[Kilmacowen]

Originally Posted by Marshaw

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]

Originally Posted by claricecolin

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 No plan is known exactly how this will be protected if aca is repealed.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]

Originally Posted by Boomer

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=lkagele;1834930]

Originally Posted by Boomer

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]

Originally Posted by Bucco

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]

Originally Posted by skarra

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]

Originally Posted by Aloha1

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]

Originally Posted by Bucco

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]

Originally Posted by Aloha1

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by vilger

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]

Originally Posted by Dahabs

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]

Originally Posted by skarra

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."

Originally Posted by Carla B

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

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