Free ? What part of FICA does one not understand?

[Bonnevie]

people seem to be under the illusion that private companies are offering the kind of health insurance they did when they were in the work force. They are not. Many companies keep people working just under the amount of hours needed to get health insurance thu the company. Companies that still offer it, don't offer the type of plans that were once offered and it's almost never free anymore. To tie health insurance to work is archaic. There is no security in one's job anymore. Corporations think nothing of cutting jobs when they need to give more to their stock holders. doctors end up bringing patients in more often to increase revenue because reimbursements keep being cut. doctors have to employ people whose only jobs are to deal with insurance companies. the time has come for some kind of basic insurance for everyone. those that want more can buy supplemental plans. there are people that have insurance and have had a medical catastrophe and the deductibles and copays have caused them to declare bankruptcy. the individual mandate made sense--younger people's contributions helped pay for the program when they needed it less. Social Security was considered socialism once. and it ran on the same principle. yes, we paid into it, but it's the people in the work force now that keep it going. "The taxes paid by active workers help support today’s generation of retirees — which is a big reason why some policymakers are concerned about the program’s long-term solvency. In 1950, the average American lived for 68 years and retirees were supported by 16 active workers. Now, the average life expectancy is 78 and just three workers support every retiree." According to the institute’s data, a two-earner couple receiving an average wage — $44,600 per spouse in 2012 dollars — and turning 65 in 2010 would have paid $722,000 into Social Security and Medicare and can be expected to take out $966,000 in benefits. So, this couple will be paid about one-third more in benefits than they paid in taxes."Thus, Social Security is — and always has been — a transfer system from younger generations to older generations."
Urban Institute, "Social Security and Medicare Taxes and Benefits over a Lifetime," 2012

[MDLNB]

Please read what I said. I propose FREE basic health insurance for ALL AMERICANS. The ACA insurance is not free unless you have very low income. ACA pre existing condition exclusion was only worthwhile if you could find affordable insurance which many middle income Americans could not, and the exchanges were failing. My proposal is more inclusive than ACA thus the requirement for American citizenship.


No such thing as FREE healthcare. Someone has to pay for it and no one wishes to pay higher taxes. No one is turned away from the ER and there are free clinics available in most states. Other countries that have "free" healthcare pay for it by taking half of your paycheck in taxes. Have any of you ever been to a socialized medicine country and stayed at one of their hospitals? Compared to ours, they are dumps. I went to one country where I was living in the capital of the nation and had to visit the main hospital for a some tests. No lights in the hallways, a broken window, a folding cot to sit on for an ultrasound test, and the MRI was done in a trailer in an alley. One country, you had to provide a blanket for a family patient. No private rooms in these countries, just wards.

American is GREAT!

[TheWarriors]

WOW.......I will pay for it myself, but will it be available ?? Everyone is not looking for a handout.....but this is one country....not two (rich and poor)

The oft promised “terrific,” “phenomenal” and “fantastic” new health care plan to replace the Affordable Care Act was to debut so many times since 2015 but never has surfaced in anyway.

We were told this week that the plan "is ready". While before the Supreme court the administration continues to fight to eliminate pre existing conditions in action taken since June we are told even so any plan will allow for pre existing conditions.

So, we shall see......always two or more stories it seems.

I opposed the ACA at the beginning but am getting tired of the same old story......lets tear it down one piece at a time and promise a better one.....but only the tearing down is happening.

The implication that I, or any american is looking for handouts is getting to be a tired old story. Everyone is not as blessed as many others. I am in good shape I think, but the vast and great majority are not blessed with company plans or the money to afford to 'self insure".

Always amazes me that those that aren’t too well off seem to have enough money for sporting events, concerts, Starbucks and attending peaceful protests while others go to work. Priorities matter, no one deserves anything but the right to succeed, only they hold themselves back despite what some will preach. As the saying goes, “the harder you work, the luckier you get!”

[Bonnevie]

No one is turned away from the ER and there are free clinics available in most states

going to the ER is the most expensive type of medical care and people going there because they don't have insurance is one of the reasons our collective health care costs increase.

as to "free" health care clinics. I would like you to list the available free clinics that you think are in such abundance. even if they do exist, there are far too few for all who need them.

[MDLNB]

No one is turned away from the ER and there are free clinics available in most states

going to the ER is the most expensive type of medical care and people going there because they don't have insurance is one of the reasons our collective health care costs increase.

as to "free" health care clinics. I would like you to list the available free clinics that you think are in such abundance. even if they do exist, there are far too few for all who need them.


Actually, the reason for our insurance increasing is because since Obamacare, we have to pay for services that we do not require. We also have to pay for those that can stay on their parent's policy until they are 26yo. We also have to pay because doctors have to pay up to or exceeding a quarter million bucks a year for malpractice insurance. We also have to pay because doctors must perform many tests that we may not need, based solely on worrying about malpractice suits against them if they don't. WE also have to pay because we cannot shop over state borders. AND we also have to pay for "pre-existing" enrollees. And don't worry because this administration has no intention of eliminating the "pre-existing" feature.

My premiums have risen EVERY year since I have had insurance. Not due to any particular administration. But now, some wish to increase everyone's taxes so that we can reduce the quality of the majority of insured so that everyone can have a reduced quality health care. It won't be just the rich paying. It will be EVERY earner that will sacrifice greatly. Anyone ever try living on half of your pay check earnings? Get ready for it, because that is the way every socialized medicine country is paying for universal health care. And only the rich will be able to pay for the quality we have now.

[retiredguy123]

One might consider most people who worked paid 1.45% of there
FICA also matched by their employers for Medicare coverage which you can’t tap into until age
65 , unless your collecting social security disability. What exactly does one mean free ?
Not free, but the 1.45 percent plus the Medicare premiums after you turn 65 is nowhere near enough to pay for the health care costs.

[LoisR]

Nothing is free. When the government is involved the wastage makes the cost astronomical. No one wants anyone denied health care because of pre existing conditions.

Too many want health care and have someone else pay for it.

Nothing is free.

We would all like for there to be simple answers and to blame others for problems based on greed, but the truth is that either you self insure or you buy insurance or you HOPE the government will cover you and other people's money doesn't run out.
Your Social Security is a hand out after about five years. That's when you received back all the money you paid in. Who do you think is now paying for it? I guess it's ok to take from people but not give to people. Sad. But true. Conservatively speaking of course.

[Bonnevie]

my insurance increased every year I've had it which was long before Obamacare. and I'm pretty sure you'd find hard core republicans who've had children or grandchildren who have benefited by being able to stay on their parents insurance until they are 26. Most parents already had a family plan and nothing changed by keeping the kids on a few more years. as to the doctors and their malpractice...well, why haven't the republicans done something about it? they controlled the house and senate and presidency for the first two years of this administration. same with medicine prices....recent executive order was all for show. why can the VA negotiate prices for meds but medicare not? and it's pretty easy for someone on Medicare who doesn't have to worry about a pre-existing condition to complain about others who do.

[Aloha1]

He’s trying not to be political your President is lying about replacement healthcare!

Mods, delete this poster. This is blatantly political.

[Aloha1]

Here we go again with misinformation.

1.) the ACA is INSURANCE. It is NOT health care.

2.) Health care is given to anyone in need at our hospitals whether they have insurance or not,

3.) NO ONE is saying let's eliminate pre existing conditions. That ship has sailed.

4.) The bigger concern should be the current shortage of over 10,000 Physicians in this country and growing. THAT will impact health care and no insurance plan can address that.

[Aloha1]

Not sure where you get your information, but hoping you will share it.

Center for Budget and Policy lays it out clearly so to understand what is going before the Supreme Court, but then again we have been promised an alternative over the past years.

Suit Challenging ACA Legally Suspect But Threatens Loss of Coverage for Tens of Millions | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (https://www.cbpp.org/research/health/suit-challenging-aca-legally-suspect-but-threatens-loss-of-coverage-for-tens-of)

That is a "progressive" group with an agenda.

[Bucco]

Here we go again with misinformation.

1.) the ACA is INSURANCE. It is NOT health care.

2.) Health care is given to anyone in need at our hospitals whether they have insurance or not,

3.) NO ONE is saying let's eliminate pre existing conditions. That ship has sailed.

4.) The bigger concern should be the current shortage of over 10,000 Physicians in this country and growing. THAT will impact health care and no insurance plan can address that.

"3.) NO ONE is saying let's eliminate pre existing conditions. That ship has sailed."

So we are to ignore our attempt at the Supreme Court, still not decided ?

[MDLNB]

Lots of excuses, but no facts or suggestions. Just because someone "benefits" from a gov. program does not make it a good program. Blaming one political party or another is also an excuse but not a suggestion or a reason.
The subject is "pre-existing" conditions. No one is suggesting that we get rid of this requirement and the president has promised that "pre-existing" stays and won't be messed with. Believe him or not, you won't know until or if it changes.

Crying wolf has gotten to be a political ploy and the reason folks call "hoax" today is because it is done way too much by both parties to gain votes by fear. The only thing you should fear is when a politician wishes to gain votes by scaring you with his promises.

I am surprised that this thread is allowed since it is undoubtedly a politically themed subject. I found it very difficult to converse on this subject without acknowledging the political nature of the subject. I apologize in advance if I have violated the "political" rule of the forum. It was not my intention.

[Aloha1]

"3.) NO ONE is saying let's eliminate pre existing conditions. That ship has sailed."

So we are to ignore our attempt at the Supreme Court, still not decided ?

Do you honestly believe that Congress ( both houses) will allow that to happen? Of course they won't. If a law is deemed Unconstitutional, that's it. We move on and fix the problem. That's how our Constitutional Republic works.

[Bucco]

That is a "progressive" group with an agenda.

The suit was filed by The United States Government.

[Dana1963]

I believe the rates you pay for health insurance already have the cost of pre-existing conditions factored in. This is why the cost of health insurance went through the roof after the passage of the ACA when costs were supposed to have gone down. If they do not cover pre-existing conditions then I doubt anyone over 40 will ever be able to get health insurance. Would be bad business for the insurance companies.
The largest cause on personal Bankruptcies are due to medical bills. Hospitals sell your debit to collection companies they are the ones who come after you and thru the courts.

[davem4616]

Your Social Security is a hand out after about five years. That's when you received back all the money you paid in. Who do you think is now paying for it? I guess it's ok to take from people but not give to people. Sad. But true. Conservatively speaking of course.


"...after about 5 years" is not true...first that calculation doesn't factor in the impact of compounding interest on the monies that you actually paid in over a 40 - 50 year period of of continuous contributions...which is what most of us in TV have done

secondly, receiving more than what you paid in is no more of a handout than a monthly Annuity payment is once you've received more in payments than you paid in to fund it... lifetime payments was the contractual deal that was promised and agreed to.

at least with an annuity we had a choice to buy in...there was no choice with Society Security

[vilger]

"...after about 5 years" is not true...first that calculation doesn't factor in the impact of compounding interest on the monies that you actually paid in over a 40 - 50 year period of of continuous contributions...which is what most of us in TV have done

secondly, receiving more than what you paid in is no more of a handout than a monthly Annuity payment is once you've received more in payments than you paid in to fund it... lifetime payments was the contractual deal that was promised and agreed to.

at least with an annuity we had a choice to buy in...there was no choice with Society Security

No private insurance company would agree to a contractual deal where the benefits greatly outweigh the premiums. Over an average lifetime, one will receive much more in Social Security and Medicare benefits than is ever paid in; this a cold, hard fact.

For a group that likes to rail against socialism, benefits for the poor, welfare "queens", etc., nobody suckles more at the government teat than entitled villagers.

[Joe V.]

No private insurance company would agree to a contractual deal where the benefits greatly outweigh the premiums. Over an average lifetime, one will receive much more in Social Security and Medicare benefits than is ever paid in; this a cold, hard fact.

For a group that likes to rail against socialism, benefits for the poor, welfare "queens", etc., nobody suckles more at the government teat than entitled villagers.

So you are saying you return your social security check in whole to the Treasury based on your statement.

[Aloha1]

The suit was filed by The United States Government.

So? Is it not the right of the Executive Branch to validate with the Judicial Branch whether a law passed by the Legislative Branch is Constitutional? Are you saying you don't believe in the Constitution?

[vilger]

So you are saying you return your social security check in whole to the Treasury based on your statement.

No, I suggest that those hypocrites on this forum that believe that any whiff of socialism is evil, and that all vestiges of socialism should be eradicated, should return their checks.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Yes, you could keep your doctor. However your doctor doesn't have to keep you. Many doctors would not accept ACA insurance.

"ACA" insurance is mostly myth and doctors "accepting" insurance is mostly myth. The insurance company I have health care with is FloridaBlue, which is an offshoot of Anthem Blue Cross. Most doctors in the area are participating providers, and "in network" physicians.

There are other insurance companies that don't require a participating provider; you go to your doctor, you (the patient) submit the claim, just like we used to do back in the day before HMOs were invented, and the insurance company either accepts your claim and reimburses you, or they don't. The doctor has no say in the matter, he has no part of the decision. That's one of those old fashioned 80/20 plans that still exist, and some of them are options for people in some states who qualify for ACA subsidies.

In addition, the ACA isn't an insurance. It is a set of guidelines, and it's a subsidy option for people who fall within a certain income range. It isn't even technically a subsidy - it's a tax rebate. People who have never paid into the system - are not eligible for ACA subsidies. In the state of Florida, you must have a certain MINIMUM income, in order to qualify for ACA subsidies. That is why I still work part time, even though I theoretically retired from the workforce two years ago.

