Show of HandsShow of Hands

Squidboy June 8th, 2018 5:09pm

~1 in 4 people have a pre-existing medical condition. Under the ACA, insurance companies can’t deny coverage to people w pre-existing conditions & there are limits on how much they can charge. Good or bad law?

20 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

timeout Boston Strong
06/08/18 11:33 am

It’s been the mission of the republicans to get rid of Obamacare (ACA) since it’s conception but have nothing to replace it with. The ACA should not only be continued but expanded.

Reply
cynicalkat
06/08/18 11:48 am

If you’re born with a “pre-existing” condition how are you supposed to buy insurance?

Reply
timeout Boston Strong
06/08/18 11:45 am

All of which have been shot down by both parties. You think you’re paying too much for insurance now, get rid of Obamacare. 30 million people covered that normally wouldn’t be...good luck with that ER visit if it goes.

Btw wasn’t this supposed to be gone on day one.

Reply
Zod Above Pugetropolis
06/08/18 11:01 am

The definitions and assurances of obtainable and affordable coverage are essentially the whole point of the ACA, or are at least the main point, by far. But, the entire law is associated with the black president, so it obviously cannot be allowed to stand. More profit for the middleman "insurers" and their shareholders who add nothing is just a bonus.

Reply
Squidboy Snarkapottamus
06/08/18 11:58 am

The individual mandate requires everyone to have insurance. Same thing we do with car insurance.

Reply
MannIsMe Did You Assume My Party
06/08/18 10:36 am

The concept behind insurance:

An investment to reduce the financial impact of future problems.

A pre-existing condition is not a future problem.

A person with a pre-existing condition isn't asking for an insurance policy, they're asking for help with their bills.

Reply
Squidboy Snarkapottamus
06/08/18 4:19 pm

A giant GOP fuck you to America. Great for insurance companies though since they will no longer have to insure sick people.

Reply
wearemonkeys77 Lest We Forget... Hodor
06/08/18 12:00 pm

Evidence for that claim and a motive

Reply
Squidboy Snarkapottamus
06/08/18 10:31 am

Yes or no to the question? Should your insurer be able to deny you coverage or jack up your costs if you have a pre-existing condition?

Reply
AdamStephens West Virginia
06/08/18 11:20 am

Many of these people were. see, in a free market the insurance company isn't obligated to keep you as a customer once you develop a problem. And before the ACA of you got cancer the insurance company can kick you off, now where are you going to go. That's the thing about insurance companies, what happens if your house gets hit with a hurricane and you have hurricane insurance? The insurance company can say most of the damage was flood damage, which you don't have. It happens all the time. When you become more of a loabaility as a customer the easiest thing is to make you not a customer any more.

Reply
Squidboy Snarkapottamus
06/08/18 6:57 pm

The trump administration wants to remove pre-existing condition protection. Good or bad idea?

Reply
Squidboy Snarkapottamus
06/08/18 2:24 pm

Getting cancer is not the same as being a crappy driver. That being said, you can be charged more if you smoke.

Reply
MannIsMe Did You Assume My Party
06/08/18 11:16 am

Get insurance before you're medical needs arise.

Reply
ozzy
06/08/18 2:05 pm

This only applies if you do NOT have insurance and then look for insurance. Your first year will be in a higher risk category. The ACA did nothing to help this, because having insurance was mandated.

Reply
Nemacyst No Lives Matter
06/08/18 2:10 pm

This user is currently being ignored

Reply
JustHarry FL
06/08/18 3:48 pm

Those sweet, tender Trump Republican’s are replacing ACA and medical insurance rates will be increased, covering pre-existing conditions will be removed.

Reply
Squidboy Snarkapottamus
06/08/18 10:55 am

Fair enough interpretation. Was meant to focus just on pre existing conditions. Would you keep this or get rid of it.

Reply
ozzy
06/08/18 2:05 pm

Free market solutions.

Reply
ozzy
06/08/18 2:06 pm

Evidence: David Grover - the architect of the ACA said so (on tape)

Reply
ozzy
06/08/18 2:06 pm

Gruber

Reply
cynicalkat
06/08/18 11:47 am

Then why wouldn’t people just wait until they got sick to purchase insurance?

