justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jan 12, 2017 11:34:37 GMT -5
Pre-ACA, DH and I purchased health insurance policies directly. It was a bit more OOP than we paid in our employer-supplied insurance (we retired very early), but manageable. ACA caused our premiums (for effectively the same policy) to be 2.5x our pre-ACA policy. Yes, there are a couple of things included in an ACA policy at no charge (e.g. annual checkup) that would have been paid OOP (but still at the insurance-company negotiated rate). However, our insurer had started to cover some things that were preventive in nature at no- to little-cost. Don't get me wrong - I believe that something needs to be done that effectively coveres those with pre-existing conditions. And the program that existed to reimburse hospitals for covering those unable to afford payments should be reinstituted (and probably expanded to include walk-in health clinics). However, purchasing health insurance should be an option as opposed to mandatory - IMO that would get health insurance premiums back down to a reasonable amount so that other taxpayers do not have to subsidize the rest of us so significantly. Just my $.02. Removing the mandate most likely wouldn't bring the costs down. From what I've read, a problem the exchange is having is too many healthy and young people are choosing to buy healthcare so instead the only people joining are the sick and the old. When the majority of the people in the pool are making claims...costs have to go up to cover it. I also read something about how the government was supposed to help backfill the costs when that happened but either they decided not to or congress blocked that part - I forget which. Now, removing the rule that old people will only pay five times as much might help with the costs and enrollment. Or at least it would for the younger healthier people.
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Jan 12, 2017 11:42:26 GMT -5
I can't see all of the ACA going away. I think the consequences to the public and the disruption to the medical services industry would be too great. But, I could see a roll back of some provisions, such as the requirement that my 85 year old father pay for maternity coverage.
|
|
alabamagal
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 11:30:29 GMT -5
Posts: 8,147
|
Post by alabamagal on Jan 12, 2017 11:46:25 GMT -5
Pre-ACA, DH and I purchased health insurance policies directly. It was a bit more OOP than we paid in our employer-supplied insurance (we retired very early), but manageable. ACA caused our premiums (for effectively the same policy) to be 2.5x our pre-ACA policy. Yes, there are a couple of things included in an ACA policy at no charge (e.g. annual checkup) that would have been paid OOP (but still at the insurance-company negotiated rate). However, our insurer had started to cover some things that were preventive in nature at no- to little-cost. Don't get me wrong - I believe that something needs to be done that effectively coveres those with pre-existing conditions. And the program that existed to reimburse hospitals for covering those unable to afford payments should be reinstituted (and probably expanded to include walk-in health clinics). However, purchasing health insurance should be an option as opposed to mandatory - IMO that would get health insurance premiums back down to a reasonable amount so that other taxpayers do not have to subsidize the rest of us so significantly. Just my $.02. Removing the mandate most likely wouldn't bring the costs down. From what I've read, a problem the exchange is having is too many healthy and young people are choosing NOT to buy healthcare so instead the only people joining are the sick and the old. When the majority of the people in the pool are making claims...costs have to go up to cover it. I also read something about how the government was supposed to help backfill the costs when that happened but either they decided not to or congress blocked that part - I forget which. Now, removing the rule that old people will only pay five times as much might help with the costs and enrollment. Or at least it would for the younger healthier people. You missed a word, I added in bold
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jan 12, 2017 11:52:39 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic.
I know but I was asking if he thought everything was rosy now
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS!!!!!!!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,617
|
Post by swamp on Jan 12, 2017 11:59:39 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic.
I know but I was asking if he thought everything was rosy now Something will always suck for someone at some time.