However, that means they probably qualify for Medicaid, which is a whole other system.

[BHWitcher]

Trump has appointed over 200 Federal life time judges. Think he will get it through? Hope the Supreme Court doesn’t ok it or we are sunk!!

[John41]

No private insurance company would agree to a contractual deal where the benefits greatly outweigh the premiums. Over an average lifetime, one will receive much more in Social Security and Medicare benefits than is ever paid in; this a cold, hard fact.

For a group that likes to rail against socialism, benefits for the poor, welfare "queens", etc., nobody suckles more at the government teat than entitled villagers.

Complete misunderstanding on your part. SS contributions are put into a government trust account invested in Treasury bonds that pay a near zero interest rate and that is why the SS fund is running low. Had it been invested in the S&P 500 there would be a huge surplus. And the kicker was your contributions in the trust fund were used for various social experiments. That’s the cold hard fact.

[Bucco]

So? Is it not the right of the Executive Branch to validate with the Judicial Branch whether a law passed by the Legislative Branch is Constitutional? Are you saying you don't believe in the Constitution?

The United States Government has filed suit to eliminate ACA.

The thread, which you are attempting to dismantle was discussing the elimination of coverage of pre existing conditions. The suit filed by the United States Government was to totally dismantle the law, not validate it.

We were told that a new super duper plan would be unveiled over 3 years ago. Sometimes it was within a week or two...or a month or so. But, it has been over 3 years and still nothing. Based on track record alone and the fact that those in the admin who are responsible for putting those plans together saying NO such plan exists, I think it is clear as with Covid, we are being hoodwinked into watching millionslose healthcare in the middle of a pandemic.

If you think otherwise,please explain why you feel that way, and why no parties to the suit say what you say.

[skyking]

When health insurance was "invented" in the 1930s in Texas it was a cooperative operated by the hospitals. Everyone pitched in a few dollars monthly and any member needing to be hospitalized had their bill paid out of the fund.

The idea grew into the Blue Cross system, a network of licensees covering the country. There were hundreds at one time and now 36 separate licensees.

When commercial insurance companies entered the health insurance market, they began "underwriting" applicants, avoiding the currently sick. They were therefore able to undercut the Blue plans who began to suffer adverse selection. That is when all plans began underwriting and, for individual insurance, added pre existing clauses.

To work, pre existing must apply to all insurers and there must be some penalty for those who don't pay for insurance until they get a grave diagnosis. If they are allowed to sign up for health insurance in the emergency room, WE all pay as health insurance is a cost plus business just like all other industries.

[Desiree1982]

Pre-existing conditions are not covered right now by insurance companies.And us that have medicare, let's hope not depleted and terminated or cut by 2023. Medicare and SS money is being used for other purposes right now! That affects us!

[skarra]

No such thing as FREE healthcare. Someone has to pay for it and no one wishes to pay higher taxes. No one is turned away from the ER and there are free clinics available in most states. Other countries that have "free" healthcare pay for it by taking half of your paycheck in taxes. Have any of you ever been to a socialized medicine country and stayed at one of their hospitals? Compared to ours, they are dumps. I went to one country where I was living in the capital of the nation and had to visit the main hospital for a some tests. No lights in the hallways, a broken window, a folding cot to sit on for an ultrasound test, and the MRI was done in a trailer in an alley. One country, you had to provide a blanket for a family patient. No private rooms in these countries, just wards.

American is GREAT!


Gee, I came from a country with FREE healthcare (Australia). Great system, no forever bills coming in the mail - swipe your Medicare card once at time of service and you were done. Plus taxes are not much different than they are here, and 30 years later they still soldier on with it even though many claim it can't last.

My relative got a hip replacement a couple of years ago - ZERO cost, no bills in the mail, no insurance companies to deal with. Now if you want your choice of hospital with a private room (vs a shared room), and with your own doctor, you can supplement the government provided coverage with your own private insurance. But it is optional - some people get it just for the better food in the private hospitals.

I've no idea why people in this country fear a single payer system, or healthcare coverage for all. Wouldn't we all lead happier lives if healthcare costs were taken out of the equation? No need to worry about pre-existing conditions. And if you asked me is the healthcare provided better here - I'd say no difference at all. In fact, if I had a major illness I wish I could return home just so I wouldn't face potential financial ruin.

All my aging friends back in my home country constantly remind me of how happy they are with the medical system there. I lived my first 30 years there with their health coverage system, and now 30 years here with ours - trust me that our system sucks and I much prefer what they have there. No reason why we can't do something similar here.

[Dahabs]

No such thing as FREE healthcare. Someone has to pay for it and no one wishes to pay higher taxes. No one is turned away from the ER and there are free clinics available in most states. Other countries that have "free" healthcare pay for it by taking half of your paycheck in taxes. Have any of you ever been to a socialized medicine country and stayed at one of their hospitals? Compared to ours, they are dumps. I went to one country where I was living in the capital of the nation and had to visit the main hospital for a some tests. No lights in the hallways, a broken window, a folding cot to sit on for an ultrasound test, and the MRI was done in a trailer in an alley. One country, you had to provide a blanket for a family patient. No private rooms in these countries, just wards.

American is GREAT!

Which country would you be referring to? Venezuela? I think your sample size needs to be expanded and perhaps include the G7.

[Lindsyburnsy]

Nothing is for free. Everything that the government "pays for or subsidizes" is paid from tax dollars, which we ALL pay. Unfortunately, some do not want to pay their share.

Nothing is free. When the government is involved the wastage makes the cost astronomical. No one wants anyone denied health care because of pre existing conditions.

Too many want health care and have someone else pay for it.

Nothing is free.

We would all like for there to be simple answers and to blame others for problems based on greed, but the truth is that either you self insure or you buy insurance or you HOPE the government will cover you and other people's money doesn't run out.

[Boomer]

Gee, I came from a country with FREE healthcare (Australia). Great system, no forever bills coming in the mail - swipe your Medicare card once at time of service and you were done. Plus taxes are not much different than they are here, and 30 years later they still soldier on with it even though many claim it can't last.

My relative got a hip replacement a couple of years ago - ZERO cost, no bills in the mail, no insurance companies to deal with. Now if you want your choice of hospital with a private room (vs a shared room), and with your own doctor, you can supplement the government provided coverage with your own private insurance. But it is optional - some people get it just for the better food in the private hospitals.

I've no idea why people in this country fear a single payer system, or healthcare coverage for all. Wouldn't we all lead happier lives if healthcare costs were taken out of the equation? No need to worry about pre-existing conditions. And if you asked me is the healthcare provided better here - I'd say no difference at all. In fact, if I had a major illness I wish I could return home just so I wouldn't face potential financial ruin.

All my aging friends back in my home country constantly remind me of how happy they are with the medical system there. I lived my first 30 years there with their health coverage system, and now 30 years here with ours - trust me that our system sucks and I much prefer what they have there. No reason why we can't do something similar here.

Thank you.

In many situations, the percentage of an American family’s income that goes to pay for health insurance is ridiculous. Premiums, deductibles, and out-of-pocket costs grow bigger each year — even for those who have access to plans through employers.

I have often wondered if those who are so vehemently opposed to an OPTION being offered by the federal government have ever looked at the reality of what working people face today in the scramble for health insurance coverage.

The elder-boomers (and those older) now have Medicare available to them. The very first boomers born are about 9 years into Medicare. The cost of health insurance to that age group — when they were still working — was not much more than a blip on their budget’s radar.

But ask anyone still working how much their employer health insurance costs now. Ask your adult kids.

Speaking of Medicare, I have several friends who have (or had) to continue to work until age 65 or had to wait for a younger spouse to turn 65 so Medicare could kick in. Working until 65 is often a choice made strictly based on health insurance coverage.

Health insurance? The solution can be in the middle with a Buy-In to a federally sponsored program available. Medicare works and I have not heard any of the self-absorbed “I got mine, too bad you don’t have yours” crowd volunteer to give up their Medicare.

The SC case is to be heard soon. I think there are a lot of people who have no idea what is happening behind the scenes because they do not look beyond what they are being told.

Back to Covid as a pre-existing condition — anybody who thinks insurance companies will miss the opportunity to term it a pre-existing condition in order to increase premium costs or to deny coverage is not paying attention.

The pre-existing conditions protection can be knocked out by the SC in their ruling on the case to dismantle the entire ACA. As I understand it, because part of it is already gone, the argument is that is what should render the rest of it unable to stand — and that is where the pre-existing conditions protection is — for now. (Loophole? I guess we will find out.)

The answer to our health insurance crisis is somewhere in the middle, but divisive emotions are running so high in this country right now that logic and clarity are getting trampled. We are in the throes of serious problems being purposely exacerbated instead of solutions being planned and offered.

[Carla B]

Gee, I came from a country with FREE healthcare (Australia). Great system, no forever bills coming in the mail - swipe your Medicare card once at time of service and you were done. Plus taxes are not much different than they are here, and 30 years later they still soldier on with it even though many claim it can't last.

My relative got a hip replacement a couple of years ago - ZERO cost, no bills in the mail, no insurance companies to deal with. Now if you want your choice of hospital with a private room (vs a shared room), and with your own doctor, you can supplement the government provided coverage with your own private insurance. But it is optional - some people get it just for the better food in the private hospitals.

I've no idea why people in this country fear a single payer system, or healthcare coverage for all. Wouldn't we all lead happier lives if healthcare costs were taken out of the equation? No need to worry about pre-existing conditions. And if you asked me is the healthcare provided better here - I'd say no difference at all. In fact, if I had a major illness I wish I could return home just so I wouldn't face potential financial ruin.

All my aging friends back in my home country constantly remind me of how happy they are with the medical system there. I lived my first 30 years there with their health coverage system, and now 30 years here with ours - trust me that our system sucks and I much prefer what they have there. No reason why we can't do something similar here.

I also want to thank you for your post. Did you happen to see the recent five-part series on PBS News Hour which looked at three universal coverage health care systems and how they differ from the U.S.: UK, Switzerland, and Australia? It is worth watching. Overall, Australians seem pretty happy with their system. The Best Health Care? America & the World | PBS NewsHour (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/series/the-best-health-care-america-the-world)

[Kilmacowen]

You answered your your own question. You are overthinking this. President Trump for the last four years has been telling you that he is not going to eliminate pre-existing conditions it's pretty clear to understand that sentence so I don't understand what you're talking about You use words like assume I'm pretty sure I'm thinking these are all words that indicate that maybe it could happen well maybe you could be struck by lightning too so you better not ever go outside.

So, for the last 4 years, where is the plan?

[lkagele]

The case that will be argued before the supreme court a week after the election is to have the aca declared unconstitutional, the current administration is arguing that side. The aca is what provided for preexisting conditions protections. No plan is known exactly how this will be protected if aca is repealed. The individual mandate contained in obamacare is what is being contested, now at the supreme court level. The plaintiffs are arguing it is unconstitutional. Whether it is or isn't, the individual mandate has absolutely nothing to do with pre-existing conditions.

Prior to obamacare, pre-existing conditions were handled by several methods. Continuous coverage starting before the date of the pre-existing condition was all that was needed to insure someone. Also, group policies offered by employers provided pre-existing coverage. Some States as well had laws preventing denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions.

Someone mentioned earlier there is no politician calling for the insurance companies to be able to deny coverage for a pre-existing condition. That is my impression as well. Sounds like someone is trying to stir up the masses with a problem that really doesn't exist.

[lkagele]

[QUOTE=Boomer;1834792]Thank you.




Back to Covid as a pre-existing condition — anybody who thinks insurance companies will miss the opportunity to term it a pre-existing condition in order to increase premium costs or to deny coverage is not paying attention.

I don't understand this at all. Covid -19 is a virus. There is nothing "pre-existing" about a virus. Either you have it or you don't.

[skyking]

Thank you.

In many situations, the percentage of an American family’s income that goes to pay for health insurance is ridiculous. Premiums, deductibles, and out-of-pocket costs grow bigger each year — even for those who have access to plans through employers.

I have often wondered if those who are so vehemently opposed to an OPTION being offered by the federal government have ever looked at the reality of what working people face today in the scramble for health insurance coverage.

The elder-boomers (and those older) now have Medicare available to them. The very first boomers born are about 9 years into Medicare. The cost of health insurance to that age group — when they were still working — was not much more than a blip on their budget’s radar.

But ask anyone still working how much their employer health insurance costs now. Ask your adult kids.

Speaking of Medicare, I have several friends who have (or had) to continue to work until age 65 or had to wait for a younger spouse to turn 65 so Medicare could kick in. Working until 65 is often a choice made strictly based on health insurance coverage.

Health insurance? The solution can be in the middle with a Buy-In to a federally sponsored program available. Medicare works and I have not heard any of the self-absorbed “I got mine, too bad you don’t have yours” crowd volunteer to give up their Medicare.

The SC case is to be heard soon. I think there are a lot of people who have no idea what is happening behind the scenes because they do not look beyond what they are being told.

Back to Covid as a pre-existing condition — anybody who thinks insurance companies will miss the opportunity to term it a pre-existing condition in order to increase premium costs or to deny coverage is not paying attention.