Reply
ozzy
06/08/18 2:20 pm

Perfect analogy Nemmy !

Reply
evoecon nearest binary system
06/10/18 7:52 am

The prior law governed moving from one health insurance carrier to another.

The ACA does force a private entity into giving a person money for their previously uninsured illness.

Reply
bluerum29 optimistic idealist
06/08/18 4:12 pm

Those portions of it are good yes.

Reply
WorstGooEver Nuke the Hurricanes
06/08/18 2:47 pm

So your preferred system is the 🤷‍♂️ Plan....

Reply
AdamStephens West Virginia
06/08/18 11:10 am

I'm not sure what the solution to this is then.

MannIsMe Did You Assume My Party
06/08/18 2:53 pm

Not sure what that means, but odds are you nailed it.

Zod Above Pugetropolis
06/08/18 4:39 pm

The negative parts of that are exactly why the ACA was created. Health costs didn’t just start going up in 2014 when those parts of the ACA went into effect. And pharma in this country has been tantamount to organized crime for most of my adult life, if not longer. I do agree it was a weak step. It should have started with creating Medicare for all and outlawing for profit "insurance".

evoecon nearest binary system
06/08/18 6:51 pm

There was a pre-ACA law prohibiting health carriers from denying pre-existing conditions. Plus, the ACA only transferred the higher premium cost to Americans in the form of higher taxes and/or higher product prices.

Only the fooled believe the ACA is a good thing.

ladyniner81 no hope for humanity
06/10/18 1:31 pm

So in other words spend your life savings going to another country to get care because the death panels refuse to cover it because Congress wants their paychecks. 'Murica

evoecon nearest binary system
06/08/18 6:58 pm

The administration wants to reverse the ACA language. That I support.

commonman1 Peace
06/09/18 10:13 pm

Let’s define pre existing conditions. Is it I’m paying for insurance so they can’t deny me. Or I’ve never paid for insurance and now I got cancer?

Zod Above Pugetropolis
06/08/18 5:25 pm

I'm disappointed with it too, and am not defending it over what it should have been, only over what we used to have - which was nothing. And worse. Without doing the right thing, outlawing for-profit "insurance", the ACA did at least address the three very most important things, which were making sure your family didn’t lose health coverage if you lost or changed your job, and making sure a pre-existing condition wouldn’t keep you from getting the same health insurance you'd have been able to get otherwise, and making sure you could get health insurance if you were self or unemployed. The ACA was never the goal, it was just a good first step. Implementing Medicare for all, outlawing for profit health "insurance", and very heavily regulating the pharmaceutical cartel would have been a better first step, but they didn’t leave it up to me.

.

JustHarry FL
06/08/18 3:52 pm

The administration said it agrees with Texas that the so-called individual mandate will be unconstitutional without the fine. It also said that provisions shielding people with medical conditions from being denied coverage or charged higher premiums and limiting how much insurers can charge older Americans should fall as well.

Zod Above Pugetropolis
06/08/18 3:59 pm

I'd have gotten rid of health "insurance" on the first day as the second step. All of the other players profiting in the healthcare business are at least contributing something, even if at too high a cost. Even if also participating in what should be criminal collusion, as when a pharmaceutical company pays other manufacturers to NOT make the generic to keep the price of the branded drug high, even after it goes off patent. The "insurer" on the other hand, takes the profit in exchange for nothing but higher prices and more paperwork for patients and providers alike. There is a LOT of room to reduce prices, but the very first step is making the care available, which it just isn’t to any but the very wealthy as long as "insurers" are still extracting profit, and are allowed to overcharge even more than they already do without them (or deny coverage altogether) for pre-existing conditions.

.

commonsense America isnt racist
06/11/18 8:24 am

Very bad for a company to make profits. Bad for business.

MannIsMe Did You Assume My Party
06/08/18 12:08 pm

In that case, I suppose some people are very unlucky and are doomed to live a joyless, costly life, in and out of Mexican hospitals.