|
|
emma1420
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2011 15:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,430
|
Post by emma1420 on Jan 12, 2017 12:02:30 GMT -5
ICAM about this. One of the things I liked the most about the ACA was that preventive care didn't have co-pays. And that there was a provision in the bill for health outcomes, which I personally thought was important as the model is now fee-for-service and so financially rewards physicians for conducting unnecessary tests and procedures. I believe whatever the GOP comes up with next needs to include preventive care with no co-pays, no lifetime caps, and inability to discriminate against pre-existing conditions. The problem is that the GOP has had 8 years to come up with a plan to replace the ACA, and have not. What makes you think that they will have a replacement next month....or even next year? The fact that they just repealed the pre-existing exclusions last night is scary as shit, because there is NOTHING waiting in the wings. I don't believe for a moment that they have any sort of viable plan. The ACA was their plan before the democrats co-oped it. Everything that they have suggested so far pretty much takes everyone to before the ACA. And healthcare costs were rising rapidly before the ACA. It's not like everything was hunky dorky. I believe that the GOP will repeal the ACA and then they won't replace it at all. Because, as you've said, they've had 8 years to come up with a plan that the caucus can agree upon and they've come up with diddly squat. And healthcare is hard. If it was easy it would have been done years ago. It will be even more difficult for the GOP now, because the expectation is for the inclusion of the popular provisions within the ACA, but without the mandate, and without the expense.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jan 12, 2017 12:06:34 GMT -5
The thing I'm dumbfounded on is they're just starting now to come up with a plan. This has been their goal for years, but no one came up with a damn plan?
Surprised no low on the totem pole person hadn't been quietly working on this while they had no clout to do anything. I totally would have.
|
|
buystoys
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 30, 2012 4:58:12 GMT -5
Posts: 5,650
|
Post by buystoys on Jan 12, 2017 12:10:17 GMT -5
Well, I just did a quick search and found multiple proposals: 1st link, 2nd linkSo it looks to me like there have been several "plans" put out there over the last few years, but nothing has gained traction with ACA already in place. It will be interesting to see what we end up with.
|
|
garion2003
Familiar Member
Joined: Feb 20, 2011 15:48:25 GMT -5
Posts: 758
|
Post by garion2003 on Jan 12, 2017 12:29:22 GMT -5
First, I don't think they can just ACA. Too many people rely on it and the economic consequences (to individuals as well as to providers and taxpayers) of yanking coverage from a huge group of the population would be a disaster.Anyway- pre-ACA they could also have lifetime caps on what they paid- which you wouldn't know till they stopped paying on your chemo in the middle of it, or whatever. There was also the nasty practice of "post-claim underwriting". The sleazier companies would insure you but when you developed something expensive they'd go back through your medical records with a fine-toothed comb and find something you left off the application and say that your policy was void and give you back all your premiums. One example I read about: a single mother insured herself and her 3-year old son. He developed leukemia. They determined that she hadn't mentioned that she'd been on anti-depressants once years ago, so her application was fraudulent and they had no coverage. This presumes logical and rational thinking, with a focus on doing what is right for all people, not just a certain group, party, or political agenda.
I think the GOP should just put in place "Romneycare". It should satisfy anyone except those who want single payer.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jan 12, 2017 12:31:21 GMT -5
Well I know they've tried to float one or two. But the way they currently talk it sounds like they're starting from scratch.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,488
|
Post by Tiny on Jan 12, 2017 12:45:41 GMT -5
First, I don't think they can just ACA. Too many people rely on it and the economic consequences (to individuals as well as to providers and taxpayers) of yanking coverage from a huge group of the population would be a disaster.Anyway- pre-ACA they could also have lifetime caps on what they paid- which you wouldn't know till they stopped paying on your chemo in the middle of it, or whatever. There was also the nasty practice of "post-claim underwriting". The sleazier companies would insure you but when you developed something expensive they'd go back through your medical records with a fine-toothed comb and find something you left off the application and say that your policy was void and give you back all your premiums. One example I read about: a single mother insured herself and her 3-year old son. He developed leukemia. They determined that she hadn't mentioned that she'd been on anti-depressants once years ago, so her application was fraudulent and they had no coverage. But, what if the majority of the population that will suffer from it's repeal cannot vote? Or live in a place that's been jerrymandered in such a way that their vote is useless?
I suspect the Republicans don't really care about the people who will be hurt by the repeal and NON-replacement - since they don't really have much of a voice in government. That's kind of the juxtaposition of weirdness that I see with the election - people who needed the help of the government seem to have VOTED to have the stuff that was potentially helping them taken away. I'm not really sure they have the resources available to wait the 3 or 4 or 5 years for all the new jobs Trump promised to arrive and solve their problems (of no money/no insurance).
I think a lot of people are going to hurting for the next few years - and I'm not sure things will be better for them after those years pass....