The pre-existing conditions protection can be knocked out by the SC in their ruling on the case to dismantle the entire ACA. As I understand it, because part of it is already gone, the argument is that is what should render the rest of it unable to stand — and that is where the pre-existing conditions protection is — for now. (Loophole? I guess we will find out.)

The answer to our health insurance crisis is somewhere in the middle, but divisive emotions are running so high in this country right now that logic and clarity are getting trampled. We are in the throes of serious problems being purposely exacerbated instead of solutions being planned and offered.

Please explain how a government option would be less expensive.

Traditional Medicare does not pay for the full cost of care. Hospitals and medical providers rely on the higher reimbursement from traditonal insurance to make up the difference. (Yes, those under age 65 are subsidizing those of us on Medicare.)

The only example of costs truly being managed better are Medicare Advantage plans (offered by private carriers) which accept per capita reimbursement equal to the regional average cost per person through traditional Medicare. Many are able to manage costs and provide full coverage, including pharmaceuticals, for no out of pocket premium.

HHS realizes that government administered programs are not as efficient as private companies, that is why claims payment and medical management are contracted out to private companies (often the area Blue Cross plan).

[skyking]

[QUOTE=Boomer;1834792]Thank you.




Back to Covid as a pre-existing condition — anybody who thinks insurance companies will miss the opportunity to term it a pre-existing condition in order to increase premium costs or to deny coverage is not paying attention.

I don't understand this at all. Covid -19 is a virus. There is nothing "pre-existing" about a virus. Either you have it or you don't.

You apparently do not understand how pre-existing is administered. If you contract Covid - 19 while insured it is not a pre-existing condition.

If you have active Covid-19 at the time you apply for insurance it is a pre-existing condition. (Believe it or not some people try to game the system. )

If you had Covid-19 and it has resolved and you later apply for insurance it will not be considered a pre-existing condition.

[Aloha1]

The United States Government has filed suit to eliminate ACA.

The thread, which you are attempting to dismantle was discussing the elimination of coverage of pre existing conditions. The suit filed by the United States Government was to totally dismantle the law, not validate it.

We were told that a new super duper plan would be unveiled over 3 years ago. Sometimes it was within a week or two...or a month or so. But, it has been over 3 years and still nothing. Based on track record alone and the fact that those in the admin who are responsible for putting those plans together saying NO such plan exists, I think it is clear as with Covid, we are being hoodwinked into watching millionslose healthcare in the middle of a pandemic.

If you think otherwise,please explain why you feel that way, and why no parties to the suit say what you say.

Derail??? We are talking about the case before SCOTUS. Any conjecture about what might happen is only gossip at this point.

I'll make it simple for you: The Legislative Branch passed ACA. Some parts of ACA have already been deemed unconstitutional by lower courts. The Executive Branch is asking the Judicial Branch to rule on whether the entirety of the law is unconstitutional. The Executive Branch believes it is. SCOTUS will decide whether it is or is not.

Now, from there you can speculate on whatever but your speculation does not negate the facts above. For my part, I believe that IF SCOTUS rules against ACA you will see a new plan after the elections no matter which side wins.

[Aloha1]

Gee, I came from a country with FREE healthcare (Australia). Great system, no forever bills coming in the mail - swipe your Medicare card once at time of service and you were done. Plus taxes are not much different than they are here, and 30 years later they still soldier on with it even though many claim it can't last.

My relative got a hip replacement a couple of years ago - ZERO cost, no bills in the mail, no insurance companies to deal with. Now if you want your choice of hospital with a private room (vs a shared room), and with your own doctor, you can supplement the government provided coverage with your own private insurance. But it is optional - some people get it just for the better food in the private hospitals.

I've no idea why people in this country fear a single payer system, or healthcare coverage for all. Wouldn't we all lead happier lives if healthcare costs were taken out of the equation? No need to worry about pre-existing conditions. And if you asked me is the healthcare provided better here - I'd say no difference at all. In fact, if I had a major illness I wish I could return home just so I wouldn't face potential financial ruin.

All my aging friends back in my home country constantly remind me of how happy they are with the medical system there. I lived my first 30 years there with their health coverage system, and now 30 years here with ours - trust me that our system sucks and I much prefer what they have there. No reason why we can't do something similar here.

Here's a big reason: 25 million Aussies versus 330 million Yanks. Easy to do for the former, not so easy for 1,300 percent more people.

[Bucco]

Derail??? We are talking about the case before SCOTUS. Any conjecture about what might happen is only gossip at this point.

I'll make it simple for you: The Legislative Branch passed ACA. Some parts of ACA have already been deemed unconstitutional by lower courts. The Executive Branch is asking the Judicial Branch to rule on whether the entirety of the law is unconstitutional. The Executive Branch believes it is. SCOTUS will decide whether it is or is not.

Now, from there you can speculate on whatever but your speculation does not negate the facts above. For my part, I believe that IF SCOTUS rules against ACA you will see a new plan after the elections no matter which side wins.

Its a wonder that great super plan that was ready 3 years ago has disappeared. THAT would give hope to millions of American citizens.

BUT as we find out every day, millions do not count, as in COVID

[Aloha1]

Its a wonder that great super plan that was ready 3 years ago has disappeared. THAT would give hope to millions of American citizens.

BUT as we find out every day, millions do not count, as in COVID

And once again, you change the topic. Enjoy your conspiracy theories. I prefer scientific reality. Buh bye.

[Bucco]

And once again, you change the topic. Enjoy your conspiracy theories. I prefer scientific reality. Buh bye.

Right....you prefer science.

If you actually read posts, you would find I was very clear that to ask the Supreme Court to derail existing with zero substitution in the middle of a pandemic is a bit too much, but you can change it, and will, anyway you wish.

[MDLNB]

Nothing is for free. Everything that the government "pays for or subsidizes" is paid from tax dollars, which we ALL pay. Unfortunately, some do not want to pay their share.


I agree. Half of the citizens that enjoy this great country pay NO taxes whatsoever. Time for EVERYONE to pay taxes. It seems to be UnConstitutional for the rich to pay at a higher rate than anyone else. Sounds like a case of discrimination. Either a flat tax or a federal sales tax make everyone equal.

[MDLNB]

No, I suggest that those hypocrites on this forum that believe that any whiff of socialism is evil, and that all vestiges of socialism should be eradicated, should return their checks.


I'd be glad to return mine, IF they gave me what I put into it plus the same interest rate that I would have achieved had I invested it. If so, it would be a heck of a lot more than I get now. Too bad they did not think to privatize SS. And I do NOT and have not ever used Medicare. I have and I pay for private insurance, which is a lot better. All Medicare pays for is hospitalization, unless you continue to pay for Medicare B AFTER you retire.

[MDLNB]

Which country would you be referring to? Venezuela? I think your sample size needs to be expanded and perhaps include the G7.


Not sure I understand what you mean. You can Google other countries to find out how much taxes each earner pays and you can also try living in other countries and see how their health care works. I have lived most of my life overseas and have seen how shabby some hospitals are and how long the waiting lines are for it's citizens.

[MDLNB]

Gee, I came from a country with FREE healthcare (Australia). Great system, no forever bills coming in the mail - swipe your Medicare card once at time of service and you were done. Plus taxes are not much different than they are here, and 30 years later they still soldier on with it even though many claim it can't last.

My relative got a hip replacement a couple of years ago - ZERO cost, no bills in the mail, no insurance companies to deal with. Now if you want your choice of hospital with a private room (vs a shared room), and with your own doctor, you can supplement the government provided coverage with your own private insurance. But it is optional - some people get it just for the better food in the private hospitals.

I've no idea why people in this country fear a single payer system, or healthcare coverage for all. Wouldn't we all lead happier lives if healthcare costs were taken out of the equation? No need to worry about pre-existing conditions. And if you asked me is the healthcare provided better here - I'd say no difference at all. In fact, if I had a major illness I wish I could return home just so I wouldn't face potential financial ruin.

All my aging friends back in my home country constantly remind me of how happy they are with the medical system there. I lived my first 30 years there with their health coverage system, and now 30 years here with ours - trust me that our system sucks and I much prefer what they have there. No reason why we can't do something similar here.


Is this wrong?:
Isn't there a 2% medicare tax, plus:

Income thresholdsRateTax payable on this income

$0 – $18,200 0%
$18,201 –$37,000 19% for each $1 over $18,200
$37,001 – $90,000 32.5% $3,572 plus 32.5% of amounts over $37,000
$90,001 – $180,000 37% $20,797 plus 37% of amounts over $90,000
$180,001 and over 45% $54,097 plus 45% of amounts over $180,000


I guess it depends on the idea of whether you are happy with the gov nanny deciding what is best for you or whether you prefer the freedom to make your own decisions. It also depends on whether or not you have lived with socialism all your life or not. When the Soviet Union fell, seniors were crying in the street not knowing what they would do to survive. They were so dependent on the gov nanny.



I have satisfied relatives in Australia also. There are several ideas that they enjoy Down Under that I think would be nice also, BUT...........
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have."

[John41]

I also want to thank you for your post. Did you happen to see the recent five-part series on PBS News Hour which looked at three universal coverage health care systems and how they differ from the U.S.: UK, Switzerland, and Australia? It is worth watching. Overall, Australians seem pretty happy with their system. The Best Health Care? America & the World | PBS NewsHour (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/series/the-best-health-care-america-the-world)

Government subsidized news channel favors government run health care.
No big surprise.

[Lindsyburnsy]

The decision for our healthcare is currently in the Supreme Court and will be decided November 10, 2020. This is alarming. Pay attention and vote!(Please pay attention. Pre-existing conditions are on the chopping block, now with Covid as an additional bonus possible for insurance companies.)

It is highly possible, that in the near future, insurance companies -- again -- will be allowed to use pre-existing conditions as their right to deny coverage.

If insurance companies are awarded the unconscionable power to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, it is not a big leap of the imagination to think that having had Covid 19 could be termed a pre-existing condition.

Why do I think that could happen? — because we do not understand where this virus can take us. But we do know that Covid 19 can sometimes leave very serious, and possibly chronic, health problems in its wake — even after supposed recovery.

I realize that most Villagers are comfortably swaddled in Medicare or good coverage from military retirement or previous employers. But, even so, in this time of overwhelming distraction, it is important to stay informed of what is playing out behind the front-and-center chaos.

Gen X and Millennials and younger boomers who get the virus and recover could find themselves saddled with a pre-existing condition — forever— just for having had the virus — even though nothing else has shown up — yet — after recovery.

Maybe I am overthinking this. Gee, could insurance companies ever even consider reaching into such a pot of gold as Covid recovery as an excuse to deny coverage.

No matter where your loyalties lie, no matter whether you have any younger people in your life to love, please pay attention, stay informed — from a variety of sources.

The ultimate decision to protect or to take away the individual’s right to not be denied health insurance coverage due to a pre-existing condition is in the works — with powerful support to take away that right.

Be careful what you wish (wished?) for.

Cassandra Boomer

[Bonnevie]

To suggest that people are willing to pay their own way is laughable. The national debt, when divided up among the population is about $94,000 per person. I don't hear very many people, who want to pay their own way, offering to pay off their share of the debt. They are happy to force future generations to assume the debt. This applies to health care and almost everything else.

I'll pay off my share of the debt after all corporations pay something in taxes and billionaires who can afford expensive tax accountants pay something in taxes. an example, my ex, a cardiologist, once took me to court to lower his child support amount. he presented his business records that showed he made very little each year. but he drove an expensive car, just bought an expensive house..and I'm sitting there with my W4 that showed what I earned..with no off sets..people like him do that all the time to keep their tax burdens down...they can write off so much to their businesses..and they keep debt....if off sets income...

"free" stuff is given away all the time to the top 1%....and the trickle down theory is a fallacy...why is everything made in China....because the labor is cheap. the big tax plan that went thru that was supposed to bring so much manufacturing back to the US? the corporations did stock buy backs for the shareholders benefit.

so given a choice, I'd prefer my tax dollars go to provide some sort of minimal health coverage for everyone. and for those who want more, they can buy a supplement.

and it's awfully easy for those of us on Medicare to criticize others for wanting pre-existing conditions covered or that others want something free. Medicare and Social Security pay out more than we pay in, so why don't we say we will just accept the amount we contributed?

when we get rid of all the corporate welfare, then let's talk.

[Aloha1]

The decision for our healthcare is currently in the Supreme Court and will be decided November 10, 2020. This is alarming. Pay attention and vote!

If SCOTUS remains at 8 and deadlocks with no decision, the lower court ruling that the ACA is unconstitutional stands. You do know that, right? So voting really doesn't matter in this case.

And remember the purpose of SCOTUS is to rule on the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress. If the law is found defective, it is their duty to rule so. It is then up to Congress to either amend the law or promulgate a new one.

[biker1]

Please explain how private insurance is "a lot better" than Medicare. I have private insurance and my wife is on Medicare. We can, and do, see the same Drs. The only difference I have detected is she pays less.

I'd be glad to return mine, IF they gave me what I put into it plus the same interest rate that I would have achieved had I invested it. If so, it would be a heck of a lot more than I get now. Too bad they did not think to privatize SS. And I do NOT and have not ever used Medicare. I have and I pay for private insurance, which is a lot better. All Medicare pays for is hospitalization, unless you continue to pay for Medicare B AFTER you retire.

[dewilson58]

Please explain how private insurance is "a lot better" than Medicare.


I never paid for my private insurance and I never had any out-of-pocket costs. That's how private is a lot better.


:ho:

[biker1]

If you are on an obamacare plan, perhaps. If you are working and your employer provides health insurance or you are on Medicare, probably not. I am probably one of the few people around here who is actually on an obamacare plan (Florida Blue, the only provider in Sumter County). If you want to know what is wrong with it I would be happy to oblige.

The decision for our healthcare is currently in the Supreme Court and will be decided November 10, 2020. This is alarming. Pay attention and vote!

[biker1]

That is fine for you but the post I responded to said he was paying for private insurance. The question was directed at him, not you.

I never paid for my private insurance and I never had any out-of-pocket costs. That's how private is a lot better.


:ho:

[dewilson58]

That is fine for you but the post I responded to said he was paying for private insurance. The question was directed at him, not you.


You should try PM's rather than a public forum.

[biker1]

Nope. I was a perfectly valid question that perhaps others would like to hear the answer to.

You should try PM's rather than a public forum.

[dewilson58]

Nope. I was a perfectly valid question that perhaps others would like to hear the answer to.


And that is exactly why I answered and received your snippy reply.

[biker1]

Nothing snippy about it. Your answer was based on not paying anything. The post I referred to said he was paying. Do you now see the difference?

And that is exactly why I answered and received your snippy reply.

[dewilson58]

Nothing snippy about it. Your answer was based on not paying anything. The post I referred to said he was paying. Do you now see the difference?


Nope. What's the difference if I pay one dollar or two or zip.......either way, my private insurance kicks Medicare's A.

[biker1]

OK, fine, you and your insurance are wonderful. Is your name Richard Cranium?

Nope. What's the difference if I pay one dollar or two or zip.......either way, my private insurance kicks Medicare's A.

[graciegirl]

Socialized medicine is fine unless you have an extremely serious disease or one that is not in need of specialized health care providers.

Many people can coast when they are younger because of their good health and promote socialized medicine, but when the rubber hits the road, you need more and better than what socialized medicine gives most people. AND the cost and the wastage are far worse than the cost and wastage in our current American systems. People have to wait and their income tax (Austria for example) is close to 50% for all wage earners.

[dewilson58]

OK, fine, you and your insurance are wonderful. Is your name Richard Cranium?


Lovely. Resort to that.

[biker1]

Seems like a valid question considering your responses.

Lovely. Resort to that.

[dewilson58]

Seems like a valid question considering your responses.


But the big question is................who gets to reply to that question without a snippy response back.


:1rotfl:
:1rotfl:
:1rotfl:

[biker1]

I don't really care. I would like to hear a response back from my original post (from the author of the post I responded to).

But the big question is................who gets to reply to that question without a snippy response back.


:1rotfl:
:1rotfl:
:1rotfl:

[dewilson58]

I don't really care. I would like to hear a response back from my original post (from the author of the post I responded to).


All of us would.:duck:

[biker1]

I think what you meant to say is half pay no federal income tax as opposed to "NO taxes whatsoever". If that is in fact true, the number is actually a bit below 50%. If you get a paycheck (as opposed to being paid under the table), you are paying FICA tax so you are paying some tax. There is also sales tax, gasoline tax, property tax (also paid indirectly through rent), perhaps state income tax, etc. The bigger issue, however, is that that statistic (assuming you meant federal income tax) is a cherry picked number provided without context. The statistics are skewed by the fact that many elderly do not have enough income to have a federal tax liability. This doesn't mean they didn't have 40+ years of paying federal income tax. The elderly are often given other tax breaks such as a reduction on property taxes. Also, many people might have a short period of time where they don't earn enough to have a federal tax liability but move up economically rather quickly. I believe many people interpret the number as representing a permanent group of people who don't ever pay federal income tax. That is really not the case as people move up and down the economic ladder so the people who are not paying federal income tax changes continually. However, I do believe it is a good idea for everyone to have a little skin in the game.

I don't see anything unconstitutional about a progressive federal tax rate. If it was, I would think it would have been challenged? I agree that there is a better way for the federal government to raise revenue. Given the lack of term limits on Congress and effective lobbying, I don't see a revolutionary change in the future.

I agree. Half of the citizens that enjoy this great country pay NO taxes whatsoever. Time for EVERYONE to pay taxes. It seems to be UnConstitutional for the rich to pay at a higher rate than anyone else. Sounds like a case of discrimination. Either a flat tax or a federal sales tax make everyone equal.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

If you are on an obamacare plan, perhaps. If you are working and your employer provides health insurance or you are on Medicare, probably not. I am probably one of the few people around here who is actually on an obamacare plan (Florida Blue, the only provider in Sumter County). If you want to know what is wrong with it I would be happy to oblige.

I'm on FloridaBlue too, with subsidy (tax rebate) from the ACA. Other than the deductible ($3500 individual or $6000 couple, if I remember right?), it's fairly similar to what we had up north. We didn't have any deductible up there.

We have co-pays, which are higher than up north, but still affordable. We have to get pre-certified for pretty much everything here in Florida, and could see a specialist without "permission" in the north. Rx coverage was exactly the same as it was in the north, except that fewer pharmacies participate down here. I had to switch my prescription from mail-order to Walgreens, but the cost is the same for the prescriptions.

The upside to Florida Blue is - even though we are charged a very small monthly premium, they have activities you can participate in to earn credit toward those premiums. So we haven't actually had to PAY any premium since February, and we still have a couple hundred bucks in credit.

My doctor is good enough for my needs, which is mostly to make sure I'm healthy once a year, and renew my prescriptions twice a year.

[biker1]

The obamacare plan I have has a very high out of pocket maximum and a very high deductible and a high premium. You can actually have any out of pocket maximum you want if you are willing to pay a ridiculous premium. I can, however, pretty much go anywhere I want as the network is extensive. One of the biggest flaws in the obamacare plans, IMHO, is the lack of means testing. If you understand the rules, it may be easy to get a big, fat subsidy, which is exactly what I do. I restructured our investments to minimize (until I am on Medicare) capital gains and dividends from our non-qualified investments to keep our MAGI low enough for a subsidy. I would really have been fine with a much lower cost non-obamacare compliant catastrophic plan but will pay less with the obamacare plan with subsidy. They don't look at your net worth when computing the subsidy. You can have a $25M net worth and still receive a subsidy.

I also earned the premium credits. $500 for about 20 minutes of effort.

I'm on FloridaBlue too, with subsidy (tax rebate) from the ACA. Other than the deductible ($3500 individual or $6000 couple, if I remember right?), it's fairly similar to what we had up north. We didn't have any deductible up there.

We have co-pays, which are higher than up north, but still affordable. We have to get pre-certified for pretty much everything here in Florida, and could see a specialist without "permission" in the north. Rx coverage was exactly the same as it was in the north, except that fewer pharmacies participate down here. I had to switch my prescription from mail-order to Walgreens, but the cost is the same for the prescriptions.

The upside to Florida Blue is - even though we are charged a very small monthly premium, they have activities you can participate in to earn credit toward those premiums. So we haven't actually had to PAY any premium since February, and we still have a couple hundred bucks in credit.

My doctor is good enough for my needs, which is mostly to make sure I'm healthy once a year, and renew my prescriptions twice a year.

[skyking]

Please explain how private insurance is "a lot better" than Medicare. I have private insurance and my wife is on Medicare. We can, and do, see the same Drs. The only difference I have detected is she pays less.

Medicare has only one benefit plan. Private insurers offer many different benefit plans some of which are greater than Medicare.
If you are over 65 and Medicare eligible, virtually all Medicare Advantage plans offered by private carriers exceed traditional Medicare benefits.

[biker1]

I don't believe you can make the case that all Medicare Advantage Plans exceed Medicare plus all Supplemental Plan possibilities. That is the comparison you need to make; not Medicare alone vs. Medicare Advantage.

Medicare has only one benefit plan. Private insurers offer many different benefit plans some of which are greater than Medicare.
If you are over 65 and Medicare eligible, virtually all Medicare Advantage plans offered by private carriers exceed traditional Medicare benefits.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Socialized medicine is fine unless you have an extremely serious disease or one that is not in need of specialized health care providers.

Many people can coast when they are younger because of their good health and promote socialized medicine, but when the rubber hits the road, you need more and better than what socialized medicine gives most people. AND the cost and the wastage are far worse than the cost and wastage in our current American systems. People have to wait and their income tax (Austria for example) is close to 50% for all wage earners.

Medicare is a form of socialized medicine. You don't get less health care just because you worked a lower-paying job all your life than some wealthy person worked. And that wealthy person doesn't automatically get more just because he paid more into the system. If he wants more, he has to pay EXTRA, on top of what he already paid in. Just like you do.

You all get an equal minimum basic health coverage. The wealthy person might be able to pay for additional coverage that you can't afford, but you both get to start out on equal footing. That is what socialized medicine IS.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

The obamacare plan I have has a very high out of pocket maximum and a very high deductible and a high premium. You can actually have any out of pocket maximum you want if you are willing to pay a ridiculous premium. I can, however, pretty much go anywhere I want as the network is extensive. One of the biggest flaws in the obamacare plans, IMHO, is the lack of means testing. If you understand the rules, it may be easy to get a big, fat subsidy, which is exactly what I do. I restructured our investments to minimize (until I am on Medicare) capital gains and dividends from our non-qualified investments to keep our MAGI low enough for a subsidy. I would really have been fine with a much lower cost non-obamacare compliant catastrophic plan but will pay less with the obamacare plan with subsidy. They don't look at your net worth when computing the subsidy. You can have a $25M net worth and still receive a subsidy.

I also earned the premium credits. $500 for about 20 minutes of effort.

We have the exact opposite situation. Neither of us are old enough for medicare. We have a very (very) modest savings account, and enough paid up life insurance to cover burial costs and a nice memorial service with brunch for our friends and family.

Hubby was forced into retirement. I've worked part-time retail (near-minimum wage) for most of the last 40-something years, so our combined income once his department was closed down was minimal.

In Connecticut, that meant we qualified for medicaid, because Connecticut participates in the Medicaid expansion of the ACA. Florida does not.

That meant, I had to go back to work when we moved south, because we are required to earn a MINIMUM income in order to qualify for ACA subsidies. If I didn't return to work, our premium would be $2000 per month. It's currently $50/month, but that $500 for the 20 minutes of work pays for it. And in January we'll hopefully be able to get another $500 credit.

This coming April, we'll have hubby's pension PLUS his social security, and I will actually have to quit my job to continue qualifying for ACA subsidies - because we don't have our money tied up in investments, so we can't write anything off or discount anything against our income.

[chet2020]

Medicare is a form of socialized medicine. You don't get less health care just because you worked a lower-paying job all your life than some wealthy person worked. And that wealthy person doesn't automatically get more just because he paid more into the system. If he wants more, he has to pay EXTRA, on top of what he already paid in. Just like you do.

You all get an equal minimum basic health coverage. The wealthy person might be able to pay for additional coverage that you can't afford, but you both get to start out on equal footing. That is what socialized medicine IS.

This is basically how the system works in England, except expand it out to everyone regardless of age. I play soccer and know several Brits. They disagree on everything political, but they all agree they like their National Health Service (their socialist national healthcare system). One guy needed a hernia operation. If he waited two weeks, it was free. If he paid the equivalent of $1,800, he could have the operation in two days. He opted to wait. He had the same surgeon either way.

Some hard-core people might object that people with money who are willing to pay get faster service, but to me it seems like a reasonable compromise.

[graciegirl]

This is basically how the system works in England, except expand it out to everyone regardless of age. I play soccer and know several Brits. They disagree on everything political, but they all agree they like their National Health Service (their socialist national healthcare system). One guy needed a hernia operation. If he waited two weeks, it was free. If he paid the equivalent of $1,800, he could have the operation in two days. He opted to wait. He had the same surgeon either way.

Some hard-core people might object that people with money who are willing to pay get faster service, but to me it seems like a reasonable compromise.

Unless you have or a family member has need for an unusual procedure due to a complicated diagnosis. Also, we have the finest doctor's moving to the U.S. because of it's stellar medical system based on private enterprise. None of this matters if you go through life with the usual ailments, but matters a lot if you need expert medical assistance.

[skyking]

This is basically how the system works in England, except expand it out to everyone regardless of age. I play soccer and know several Brits. They disagree on everything political, but they all agree they like their National Health Service (their socialist national healthcare system). One guy needed a hernia operation. If he waited two weeks, it was free. If he paid the equivalent of $1,800, he could have the operation in two days. He opted to wait. He had the same surgeon either way.

Some hard-core people might object that people with money who are willing to pay get faster service, but to me it seems like a reasonable compromise.

How long would you have to wait if you are 78 years old, have a very painful hip and are told you need a hip replacement?

Answer: Years

[skyking]

I don't believe you can make the case that all Medicare Advantage Plans exceed Medicare plus all Supplemental Plan possibilities. That is the comparison you need to make; not Medicare alone vs. Medicare Advantage.

Many Medicare Advantage plans are offered in this area for $0 premiums. Some even give you back bonuses such as $50 per month in over the counter pharmacy items.

Your original point was that Medicare is less expensive than private plans. That simply is not true.