I think for the people who are financially secure (or feel they have a secure job) - they will weather the Trump years without too much pain. The pain only happens if some unexpected "life happens" thing happens - and then they are just at the mercy of "life".
|
|
emma1420
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2011 15:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,430
|
Post by emma1420 on Jan 12, 2017 12:51:19 GMT -5
The thing I'm dumbfounded on is they're just starting now to come up with a plan. This has been their goal for years, but no one came up with a damn plan? Surprised no low on the totem pole person hadn't been quietly working on this while they had no clout to do anything. I totally would have. They've come up with multiple plans. It's just that the GOP caucus hasn't coalesced around one plan. And none of the plans proposed so far include all the popular provisions that are included in the ACA. Tom Price's (the future HHS) plan is probably what we will end up with. Price's plan allows people with pre-existing conditions to keep their coverage, but they must have at least 18 months of continuous coverage, and if they drop their coverage for any reason then they lose their guarantee to insurance. IIt provides tax credits to help people pay for health insurance, but it's based on age, not income, and it's capped at something like $3500 for the oldest age bracket. It also includes tort reform, I believe. The complete bill is available at www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/2300/textOne of the major stumbling blocks about healthcare is that too many people in this country want something for nothing. Most people in this country want high quality care that is cheap, but doesn't require them to have insurance, pay more in taxes, or have limited choices. And, unfortunately, that doesn't exist, and I don't think it every will. Well, and personally until healthcare is seen as a right rather than a privilege, then I don't see that changing.
|
|
emma1420
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2011 15:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,430
|
Post by emma1420 on Jan 12, 2017 12:55:32 GMT -5
First, I don't think they can just ACA. Too many people rely on it and the economic consequences (to individuals as well as to providers and taxpayers) of yanking coverage from a huge group of the population would be a disaster.Anyway- pre-ACA they could also have lifetime caps on what they paid- which you wouldn't know till they stopped paying on your chemo in the middle of it, or whatever. There was also the nasty practice of "post-claim underwriting". The sleazier companies would insure you but when you developed something expensive they'd go back through your medical records with a fine-toothed comb and find something you left off the application and say that your policy was void and give you back all your premiums. One example I read about: a single mother insured herself and her 3-year old son. He developed leukemia. They determined that she hadn't mentioned that she'd been on anti-depressants once years ago, so her application was fraudulent and they had no coverage. But, what if the majority of the population that will suffer from it's repeal cannot vote? Or live in a place that's been jerrymandered in such a way that their vote is useless?
I suspect the Republicans don't really care about the people who will be hurt by the repeal and NON-replacement - since they don't really have much of a voice in government. That's kind of the juxtaposition of weirdness that I see with the election - people who needed the help of the government seem to have VOTED to have the stuff that was potentially helping them taken away. I'm not really sure they have the resources available to wait the 3 or 4 or 5 years for all the new jobs Trump promised to arrive and solve their problems (of no money/no insurance).
I think a lot of people are going to hurting for the next few years - and I'm not sure things will be better for them after those years pass....
I think for the people who are financially secure (or feel they have a secure job) - they will weather the Trump years without too much pain. The pain only happens if some unexpected "life happens" thing happens - and then they are just at the mercy of "life".
This is a great article that really outlines the mindset about many people who are on an ACA plan and who voted for Trump. www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/12/13/13848794/kentucky-obamacare-trumpWhile many of them don't like the ACA because of the expense of their premiums and their deductibles, it's clear at least from the article above, that none of them thought what they had now was going to be taken away. I think many people who voted for the GOP felt that the replacement would include the things they like about the ACA and get rid of the things they don't like (the cost, mandate, and the choice limitations).