[biker1]

Huh? What I did say was that I didn't see any difference between what my wife has (Medicare and a Supplemental Plan) and my private insurance except that her cost is less; we see some of the same Drs so there is no issue of accessibility to the Drs we want to go to. However, to your point, Medicare is less expensive than private plans, at least the obamacare plans in Sumter County (assuming no subsidy). Medicare is about $145 per month (we will eventually go to $400 per month each) and a Plan F is roughly $185 per month. My private plan is $1100 per month. Medicare and a supplemental is lower cost than my private plan. Medicare Advantage is lower cost still but typically has network restrictions that we don't experience. If someone else is paying your insurance that doesn't mean it is lower cost - it only means you aren't paying the cost directly. Perhaps you don't realize that if you select Medicare Advantage you still have to pay the Medicare premium ($145 to $400+ based on income).

Many Medicare Advantage plans are offered in this area for $0 premiums. Some even give you back bonuses such as $50 per month in over the counter pharmacy items.

Your original point was that Medicare is less expensive than private plans. That simply is not true.

[Bucco]

An executive order for n pre existing conditions instead of a law while trying to dismantle OBama care in Supreme Court.

Sounds like double talk or another "photo op".

So, we never get to see that wonderful replacement we were promised for many years.

Allow me to add this "Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar declined to specify how the administration would guarantee these protections if the Supreme Court overturns the landmark health reform law in a case it will consider this term."

Thus no change. And no health plan as promised.

[Northwoods]

Wait! I thought there was a possibility that we could be getting government healthcare where everything will be covered - no?

I think that's only if you're an undocumented alien. I saw a bunch of people on a podium a few months ago raise their hand saying they would make sure they were covered.

[Lindsyburnsy]

It is laughable that an Executive Order was signed today to allow pre-existing conditions even though we already have that in our current healthcare. And yet the Supreme Court is going to decide Nov 10th on whether to get rid of it. Gaslighting at its best. (Please pay attention. Pre-existing conditions are on the chopping block, now with Covid as an additional bonus possible for insurance companies.)

It is highly possible, that in the near future, insurance companies -- again -- will be allowed to use pre-existing conditions as their right to deny coverage.

If insurance companies are awarded the unconscionable power to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, it is not a big leap of the imagination to think that having had Covid 19 could be termed a pre-existing condition.

Why do I think that could happen? — because we do not understand where this virus can take us. But we do know that Covid 19 can sometimes leave very serious, and possibly chronic, health problems in its wake — even after supposed recovery.

I realize that most Villagers are comfortably swaddled in Medicare or good coverage from military retirement or previous employers. But, even so, in this time of overwhelming distraction, it is important to stay informed of what is playing out behind the front-and-center chaos.

Gen X and Millennials and younger boomers who get the virus and recover could find themselves saddled with a pre-existing condition — forever— just for having had the virus — even though nothing else has shown up — yet — after recovery.

Maybe I am overthinking this. Gee, could insurance companies ever even consider reaching into such a pot of gold as Covid recovery as an excuse to deny coverage.

No matter where your loyalties lie, no matter whether you have any younger people in your life to love, please pay attention, stay informed — from a variety of sources.

The ultimate decision to protect or to take away the individual’s right to not be denied health insurance coverage due to a pre-existing condition is in the works — with powerful support to take away that right.

Be careful what you wish (wished?) for.

Cassandra Boomer

[Bucco]

It is laughable that an Executive Order was signed today to allow pre-existing conditions even though we already have that in our current healthcare. And yet the Supreme Court is going to decide Nov 10th on whether to get rid of it. Gaslighting at its best.

Insulting at best.

Why do people continue to take the slaps in the face over and over.

And add this...."Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar declined to specify how the administration would guarantee these protections if the Supreme Court overturns the landmark health reform law in a case it will consider this term."

Like I said.....another photo op. Why is not everyone insulted by this ? This is the "beautiful" health plan we were to see 4 years ago.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Shouldn't we stop calling this INSURANCE? Insurance is basically a wager. You're putting up money and saying that you're going to get sick or that your house will burn down or you'll injure someone or damage property in an automobile incident. The insurance company is saying, "We bet you won't". If you win the bet the insurance company has to pay and if you lose the bet, you lose your money.

By demanding that insurance companies cover an event that has already happened, is a losing bet for them.

What we now have is no longer health insurance. It is basically socialized medicine being controlled by private companies.

Pre-existing conditions is something that politicians have come up with to garner vote by promising to force companies to place bets that they know they are going to lose.

I'm not sure what the answer is. I'm basically against socialized medicine, but insurance companies in collusion with providers and pharmaceutical companies have increased the cost of health care and drugs to the point where no one can afford them any longer. Now the government is going to force companies to lose money which can only lead to an increase in prices.

I don't like to think about the government taking over anything that it shouldn't but what we now have is obviously not working.

But it's not insurance. It's more like pooled health care costs.

[Dana1963]

The decision for our healthcare is currently in the Supreme Court and will be decided November 10, 2020. This is alarming. Pay attention and vote!
Technically they will here the ARGUMENT Nov 10 a ruling will not be heard till after January.

[MDLNB]

Everybody wants something for nothing. "Oh but.....over in THAT country they have........" and it is free from the government. BS! Nothing is free. Try living in Europe as a middle income earner. Our lower class citizens live as well if not better than the "middle class" in other countries. The reason their middle class lives a lower lifestyle is because they pay half their earnings in some form of gov taxes. Sure, the old do OK and the low income folks do OK, but how about everyone else? The hard workers that produce end up paying the way for everyone else. Is that FAIR?
That is exactly what is going to happen here if we get gov run health care.
The President has promised that he will not allow "pre-existing" conditions to preclude anyone from obtaining reasonable healthcare insurance. As far as I can see, whether we like him or not, he has lived up to or is still attempting to succeed at all his campaign promises. I won't go further down that path or end up violating the politics rule on here. However, that is exactly what the subject of the OP is all about, so it has gone this far without being shut down.
That said, you have two choices. You can pay your own way, if you can. Or, you can allow the gov GIVE you a lower quality health care insurance, along with a lower quality standard of living when they make EVERYONE sacrifice 50%+ of their earnings. It will have no effect on the wealthy, but it really lowers the standard of living for the middle class. The lower class of non-achievers or unproductive will always end up living a middle class standard of living in this liberal America. Why? Because some folks believe that instead of the bare minimum of giveaway they should get according to their motivation and work ethic, everyone should live equally. Sorry but that NEVER EVER happens in real life. The middle class hard worker pays the way by having their families sacrificing so that the non-achievers get to live better than the hard workers. NO, I am not against welfare. I am against taking their incentive away from them to reach a higher ambition. I am against seeing those that may be lazy living it up when the middle class has to work hard and sacrifice. Instead of having everyone else sacrifice, why not just work on the small group of folks that really deserve a hand up? There is absolutely no reason why those on welfare cannot be made to earn their welfare, even if it is picking up trash, cleaning gov offices, baby sitting for those that are really working for a living, etc. I would not even discount the idea of work camps. Socialism did not work with the first settlers in America so why should it now? Remember the phrase "no work, no eat?"

[vilger]

Shouldn't we stop calling this INSURANCE? Insurance is basically a wager. You're putting up money and saying that you're going to get sick or that your house will burn down or you'll injure someone or damage property in an automobile incident. The insurance company is saying, "We bet you won't". If you win the bet the insurance company has to pay and if you lose the bet, you lose your money.

By demanding that insurance companies cover an event that has already happened, is a losing bet for them.

What we now have is no longer health insurance. It is basically socialized medicine being controlled by private companies.

Pre-existing conditions is something that politicians have come up with to garner vote by promising to force companies to place bets that they know they are going to lose.

I'm not sure what the answer is. I'm basically against socialized medicine, but insurance companies in collusion with providers and pharmaceutical companies have increased the cost of health care and drugs to the point where no one can afford them any longer. Now the government is going to force companies to lose money which can only lead to an increase in prices.

I don't like to think about the government taking over anything that it shouldn't but what we now have is obviously not working.

But it's not insurance. It's more like pooled health care costs.

Do you have Medicare? Are you happy with it? Perhaps the government should charge higher Medicare premiums to those of us that have pre-existing conditions - how would you feel about that? The truth is that most people our age have pre-existing conditions.

[vilger]

Everybody wants something for nothing. "Oh but.....over in THAT country they have........" and it is free from the government. BS! Nothing is free. Try living in Europe as a middle income earner. Our lower class citizens live as well if not better than the "middle class" in other countries. The reason their middle class lives a lower lifestyle is because they pay half their earnings in some form of gov taxes. Sure, the old do OK and the low income folks do OK, but how about everyone else? The hard workers that produce end up paying the way for everyone else. Is that FAIR?
That is exactly what is going to happen here if we get gov run health care.
The President has promised that he will not allow "pre-existing" conditions to preclude anyone from obtaining reasonable healthcare insurance. As far as I can see, whether we like him or not, he has lived up to or is still attempting to succeed at all his campaign promises. I won't go further down that path or end up violating the politics rule on here. However, that is exactly what the subject of the OP is all about, so it has gone this far without being shut down.
That said, you have two choices. You can pay your own way, if you can. Or, you can allow the gov GIVE you a lower quality health care insurance, along with a lower quality standard of living when they make EVERYONE sacrifice 50%+ of their earnings. It will have no effect on the wealthy, but it really lowers the standard of living for the middle class. The lower class of non-achievers or unproductive will always end up living a middle class standard of living in this liberal America. Why? Because some folks believe that instead of the bare minimum of giveaway they should get according to their motivation and work ethic, everyone should live equally. Sorry but that NEVER EVER happens in real life. The middle class hard worker pays the way by having their families sacrificing so that the non-achievers get to live better than the hard workers. NO, I am not against welfare. I am against taking their incentive away from them to reach a higher ambition. I am against seeing those that may be lazy living it up when the middle class has to work hard and sacrifice. Instead of having everyone else sacrifice, why not just work on the small group of folks that really deserve a hand up? There is absolutely no reason why those on welfare cannot be made to earn their welfare, even if it is picking up trash, cleaning gov offices, baby sitting for those that are really working for a living, etc. I would not even discount the idea of work camps. Socialism did not work with the first settlers in America so why should it now? Remember the phrase "no work, no eat?"

Please explain how the President will not allow "pre-existing" conditions to preclude anyone from obtaining reasonable healthcare insurance? He has had over 3 1/2 years to come up with the "terrific" Obamacare replacement plan that he promised during the last election. Instead we get some bulls**t executive order 5 weeks before the next election that does nothing but promises to look into protecting pre-existing conditions. Oh yes, and the President has joined a lawsuit that the Supreme Court will hear on November 10 to abolish Obamacare, and a bribe of a $200 Medicare prescription card to get the senior vote.

[John41]

It is laughable that an Executive Order was signed today to allow pre-existing conditions even though we already have that in our current healthcare. And yet the Supreme Court is going to decide Nov 10th on whether to get rid of it. Gaslighting at its best.

Not laughable unless you have ACA which many can’t afford or even get.

[Topspinmo]

(Please pay attention. Pre-existing conditions are on the chopping block, now with Covid as an additional bonus possible for insurance companies.)

It is highly possible, that in the near future, insurance companies -- again -- will be allowed to use pre-existing conditions as their right to deny coverage.

If insurance companies are awarded the unconscionable power to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, it is not a big leap of the imagination to think that having had Covid 19 could be termed a pre-existing condition.

Why do I think that could happen? — because we do not understand where this virus can take us. But we do know that Covid 19 can sometimes leave very serious, and possibly chronic, health problems in its wake — even after supposed recovery.

I realize that most Villagers are comfortably swaddled in Medicare or good coverage from military retirement or previous employers. But, even so, in this time of overwhelming distraction, it is important to stay informed of what is playing out behind the front-and-center chaos.

Gen X and Millennials and younger boomers who get the virus and recover could find themselves saddled with a pre-existing condition — forever— just for having had the virus — even though nothing else has shown up — yet — after recovery.

Maybe I am overthinking this. Gee, could insurance companies ever even consider reaching into such a pot of gold as Covid recovery as an excuse to deny coverage.

No matter where your loyalties lie, no matter whether you have any younger people in your life to love, please pay attention, stay informed — from a variety of sources.

The ultimate decision to protect or to take away the individual’s right to not be denied health insurance coverage due to a pre-existing condition is in the works — with powerful support to take away that right.

Be careful what you wish (wished?) for.

Cassandra Boomer

Insurance companies have great lobbyists, they suck career representatives Like drug addicts on drugs when money thrown in their face. If they would of just read it before passing it they would of known what they passed.


The representative’s had several changes to get healthcare right ANd the failed miserably and IMO made it worse.

[Northwoods]

Please explain how private insurance is "a lot better" than Medicare. I have private insurance and my wife is on Medicare. We can, and do, see the same Drs. The only difference I have detected is she pays less.

I can't say private insurance is a lot better, but I can tell you when I went on Medicare, one medication that I was taking went from $0 to $45 a month. My other medication went from $90 to $395 a month. I was very surprised at this. But that has been my experience.

[biker1]

Please explain. Pretty much everyone should be able to get an obamacare plan unless their income is too low and forces them into Medicaid ??? If your MAGI is below $64K you will get an obamacare subsidy. I agree that the deductibles and out of pocket maximums are onerous.


Not laughable unless you have ACA which many can’t afford or even get.

[biker1]

Are these Part D prices?

I can't say private insurance is a lot better, but I can tell you when I went on Medicare, one medication that I was taking went from $0 to $45 a month. My other medication went from $90 to $395 a month. I was very surprised at this. But that has been my experience.