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Jan 12, 2017 12:58:30 GMT -5
Pre-ACA, DH and I purchased health insurance policies directly. It was a bit more OOP than we paid in our employer-supplied insurance (we retired very early), but manageable. ACA caused our premiums (for effectively the same policy) to be 2.5x our pre-ACA policy. Yes, there are a couple of things included in an ACA policy at no charge (e.g. annual checkup) that would have been paid OOP (but still at the insurance-company negotiated rate). However, our insurer had started to cover some things that were preventive in nature at no- to little-cost. Don't get me wrong - I believe that something needs to be done that effectively coveres those with pre-existing conditions. And the program that existed to reimburse hospitals for covering those unable to afford payments should be reinstituted (and probably expanded to include walk-in health clinics). However, purchasing health insurance should be an option as opposed to mandatory - IMO that would get health insurance premiums back down to a reasonable amount so that other taxpayers do not have to subsidize the rest of us so significantly. Just my $.02. Removing the mandate most likely wouldn't bring the costs down. From what I've read, a problem the exchange is having is too many healthy and young people are choosing to buy healthcare so instead the only people joining are the sick and the old. When the majority of the people in the pool are making claims...costs have to go up to cover it. I also read something about how the government was supposed to help backfill the costs when that happened but either they decided not to or congress blocked that part - I forget which. Now, removing the rule that old people will only pay five times as much might help with the costs and enrollment. Or at least it would for the younger healthier people.It's even worse than that - the ACA limits the policy premiums for the oldest people to only 3 x what insurers charge the youngest people... that's a large part of the problem. The oldest policy holders cost far more than three times the cost of the youngest policy holders so the plans are stuck charging exhorbitant premium rates to the young people (which is why they're not signing up) and abnormally low rates to the older people.
|
|
jeep108
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 20:20:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,056
|
Post by jeep108 on Jan 12, 2017 13:00:50 GMT -5
She was the one that originally prescribed the meds. I don't have a GP. I go to the doctor as little as possible. I'm worried because I have this lump in my leg. I should show her, but I'm afraid I'll end up with an MRI too. I would at least want to get it checked and keep an eye on it. Lumps scare me now that is how my cancer started in my shoulder. Do not blow this off
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 21:35:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2017 13:08:09 GMT -5
She was the one that originally prescribed the meds. I don't have a GP. I go to the doctor as little as possible. I'm worried because I have this lump in my leg. I should show her, but I'm afraid I'll end up with an MRI too. I would at least want to get it checked and keep an eye on it. Lumps scare me now that is how my cancer started in my shoulder. Do not blow this off They scare me too, which is why I DON'T want to get it checked. I know I should. My gut says its just a cyst or something, but it kind of hurts.
|
|
jeep108
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 20:20:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,056
|
Post by jeep108 on Jan 12, 2017 13:14:38 GMT -5
I would at least want to get it checked and keep an eye on it. Lumps scare me now that is how my cancer started in my shoulder. Do not blow this off They scare me too, which is why I DON'T want to get it checked. I know I should. My gut says its just a cyst or something, but it kind of hurts. If it changes shape or gets bigger, get your butt to the doctor.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,385
|
Post by movingforward on Jan 12, 2017 13:23:57 GMT -5
I would at least want to get it checked and keep an eye on it. Lumps scare me now that is how my cancer started in my shoulder. Do not blow this off They scare me too, which is why I DON'T want to get it checked. I know I should. My gut says its just a cyst or something, but it kind of hurts. Don't wait...go now. It is probably just a cyst but the doctor may be able to tell something without an MRI. I had a lump in my ankle a couple of years ago. The doctor was pretty sure it was a cyst but, of course, couldn't be 100% sure. After hearing her opinion I decided to wait on the MRI. I measured the lump weekly to make sure it wasn't getting any bigger. It didn't and eventually it started getting smaller, and eventually disappeared altogether. Sometimes it is good to at least get an opinion. From what she said, cysts are generally softer than tumors. Sometimes they can feel of it and at least give you an opinion of what they "think." Of course, they will ALWAYS recommend an MRI because they don't want to be sued.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jan 12, 2017 13:44:16 GMT -5
Well this timing is fortuitous...
Someone just popped up on my Facebook feed talking about starting up her own business before ACA and how she was denied coverage for a preexisting condition. Her preexisting condition?
Acne
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 21:35:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2017 14:16:30 GMT -5
They scare me too, which is why I DON'T want to get it checked. I know I should. My gut says its just a cyst or something, but it kind of hurts. Don't wait...go now. It is probably just a cyst but the doctor may be able to tell something without an MRI. I had a lump in my ankle a couple of years ago. The doctor was pretty sure it was a cyst but, of course, couldn't be 100% sure. After hearing her opinion I decided to wait on the MRI. I measured the lump weekly to make sure it wasn't getting any bigger. It didn't and eventually it started getting smaller, and eventually disappeared altogether. Sometimes it is good to at least get an opinion. From what she said, cysts are generally softer than tumors. Sometimes they can feel of it and at least give you an opinion of what they "think." Of course, they will ALWAYS recommend an MRI because they don't want to be sued. It's only about the size of a pea, but has been there a long time. I'm guessing months. I at first thought it was a bug bite. It feels like one as far as irritation goes, but it's under the skin, not on top. You have to dig around to find it. I don't know how I'd measure it.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,049
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Jan 12, 2017 14:17:33 GMT -5
She was the one that originally prescribed the meds. I don't have a GP. I go to the doctor as little as possible. I'm worried because I have this lump in my leg. I should show her, but I'm afraid I'll end up with an MRI too. GET THAT CHECKED OUT!!!!!!!! NOW!!!!!!!