[Northwoods]

Please explain how the President will not allow "pre-existing" conditions to preclude anyone from obtaining reasonable healthcare insurance? He has had over 3 1/2 years to come up with the "terrific" Obamacare replacement plan that he promised during the last election. Instead we get some bulls**t executive order 5 weeks before the next election that does nothing but promises to look into protecting pre-existing conditions. Oh yes, and the President has joined a lawsuit that the Supreme Court will hear on November 10 to abolish Obamacare, and a bribe of a $200 Medicare prescription card to get the senior vote.

Do you honestly believe any healthcare plan will get through congress? There is 0 chance of that.
Do you see Democrats agreeing to come to the table to create a bipartisan healthcare plan?
You can't ding the current administration about coming up with a healthcare plan when none of the democrats will help craft a viable plan.
Let's face it... both sides are dug in about pretty much everything and neither side will move. So... you can't point the finger at one side without looking in your own sandbox.

[Northwoods]

Are these Part D prices?

No. I'm on an Advantage Plan. So I don't pay anything for Medicare...

[biker1]

Actually you probably are. You probably pay the Medicare fee ( $145 to $400+ per month depending on your income). It may be deducted from SS but you are still paying it. Depending on your Medicare Advantage Plan, you may be getting a "rebate" of sorts from your Medicare Advantage Plan. That is the "probably" part.

No. I'm on an Advantage Plan. So I don't pay anything for Medicare...

[Northwoods]

Actually you probably are. You probably pay the Medicare fee ( $145 to $400+ per month depending on your income). It may be deducted from SS but you are still paying it. Depending on your Medicare Advantage Plan, you may be getting a "rebate" of sorts from your Medicare Advantage Plan. That is the "probably" part.

Yes, My "payment" is less than I would be paying if I was on Medicare. I get $40 in medical supplies every quarter (I buy from Walgreens). The only negative I've found is the increase in my particular prescription costs.

[Lindsyburnsy]

Some people smoke their whole lives and live to be 90. Others eat healthy, exercise and are non-smokers and drop dead from a heart attack. All Americans should be covered by healthcare. Medicare is okay, but those of us that have it, know it isn't the best coverage there is and need to purchase a supplement. The gigantic tax reduction for corporations and the uber wealthy has added to our national debt. It could have been used for healthcare, infrastructure, schools, etc. Not all Americans are born healthy or wealthy. The middle class and poorer folks work, pay taxes without loopholes and keep corporations wealthy.

[PugMom]

wait-a-sec: i specifically recall the president giving a speech maybe last month, maybe 2 months ago, where he clearly stated he was protecting pre-existing conditions, meaning they will be covered. i didn't see much of this anywhere except local FL tv stations. if i get time later, i'll go back & find the specific report, & try to post it up, if i'm allowed.

[biker1]

Federal tax revenue, as a percentage of GDP, hasn’t varied much over the last 70 years. It typically runs about 17%. In other words, the amount of revenue the Government sees is pretty much independent of changes in the tax law. Also, Corporations don’t pay taxes. Their customers pay them.


Some people smoke their whole lives and live to be 90. Others eat healthy, exercise and are non-smokers and drop dead from a heart attack. All Americans should be covered by healthcare. Medicare is okay, but those of us that have it, know it isn't the best coverage there is and need to purchase a supplement. The gigantic tax reduction for corporations and the uber wealthy has added to our national debt. It could have been used for healthcare, infrastructure, schools, etc. Not all Americans are born healthy or wealthy. The middle class and poorer folks work, pay taxes without loopholes and keep corporations wealthy.

[PugMom]

it didn't take long, but i found that news report. idk if the link will be allowed, but i will try anyway
President Trump signs Executive Order on pre-existing conditions in Charlotte (https://www.wbtv.com/2020/09/24/president-trump-signs-executive-order-pre-existing-conditions-charlotte/)

[Dana1963]

(Please pay attention. Pre-existing conditions are on the chopping block, now with Covid as an additional bonus possible for insurance companies.)

It is highly possible, that in the near future, insurance companies -- again -- will be allowed to use pre-existing conditions as their right to deny coverage.

If insurance companies are awarded the unconscionable power to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, it is not a big leap of the imagination to think that having had Covid 19 could be termed a pre-existing condition.

Why do I think that could happen? — because we do not understand where this virus can take us. But we do know that Covid 19 can sometimes leave very serious, and possibly chronic, health problems in its wake — even after supposed recovery.

I realize that most Villagers are comfortably swaddled in Medicare or good coverage from military retirement or previous employers. But, even so, in this time of overwhelming distraction, it is important to stay informed of what is playing out behind the front-and-center chaos.

Gen X and Millennials and younger boomers who get the virus and recover could find themselves saddled with a pre-existing condition — forever— just for having had the virus — even though nothing else has shown up — yet — after recovery.

Maybe I am overthinking this. Gee, could insurance companies ever even consider reaching into such a pot of gold as Covid recovery as an excuse to deny coverage.

No matter where your loyalties lie, no matter whether you have any younger people in your life to love, please pay attention, stay informed — from a variety of sources.

The ultimate decision to protect or to take away the individual’s right to not be denied health insurance coverage due to a pre-existing condition is in the works — with powerful support to take away that right.

Be careful what you wish (wished?) for.

Cassandra Boomer
An Executive Order means nothing if The Supreme Court rules against the ACA.
While pre-existing conditions include life-threatening illnesses like cancer or chronic conditions like asthma or diabetes, insurance companies frequently consider care specific to women as a pre-existing condition and an excuse to deny health coverage. In other words, just being a woman could be considered a preexisting condition.

[Kilmacowen]

it didn't take long, but i found that news report. idk if the link will be allowed, but i will try anyway
President Trump signs Executive Order on pre-existing conditions in Charlotte (https://www.wbtv.com/2020/09/24/president-trump-signs-executive-order-pre-existing-conditions-charlotte/)

Read the article. This is just more smoke and mirrors. It is not a law , he can't force the insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions. Also, the premium would be so high and unaffordable. WHERE'S THE SO CALLED PLAN

[vilger]

Read the article. This is just more smoke and mirrors. It is not a law , he can't force the insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions. Also, the premium would be so high and unaffordable. WHERE'S THE SO CALLED PLAN

He has had almost 4 years to come up with a plan that is not vaporware, and has the force of law, and has given us zilch; except, "duh, who knew that health care was so complicated?"

[Carla B]

Not just four years, It's been more like 50 years, (per Brooks & Shields, PBS News Hour, 9/25/20), or at least since Nixon was president.

[Lindsyburnsy]

Supreme Court case decision coming up right after the election could completely eliminate Obamacare ( ACA) which also removes preexisting condition protections. QUOTE=Leadbone1;1834008]Absolutely wrong. If anything there’s a bigger push right now to be sure that pre-existing conditions are covered than the other way around. Don’t know where you’re getting your information?[/QUOTE]

[Lindsyburnsy]

Current leader had the house and senate and still couldn’t come up with a viable healthcare plan. Do you honestly believe any healthcare plan will get through congress? There is 0 chance of that.
Do you see Democrats agreeing to come to the table to create a bipartisan healthcare plan?
You can't ding the current administration about coming up with a healthcare plan when none of the democrats will help craft a viable plan.
Let's face it... both sides are dug in about pretty much everything and neither side will move. So... you can't point the finger at one side without looking in your own sandbox.

[vilger]

Supreme Court case decision coming up right after the election could completely eliminate Obamacare ( ACA) which also removes preexisting condition protections. QUOTE=Leadbone1;1834008]Absolutely wrong. If anything there’s a bigger push right now to be sure that pre-existing conditions are covered than the other way around. Don’t know where you’re getting your information?[/QUOTE]

Pre-existing conditions are currently protected by Obamacare, and the administration has joined the Supreme Court suit to declare Obamacare unconstitutional. Don't know where you get your info from - Fox "News"?

[biker1]

And Obama had a majority in the House, a super majority in the Senate and was held hostage by some of his own senators for the current bill. Since the supermajority prevents a filibuster, they could have passed anything they wanted. How quickly some forget, or didn't know.

Current leader had the house and senate and still couldn’t come up with a viable healthcare plan.

[Paper1]

"...after about 5 years" is not true...first that calculation doesn't factor in the impact of compounding interest on the monies that you actually paid in over a 40 - 50 year period of of continuous contributions...which is what most of us in TV have done

secondly, receiving more than what you paid in is no more of a handout than a monthly Annuity payment is once you've received more in payments than you paid in to fund it... lifetime payments was the contractual deal that was promised and agreed to.

at least with an annuity we had a choice to buy in...there was no choice with Society Security
With all due respect you don’t understand how social security and Medicare work. Those small taxes you were paying were immediately being paid out to your parents and grandparents not an interest bearing account as you describe. It is called pay/go not a savings account with your name on it. Our grandchildren are paying our benefits. The term trust fund is a cruel hoax invented so politicians we elected and re-elected could spend the extra tax revenue that was collected. Like the cost of healthcare before we can fix it we need to have an honest discussion. See I’ve started by letting the secret out that Social Security trust fund is “Fake News” if you will.

[jimbomaybe]

Free ? What part of FICA does one not understand? It is essentially free because it does not come close to covering the actual cost or future obligations attached, its a great deal, unless you ending up being the one paying the credit card bill down the road,

[coffeebean]

wait-a-sec: i specifically recall the president giving a speech maybe last month, maybe 2 months ago, where he clearly stated he was protecting pre-existing conditions, meaning they will be covered. i didn't see much of this anywhere except local FL tv stations. if i get time later, i'll go back & find the specific report, & try to post it up, if i'm allowed.

Our president made that claim again just last night as he addressed his supporters at the rally in Pennsylvania. In fact, he spoke those words slowly with emphasis. Am I wrong to believe him?

[dewilson58]

Eliminating Pre's is media brainwashing.


It's just trash talk...............Repub's are just getting rid of (or parts of) Obamacare.

[Viperguy]

To eliminate = political suicide.


No one will do it.


Sky is not falling.

Exactly. Turn off your "News" source. This is all about the election. Scare tactics.

[Aloha1]

An Executive Order means nothing if The Supreme Court rules against the ACA.
While pre-existing conditions include life-threatening illnesses like cancer or chronic conditions like asthma or diabetes, insurance companies frequently consider care specific to women as a pre-existing condition and an excuse to deny health coverage. In other words, just being a woman could be considered a preexisting condition.

If SCOTUS rules the ACA is unconstitutional, then it is up to Congress to either fix the defect or promulgate a new law. Any other comments from politicians and partisans are nothing more than rubbish. If they did their jobs right the first time, this would not be an issue now.But this is what one party rule brought us.

[chet2020]

Our president made that claim again just last night as he addressed his supporters at the rally in Pennsylvania. In fact, he spoke those words slowly with emphasis. Am I wrong to believe him?

Yes. Remember a month ago he held a special press conference with a "historic breakthrough" in the treatment of COVID-19? And now we know convalescent plasma hardly works at all. File this in the same category.

[Bucco]

If SCOTUS rules the ACA is unconstitutional, then it is up to Congress to either fix the defect or promulgate a new law. Any other comments from politicians and partisans are nothing more than rubbish. If they did their jobs right the first time, this would not be an issue now.But this is what one party rule brought us.

And should it occur, after another round of one party rule, we would be left with "bupkus"

quote from Nick Mulvaney...

"“I’m not sure where they got the authority to do it, but, I’m sure the lawyers had vetted this and the president had the executive ability to do this, but, keep in mind, any executive order is going to be fairly limited. You need legislation to do big things. If we could have fixed health care with executive orders alone, we would have done that back in 2017,” Mulvaney told FOX Business' Maria Bartiromo on “Mornings with Maria.”

Trump'''s new health care initiative '''fairly limited''': Mulvaney | Fox Business (https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/mick-mulvaney-america-first-healthcare-plan-legislation)

Ever since he was a presidential candidate, the administration has been promising the American people a “terrific,” “phenomenal” and “fantastic” new health care plan to replace the Affordable Care Act.

But, in the 3½ years since he set up shop in the Oval Office, he has yet to deliver. And TWO of those years, one party ran both houses and could have done whatever they wanted

[biker1]

No. A majority in the Senate does not mean you can do whatever you want to. For many legislative issues, you would need to have a supermajority (60 or more votes) to prevent a filibuster. The last time a party had a filibuster proof supermajority in the Senate were the democrats during Obama's first term.



But, in the 3½ years since he set up shop in the Oval Office, he has yet to deliver. And TWO of those years, one party ran both houses and could have done whatever they wanted

[Bucco]

No. A majority in the Senate does not mean you can do whatever you want to. For many legislative issues, you would need to have a supermajority (60 or more votes) to prevent a filibuster. The last a party to have a filibuster proof supermajority in the Senate were the democrats during Obama's first term.

What healthcare plan was put forward by this administration and failed to get a supermajority ?

[biker1]

Nothing was put forward but you already knew that so why ask? If you go back and reread my post, I was responding to the wrong information in your post. One reason nothing has been put forward is probably because of the deadlock for many issues in Congress. For many divided issues, the threat of a filibuster is enough to prevent any legislative progress.

What healthcare plan was put forward by this administration and failed to get a supermajority ?

[vilger]

And Obama had a majority in the House, a super majority in the Senate and was held hostage by some of his own senators for the current bill. Since the supermajority prevents a filibuster, they could have passed anything they wanted. How quickly some forget, or didn't know.