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,049
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Jan 12, 2017 14:22:18 GMT -5
I would at least want to get it checked and keep an eye on it. Lumps scare me now that is how my cancer started in my shoulder. Do not blow this off They scare me too, which is why I DON'T want to get it checked. I know I should. My gut says its just a cyst or something, but it kind of hurts. my aunt started out 2 years ago with a small, barely noticeable lump under her ear. It's now almost the size of a softball... and she STILL hasn't gone to get it looked at! Some days I want to chloroform her and her at the hospital so she can get the damn thing removed!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 21:35:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2017 14:24:42 GMT -5
They scare me too, which is why I DON'T want to get it checked. I know I should. My gut says its just a cyst or something, but it kind of hurts. my aunt started out 2 years ago with a small, barely noticeable lump under her ear. It's now almost the size of a softball... and she STILL hasn't gone to get it looked at! Some days I want to chloroform her and her at the hospital so she can get the damn thing removed! But, it's not bothering her, just you right?
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,049
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Jan 12, 2017 14:27:18 GMT -5
my aunt started out 2 years ago with a small, barely noticeable lump under her ear. It's now almost the size of a softball... and she STILL hasn't gone to get it looked at! Some days I want to chloroform her and her at the hospital so she can get the damn thing removed! But, it's not bothering her, just you right? you have two kids that need you healthy! GO!!!
|
|
naughtybear
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 10, 2016 17:03:08 GMT -5
Posts: 996
|
Post by naughtybear on Jan 12, 2017 14:31:27 GMT -5
Could be a lipoma, very common. I would say the likelyhood of it being something dangerous is low.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,049
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Jan 12, 2017 14:33:17 GMT -5
yeah, it's probably nothing so just get it checked out!
|
|
jeep108
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 20:20:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,056
|
Post by jeep108 on Jan 12, 2017 14:35:50 GMT -5
Could be a lipoma, very common. I would say the likelyhood of it being something dangerous is low. My cancer was suppose to be a lipoma. That was my first diagnosis.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,385
|
Post by movingforward on Jan 12, 2017 14:36:05 GMT -5
Don't wait...go now. It is probably just a cyst but the doctor may be able to tell something without an MRI. I had a lump in my ankle a couple of years ago. The doctor was pretty sure it was a cyst but, of course, couldn't be 100% sure. After hearing her opinion I decided to wait on the MRI. I measured the lump weekly to make sure it wasn't getting any bigger. It didn't and eventually it started getting smaller, and eventually disappeared altogether. Sometimes it is good to at least get an opinion. From what she said, cysts are generally softer than tumors. Sometimes they can feel of it and at least give you an opinion of what they "think." Of course, they will ALWAYS recommend an MRI because they don't want to be sued. It's only about the size of a pea, but has been there a long time. I'm guessing months. I at first thought it was a bug bite. It feels like one as far as irritation goes, but it's under the skin, not on top. You have to dig around to find it. I don't know how I'd measure it. If you have the option of going straight to a specialist then it sounds like a dermatologist would be the one to see. That's what I would do. I wouldn't waste time with a GP.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 21:35:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2017 14:36:30 GMT -5
But, it's not bothering her, just you right? you have two kids that need you healthy! GO!!!Fine. Maybe when they're doing my mammogram tomorrow I'll ask if they can squeeze my leg in there as a freebie.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,385
|
Post by movingforward on Jan 12, 2017 15:02:38 GMT -5
I have a mammogram scheduled for Monday. They are supposed to have a new and improved machine that takes a deeper image. My insurance doesn't cover it yet, but it is only $40 out of my pocket so I told them that is fine. I am hoping this will prevent me having to come back in for a 2nd one like last time.
|
|