Edward Kennedy, the 60th Democrat vote in the Senate died in August 2009. Scott Brown, a Republican, who nobody expected to win the special election replaced him in January 2010 thus killing the Democrats' super majority in the Senate. So the Democrats had a super majority for less than a year, and did not have one when Obamacare was signed into law in March 2010. Because they lacked a super majority in the Senate in 2010, the House had to pass the Senate version of the bill that was passed in 2009 rather than going through the normal reconciliation process between the House and Senate versions.

[vilger]

Eliminating Pre's is media brainwashing.


It's just trash talk...............Repub's are just getting rid of (or parts of) Obamacare.

Really? If Obamacare is declared unconstitutional what makes you think that pre-existing conditions protection will magically remain? Because the President says so? The 2017 "terrific" Republican plan that John McCain voted against promoted high risk pools (high premiums) for those with pre-existing conditions.

[biker1]

The democrats had a supermajority on Christmas Eve 2009 when the bill was passed. You are correct that they lost the supermajority soon afterwards and couldn't revote on reconciliation but the Senate version of the bill would never have passed without the supermajority they held in 2009. The were arrogant enough to move forward with a partisan bill that was flawed. If not for John Roberts redefining the meaning of "tax" it would have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Parts have already been dismantled because of it's flaws.

Edward Kennedy, the 60th Democrat vote in the Senate died in August 2009. Scott Brown, a Republican, who nobody expected to win the special election replaced him in January 2010 thus killing the Democrats' super majority in the Senate. So the Democrats had a super majority for less than a year, and did not have one when Obamacare was signed into law in March 2010. Because they lacked a super majority in the Senate in 2010, the House had to pass the Senate version of the bill that was passed in 2009 rather than going through the normal reconciliation process between the House and Senate versions.

[Aloha1]

And should it occur, after another round of one party rule, we would be left with "bupkus"

quote from Nick Mulvaney...

"“I’m not sure where they got the authority to do it, but, I’m sure the lawyers had vetted this and the president had the executive ability to do this, but, keep in mind, any executive order is going to be fairly limited. You need legislation to do big things. If we could have fixed health care with executive orders alone, we would have done that back in 2017,” Mulvaney told FOX Business' Maria Bartiromo on “Mornings with Maria.”

Trump'''s new health care initiative '''fairly limited''': Mulvaney | Fox Business (https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/mick-mulvaney-america-first-healthcare-plan-legislation)

Ever since he was a presidential candidate, the administration has been promising the American people a “terrific,” “phenomenal” and “fantastic” new health care plan to replace the Affordable Care Act.

But, in the 3½ years since he set up shop in the Oval Office, he has yet to deliver. And TWO of those years, one party ran both houses and could have done whatever they wanted

And your reply has nothing to do with what I posted. Please try to read before responding. I quoted what the Constitution requires, not any Executive Order.

[coffeebean]

///

[Bucco]

Nothing was put forward but you already knew that so why ask? If you go back and reread my post, I was responding to the wrong information in your post. One reason nothing has been put forward is probably because of the deadlock for many issues in Congress. For many divided issues, the threat of a filibuster is enough to prevent any legislative progress.

You are correct. I apologize for my misreading of the post in question.

Mea culpa

[Bucco]

And your reply has nothing to do with what I posted. Please try to read before responding. I quoted what the Constitution requires, not any Executive Order.

Sorry, I guess.

You made a comment about what "one party rule gets you"

Guess I felt I was responding to that theme

[WhiteToast]

And what about your Long Term Care? Have you considered the costs of care that is not covered by Medicare or Medicare-gap insurance? There is Long Term Care insurance available. I’m a Long Term Care Insurance specialist if you have questions; so you’re not forced to pay down your assets. Rather you can protect your assets and spare your children’s the burdens of taking care of you and forfeiting their own lives to do so. These are serious consequences for not being prepared. I’m happy to educate anyone on this topic as it’s certain that the costs of healthcare will become more and more unaffordable for all of us at any age and time of life. I purchased long-term care for my mother a few years ago and it was the best decision I’ve ever made. Then I got into the business of helping others. Please reach out to me I live here in the villages but work completely remotely online now for safety reasons.

[dale50000]

One step at a time:

Yesterday, the FDA commissioner said that it won't cave under political pressure to get a vaccine approved quickly, and that "science will guide" its decision.

But President Trump later said, 'the rules are up to me.'

[JimJohnson]

If, if ACA is thrown out, we will definitely have DEATH PANELS.

Whether you live or die will not be determined by your doctors,
It will be determined by your income bracket.

[JimJohnson]

One step at a time:

Yesterday, the FDA commissioner said that it won't cave under political pressure to get a vaccine approved quickly, and that "science will guide" its decision.

But President Trump later said, 'the rules are up to me.'

That is terrifying.

[JimJohnson]

And what about your Long Term Care? Have you considered the costs of care that is not covered by Medicare or Medicare-gap insurance? There is Long Term Care insurance available. I’m a Long Term Care Insurance specialist if you have questions; so you’re not forced to pay down your assets. Rather you can protect your assets and spare your children’s the burdens of taking care of you and forfeiting their own lives to do so. These are serious consequences for not being prepared. I’m happy to educate anyone on this topic as it’s certain that the costs of healthcare will become more and more unaffordable for all of us at any age and time of life. I purchased long-term care for my mother a few years ago and it was the best decision I’ve ever made. Then I got into the business of helping others. Please reach out to me I live here in the villages but work completely remotely online now for safety reasons.

/// be careful

[WhiteToast]

/// be careful

7 of 10 (70%) over 65 will need some variety of long term care.

Only 8% of home owners ever file a claim.

Long term care is sometimes misunderstood, often maligned. That’s a shame.

Each day I’m grateful that I took care of my mother by purchasing her a good policy. It gives me peace of mind. It’s the best money I’ve ever spent and I don’t part with money easily. Today she’s emptying a warehouse, packing a uhaul (totally on her own) to drive it cross country. She’s doing too much, like she always does. As an only child, I know if there’s an accident, if she breaks her hip carrying boxes, or if anything happens unforeseen, she has a pool of $304,000 (as of Friday - I checked because I worry for her all the time because she’s so active) for a top flight facility if needed. I consider being careful, as being prepared.

I’ve noticed some wear bike helmets in the villages, some don’t. Some (like me) protect our cranium, some don’t. I’m here to help those that do.

Meanwhile as an insulin dependent Diabetic with Hypertension, I’m very sensitive to The future of healthcare due my multiple health issues. This is a very important topic.

[Bay Kid]

My family insurance in '08/'09 went from affordable to unaffordable. "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor".

[PugMom]

THANK YEW~!!! :bigbow: up in Ct the aca ws so unafforadable, we could only cover my husband, who was in greater need @ the time. i was without until my medicare kicked in

[BossLady]

Being self employed, in 2013 I was paying $1200. Per month and was notified that the next year’s increase would be an increase of an additional $500.00. Completely unaffordable. I am grateful for ACA. I was hospitalized 19 days over the last 6 weeks at The Villages Regional Hospital. Without ACA, I would be unable to recover financially. I’m terrified of changes in Health Care costs. A very scary issue. I’m 52. What will the future bring?

[Bonnevie]

Our president made that claim again just last night as he addressed his supporters at the rally in Pennsylvania. In fact, he spoke those words slowly with emphasis. Am I wrong to believe him?

YES you are wrong to believe him. mexico will pay for wall? I'll drain the swamp?

if all those who claim to guarantee pre-existing conditions really meant they would have done something concrete. they can say anything they want now. just like Graham made a pledge about the supreme court nomination happening during the end of Trump's term---words don't matter, actions do.

[biker1]

Ah, strawman arguments ... when you can't defend your position.

YES you are wrong to believe him. mexico will pay for wall? I'll drain the swamp?

if all those who claim to guarantee pre-existing conditions really meant they would have done something concrete. they can say anything they want now. just like Graham made a pledge about the supreme court nomination happening during the end of Trump's term---words don't matter, actions do.

[Viperguy]

(Please pay attention. Pre-existing conditions are on the chopping block, now with Covid as an additional bonus possible for insurance companies.)

It is highly possible, that in the near future, insurance companies -- again -- will be allowed to use pre-existing conditions as their right to deny coverage.

If insurance companies are awarded the unconscionable power to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, it is not a big leap of the imagination to think that having had Covid 19 could be termed a pre-existing condition.

Why do I think that could happen? — because we do not understand where this virus can take us. But we do know that Covid 19 can sometimes leave very serious, and possibly chronic, health problems in its wake — even after supposed recovery.

I realize that most Villagers are comfortably swaddled in Medicare or good coverage from military retirement or previous employers. But, even so, in this time of overwhelming distraction, it is important to stay informed of what is playing out behind the front-and-center chaos.

Gen X and Millennials and younger boomers who get the virus and recover could find themselves saddled with a pre-existing condition — forever— just for having had the virus — even though nothing else has shown up — yet — after recovery.

Maybe I am overthinking this. Gee, could insurance companies ever even consider reaching into such a pot of gold as Covid recovery as an excuse to deny coverage.

No matter where your loyalties lie, no matter whether you have any younger people in your life to love, please pay attention, stay informed — from a variety of sources.

The ultimate decision to protect or to take away the individual’s right to not be denied health insurance coverage due to a pre-existing condition is in the works — with powerful support to take away that right.

Be careful what you wish (wished?) for.

Cassandra Boomer



Mr. Trump said his health care vision will include provisions to protect those with preexisting conditions. The president said it is now the official policy of the federal government to protect preexisting conditions, and he won't sign any bill that comes to his desk that doesn't protect preexisting conditions.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Do you have Medicare? Are you happy with it? Perhaps the government should charge higher Medicare premiums to those of us that have pre-existing conditions - how would you feel about that? The truth is that most people our age have pre-existing conditions.

Those of us that have Medicare have paid into it for decades. We have paid the premiums in advance.

What I was thinking about if companies were forced to cover people with pre-existing conditions, why would anyone buy health coverage before they got sick? Why wouldn't people just wait until they needed care and go to a company and sign up for coverage? Then once they have been treated and have recovered, drop the coverage until the next time the needed it.

It's the same as saying that you don't have car insurance. Then, you get into an accident you go to an insurance company and tell them that you want to buy insurance and they have to pay for the damages to your car and the damages that you caused. Or, you decide to not have homeowners insurance and when your house burns down, you sign up and expect the insurance company to pay for a new house for you.

Sounds ridiculous doesn't it?

[John41]

Being self employed, in 2013 I was paying $1200. Per month and was notified that the next year’s increase would be an increase of an additional $500.00. Completely unaffordable. I am grateful for ACA. I was hospitalized 19 days over the last 6 weeks at The Villages Regional Hospital. Without ACA, I would be unable to recover financially. I’m terrified of changes in Health Care costs. A very scary issue. I’m 52. What will the future bring?

I empathize with you but the ACA did not fulfill its promise of affordable care for all American. Many exchanges lost all their insurance providers. A necessary condition for truly affordable health care is to secure the borders and deport illegal aliens.Then the government must use its buying power to negotiate with hospitals and drug companies on pricing. Health economists need to determine what services are affordable and at what cost.

[Lindsyburnsy]

Obamacare (ACA) is going to be on the Supreme Courts docket soon after the election. It includes pre-existing conditions. If ACA is repealed, so goes pre-existing conditions. Don’t believe a recently signed executive order which promises what we already have. After the election, all bets are off.

[Lindsyburnsy]

They did pass Obamacare. And Obama had a majority in the House, a super majority in the Senate and was held hostage by some of his own senators for the current bill. Since the supermajority prevents a filibuster, they could have passed anything they wanted. How quickly some forget, or didn't know.

[biker1]

Yes they did after being squeezed for concessions by members of their own caucus. Yes they did after failing to include cost savings such as tort reform.Yes they did and it is being dismantled by the courts. Were you even paying attention?

They did pass Obamacare.

[Nucky]

We are in Deep Garbage no matter which way things go. Everyone involved in bringing it and trying to get rid of it Sucks Eggs. So many people so many problems. Medical care almost put our lights out years ago. Sad isn't it? We worked like dogs our entire life. Now we have to live wondering what tomorrow will bring. Whatever. A day at a time I guess.

[ficoguy]

Insurance is a risk adjusted business....if you can't charge higher premiums for higher risk, then its not insurance. Should drivers with 3 DUI's pay the same auto insurance as a driver who has not had a ticket or accident for 20 years????

[ficoguy]

They did not pass the bill. They used a parliamentary procedure to "deem the house bill as passed" . So the chicken butts never really voted on it.

[vilger]

Did anyone hear Trump's Obamacare replacement plan during the debate last night that has been 4 years in the making? If so, kindly explain it to this forum.

[chet2020]

My family insurance in '08/'09 went from affordable to unaffordable. "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor".

Obama took office in 2009, Obamacare was signed into law in 2010. Not sure your insurance increases were caused by Obamacare?

[charlieo1126@gmail.com]

The number 1 cause of bankruptcy in America is for medical reasons., because the person is out of work or the bills are to high. The loss of this option will once again clog our emergency rooms and create more people filing bankruptcy, Oh wait that’s not going to happen because there is a wonderful plan ready for everyone, it’s going to be WONDERFUL,WONDERFUL

[coffeebean]

I find it most unusual that there has been zero activity on this "News and Current Events" sub forum for more than 48 hours. The last post was on this thread on Oct.1st at 10:04 am.

I'm writing this post as a "TEST" to see if this does, in fact, get posted.

[Kenswing]

I find it most unusual that there has been zero activity on this "News and Current Events" sub forum for more than 48 hours. The last post was on this thread on Oct.1st at 10:04 am.

I'm writing this post as a "TEST" to see if this does, in fact, get posted.
Maybe people are finally tired of arguing about stuff?

[jaj523]

Since when is the Affordable Care Plan "affordable"? The prices have skyrocketed. And it is difficult to find caregivers in the program. It is almost like having no insurance at all. It does need to be done away with and replaced with something that includes pre-existing conditions. From what I understand, the proposed replacement DOES include those.

[biker1]

Yes, the obamacare premiums are expensive, and the deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums can be very high. However, if you are finding it difficult to find caregivers (presumably in-network) then you may have selected the wrong plan, and there are about 40 plans in Sumter County through Florida Blue. The plan I have pretty much allows me to go anywhere and see anyone. The price difference from the most restrictive plan was actually pretty small. With open season upon us, you may wish to rethink your choice in plans if your network is too restrictive.

Since when is the Affordable Care Plan "affordable"? The prices have skyrocketed. And it is difficult to find caregivers in the program. It is almost like having no insurance at all. It does need to be done away with and replaced with something that includes pre-existing conditions. From what I understand, the proposed replacement DOES include those.

[Bay Kid]

If you like your doctor you can keep them...heard this somewhere....

Anything the govern takes over they will screw it up. Unaffordable Care Act.

[tvbound]

Since when is the Affordable Care Plan "affordable"? The prices have skyrocketed. And it is difficult to find caregivers in the program. It is almost like having no insurance at all. It does need to be done away with and replaced with something that includes pre-existing conditions. From what I understand, the proposed replacement DOES include those.

"From what I understand, the proposed replacement DOES include those."

What "proposed replacement plan?" Could you please provide some type of proof, that any replacement plan even exists? So far, as everyone knows, no one has been able to provide a single detail on any proposed bill, law or regulations to replace the ACA. For those who may not know, an Executive Order regarding pre-existing conditions is absolutely worthless, from a legal standpoint.

[Bonnevie]

If you like your doctor you can keep them...heard this somewhere....

Anything the govern takes over they will screw it up. Unaffordable Care Act.

unlike the insurance plans where providers change frequently forcing one to change doctors.

health care is a mess. the mandate was necessary to have healthy people buy into it so the rates would go down. it's the way the Federal Govt. health care works. I can change my health plan once a year to any of those offered without regard to pre-existing conditions because the pool of people is large enough for the healthier to offset the sicker.

[biker1]

I am not saying you can't cherry pick an example of someone having to change doctors, but I personally haven't seen it. I have had the same PCP for the last five years (two different insurance plans) in The Villages and had the same PCP for 10 years (3 different insurance plans) prior to moving to The Villages. Regarding non-PCP doctors, I haven't seen an issue there either. I doubt that I am unique in this regard.

unlike the insurance plans where providers change frequently forcing one to change doctors.

health care is a mess. the mandate was necessary to have healthy people buy into it so the rates would go down. it's the way the Federal Govt. health care works. I can change my health plan once a year to any of those offered without regard to pre-existing conditions because the pool of people is large enough for the healthier to offset the sicker.

[NebraskaRon]

“ If insurance companies are awarded the unconscionable power to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions,”

Yes, how could the unconscionable Insurance CO’s not allow you to buy insurance after you are sick. We could do that for cars also — let’s wait to buy insurance after we have an accident!

The ONLY way to allow pre-existing is to also require mandatory universal coverage — you can’t have it both ways. Think about it!

[Boomer]

. . .

[skyking]

“ If insurance companies are awarded the unconscionable power to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions,”

Yes, how could the unconscionable Insurance CO’s not allow you to buy insurance after you are sick. We could do that for cars also — let’s wait to buy insurance after we have an accident!

The ONLY way to allow pre-existing is to also require mandatory universal coverage — you can’t have it both ways. Think about it!

Yep. I tried to buy insurance on my house while the fire department was on the way. Darn company wouldn't accept me. DOWN WITH PRE-EXISTING!

[Bay Kid]

Obama took office in 2009, Obamacare was signed into law in 2010. Not sure your insurance increases were caused by Obamacare?

You are right. It was '10. After the affordable care act was passed my insurance became unaffordable. Those big, bad insurance companies.

Lots of people didn't notice any difference because they had employee coverage. I have always had to pay for my own.

[WhiteToast]

I’m curious, who on this forum actually utilizes the ACA and can first-hand attest to their premium increase/decrease?

For me, the premium I pay due to ACA is significantly lower. I’m not old enough to for Medicare.

Are Medicare recipients ACA eligible?

Just to add, I have a great PPO FloridaBlue That I’ve used all over the country with any doctor I choose with a private room for hospitalizations and a low deductible. I have pre-existing conditions and I could not be happier with the ACA. It’s literally saved me financially.

[Boomer]

It cannot be denied.

Pre-existing conditions are under siege.

I cannot believe that there are those who actually believe everything they hear — when they limit their sources to only what they want to hear.

Be careful what you wish for. Be careful what you fall for.

A new plan? Really?

Please ask yourself if you think there could be any possibility that whatever this plan is could give insurance companies the right to rate those who have pre-existing conditions and then cost-gouge them.

Pre-existing conditions are under siege.

Boomer Revere

[Bucco]

"From what I understand, the proposed replacement DOES include those."

What "proposed replacement plan?" Could you please provide some type of proof, that any replacement plan even exists? So far, as everyone knows, no one has been able to provide a single detail on any proposed bill, law or regulations to replace the ACA. For those who may not know, an Executive Order regarding pre-existing conditions is absolutely worthless, from a legal standpoint.

Yes,

What replacement plan ?

For over 3 years, we have been told it is "just around the corner ", "next week", "soon".

[coffeebean]

It cannot be denied.

Pre-existing conditions are under siege.

I cannot believe that there are those who actually believe everything they hear — when they limit their sources to only what they want to hear.

Be careful what you wish for. Be careful what you fall for.

A new plan? Really?

Please ask yourself if you think there could be any possibility that whatever this plan is could give insurance companies the right to rate those who have pre-existing conditions and then cost-gouge them.

Pre-existing conditions are under siege.

Boomer Revere

Years ago when I was a smoker, my private insurance charged me a "fee" for being a smoker. When I quit smoking, that "fee" went away.

[Lindsyburnsy]

Except that the ACA is on the Scotus chopping block for the week following the election. The case has been brought on by the current party in power. Don’t be fooled.

[jebartle]

Nothing is free. When the government is involved the wastage makes the cost astronomical. No one wants anyone denied health care because of pre existing conditions.

Too many want health care and have someone else pay for it.

Nothing is free.

We would all like for there to be simple answers and to blame others for problems based on greed, but the truth is that either you self insure or you buy insurance or you HOPE the government will cover you and other people's money doesn't run out.

Gracie, you know that I'm a big fan of yours, but, on this issue, Healthcare for some, thru no fault of their own, is beyond their means and should be free. As the poster mentioned, this virus, is and has many pre-existing conditions, on top of that, Americans have been financially crippled. Having the ACA being ripped away from these families at this time, is unconscionable. No one should be turned away, no one!

[biker1]

No one is turned away. You can walk into any public hospital in America and receive care. There is also Medicaid. If you want to argue that the quality of medicine varies then I will agree with you. There are few, if any, things in life that are completely fair. The more money you have the better the life you will lead.

Gracie, you know that I'm a big fan of yours, but, on this issue, Healthcare for some, thru no fault of their own, is beyond their means and should be free. As the poster mentioned, this virus, is and has many pre-existing conditions, on top of that, Americans have been financially crippled. Having the ACA being ripped away from these families at this time, is unconscionable. No one should be turned away, no one!

[biker1]

Well, yes, it is because it may be unconstitutional. That is why we have courts. The party in power at the time should have done their job.

Except that the ACA is on the Scotus chopping block for the week following the election. The case has been brought on by the current party in power. Don’t be fooled.

[John41]

Gracie, you know that I'm a big fan of yours, but, on this issue, Healthcare for some, thru no fault of their own, is beyond their means and should be free. As the poster mentioned, this virus, is and has many pre-existing conditions, on top of that, Americans have been financially crippled. Having the ACA being ripped away from these families at this time, is unconscionable. No one should be turned away, no one!

Just like doctors were ripped away from their patients under ACA “You can keep your doctor if you like your plan.”

[Topspinmo]

Wait! I thought there was a possibility that we could be getting government healthcare where everything will be covered - no?


Well, if some would of read it before the passed it they might of been able to fix health care, but didn’t happen.

[Topspinmo]

“ If insurance companies are awarded the unconscionable power to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions,”

Yes, how could the unconscionable Insurance CO’s not allow you to buy insurance after you are sick. We could do that for cars also — let’s wait to buy insurance after we have an accident!

The ONLY way to allow pre-existing is to also require mandatory universal coverage — you can’t have it both ways. Think about it!

The only way IMO to have affordable health care is to have single pay system and outlaw insurance health care. Insurance has monopoly to make billions Due to their ability to lobby elected officials to get laws in there favor and not interest of health care. The only way to have affordable health care IMO is single payer system and control costs.

[Topspinmo]

Just like doctors were ripped away from their patients under ACA “You can keep your doctor if you like your plan.”

ACA should fixed that problem by health care accepting ALL insurance. Anybody that lost doctor cause they don’t accept particular health care insurance plan.

[Aloha1]

OMG, people. Get a grip and LISTEN to the facts. On 11/10, SCOTUS is going to hear arguments about the Constitutionality of ACA. THERE WILL BE NO DECISION ON THAT DATE! These are presentations before the Court only. The decision may not come down until next June.

And what every panicked poster on this thread forgets is that it is Congress that makes the law. So, if SCOTUS says ACA is Unconstitutional sometime next year, the fix is simple. Congress can fix the defect. Any comment to the contrary is nothing more than political hyperbole and fear mongering.

[chet2020]

Just like doctors were ripped away from their patients under ACA “You can keep your doctor if you like your plan.”

This is always a good one. How did people who had a private physician before the ACA afford it? Because they were already on a private health plan. A lot of the ACA plans were less expensive and covered more, so people switched, then complained they couldn't keep their doctor. I've had private health insurance since forever. Guess what, when I switch insurance (because my company switches plans, for example), I have to switch physicians.

[mtdjed]

What is a pre existing condition? Birth Defects, early childhood diseases such as pneumonia, alcoholism, drug addiction, sexually transmitted diseases, pregnancy,
attempted suicides, self mutilation. Now Covid-19. This argument ultimately leads to everything in certain minds.

Covid 19 is something that a person could have obtained through irresponsible activities.

If I attempt to rob a store and get shot and paralyzed, does that become a pre existing condition?

A very slippery slope to deal with.

[jebartle]

Bottom line with wealthy conservatives, eliminating ACA, will be a tremendous tax cut to add to their bank account, to hell with those that can not afford Healthcare, especially if they have a pre-existing condition, period.

[dewilson58]

OMG, people. Get a grip and LISTEN to the facts. On 11/10, SCOTUS is going to hear arguments about the Constitutionality of ACA. THERE WILL BE NO DECISION ON THAT DATE! These are presentations before the Court only. The decision may not come down until next June.

And what every panicked poster on this thread forgets is that it is Congress that makes the law. So, if SCOTUS says ACA is Unconstitutional sometime next year, the fix is simple. Congress can fix the defect. Any comment to the contrary is nothing more than political hyperbole and fear mongering.


:bigbow:

[donfey]

May I clarify — what is happening now is the case that is about to be heard has the goal of completely dismantling the protection that says insurance companies cannot deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions.

This is not about people wanting a free ride.

This is about people who want to be able to buy “a ticket to ride.” ‘Buy’ is the operative word.

We are a nation of amnesiacs. There was a time when people who were trying to buy insurance on the open market — before the pre-existing conditions protection — either could not find coverage — or if they did find it, but needed to use it, they faced loophole after loophole.

We are very close to going back to that but people are not paying attention. The case is circling to land.

There are a lot of hardworking people who stand to lose healthcare coverage — when all they want is to be able to buy decent, affordable health insurance.

At this point, Me, Me, Me and mine have what we need. But I dare to care about those who do not. It is not fair to penalize people for pre-existing conditions by making healthcare practically unavailable to them. In fact, to do that is just plain cruel.

Cassandra Boomer

Years ago, when changing from one insurance company to another, an "existing condition" was covered by the first insurance company for some period of time. Thus, when my wife was pregnant and I changed jobs, the "old" company covered costs through delivery. After that she and the baby the "new" company. I'm in favor of THAT kind of a system.

On the other hand, if a person or family is or was unable to obtain sufficient medical insurance, I'd expect (and support) a basic and necessary level of coverage to be provided by society. That means government. Taxpayer funded. I would NOT expect such basic coverage to include elective surgery or care.

Lastly, if a person/family was able to purchase health care and CHOSE not to do so, why should a health plan, private or government, be FORCED to "insure" them? If it's just "the right thing to do," how about mandating automobile insurance after a crash, or fire insurance after a fire, to compensate for damage already done? What's the difference?

[Bay Kid]

Unaffordable care act. My great, private family insurance went from around $500. per month to over $1,500. per month for crappy insurance. Thanks government for taking care of those big, bad insurance companies.