Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 21:29:39 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2017 15:02:42 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 I worked for a 5-person consulting firm from 1995-1997 and one company said they'd cover only 3 of us. Not the senior guy because he was over 70 (not sure why he wasn't on Medicare) and not the guy in his 30s because he was on anti-depressants. We did find another policy that covered everyone. One other thought because I'm feeling a little panicky, too- EXTREMELY unlikely that they can mess with whatever we've signed on to as of January 1 so we're OK through the end of this year. In my case, I'm eligible for Medicare early next year but I still worry about all the people who are unemployed, retired early, contract workers, PT workers... repealing major provisions of Obamacare just doesn't make sense.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,049
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Jan 12, 2017 15:30:25 GMT -5
Fine. Maybe when they're doing my mammogram tomorrow I'll ask if they can squeeze my leg in there as a freebie. we only do this because we love you... and we want to hear more chicken stories.
|
|
emma1420
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2011 15:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,430
|
Post by emma1420 on Jan 12, 2017 17:39:25 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 I worked for a 5-person consulting firm from 1995-1997 and one company said they'd cover only 3 of us. Not the senior guy because he was over 70 (not sure why he wasn't on Medicare) and not the guy in his 30s because he was on anti-depressants. We did find another policy that covered everyone. One other thought because I'm feeling a little panicky, too- EXTREMELY unlikely that they can mess with whatever we've signed on to as of January 1 so we're OK through the end of this year. In my case, I'm eligible for Medicare early next year but I still worry about all the people who are unemployed, retired early, contract workers, PT workers... repealing major provisions of Obamacare just doesn't make sense. I worry about those people as well. Especially, as the age to qualify for medicare may go up (which I'd prefer over the GOP's choices to "reform" medicare).
|
|
muttleynfelix
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:32:52 GMT -5
Posts: 9,406
|
Post by muttleynfelix on Jan 12, 2017 17:56:35 GMT -5
Of course not. But do you really think everything is all roses and happy songs now? I have a very good income but if I were to become unemployed I honestly couldn't afford the co-pays that come along with obamacare plans...and unfortunately I'm not poor enough to get these major subsidies. So healthcare is no more affordable for me than it was before. The one major bonus is the pre-existing condition is now gone.
Thanks
Tina
The pre-existing condition stipulation was good. Why should I have to subsidize someone else's problem? My husband had an issue that developed over time. When it finally got so bad that he went to the doctor, the insurance company determined it was a preexisting condition and denied the claims for therapy and an MRI (after the fact). We were on the hook for about $3k in med bills we weren't expecting. This was 9 (?) Years ago. Now we'd be in the hook for that much because of deductibles etc, but at least we would expect it. Sometimes it isn't clear cut what is pretty existing and what isnt.
|
|
alabamagal
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 11:30:29 GMT -5
Posts: 8,147
|
Post by alabamagal on Jan 12, 2017 18:09:35 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. I am waiting for a new and improved machine where they don't have to squeeze the crap out of you.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,385
|
Post by movingforward on Jan 12, 2017 18:14:48 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. I am waiting for a new and improved machine where they don't have to squeeze the crap out of you. Me too! I got excited when they told me they have a new technology. I thought maybe it wasn't going to squeeze the crap of me, but no...still does I have thick breast tissue so sometimes I have to go back in for a 2nd one, which makes me nuts. They do a 2nd one and then end up doing an ultrasound. Why don't they just do the freaking ultrasound
|
|
quince
Senior Member
Joined: Sept 23, 2011 17:51:12 GMT -5
Posts: 2,699
|
Post by quince on Jan 12, 2017 18:56:24 GMT -5
I've always had coverage, substantially payed by my or husband's employer.
I always wanted catastrophic if I was unemployed, because it would be so much cheaper, as I had access to enough cash to pay the deductibles on catastrophic plans.
I'm still delighted by the ACA and worried about what might happen, because important to me:
No plan max: Many plans had 1-2 million maximums, which if you have cancer/kidneyfailure/premie is not enough. Yay to medicine having more people survive, but that shit is spendy.
No worries about preexisting conditions: I cared about this even before my kid was diagnosed as ASD. I didn't have any previously, but age increases likelihood of prex. Now that I have a kid on the spectrum, I have financial incentive to have a preference for this. Our independent premiums would probably be >10K a month or just not be able to find insurance at all. Or maybe we could get one with a mental health exclusion for a reasonable price. Glad I don't need to find out right this moment.
I expect insurance to be expensive. I was "happy" to pay it even before I had high utilization. I'm also "happy" to use a HSA, and have incentive to actively monitor and make decisions about my healthcare costs. I'm delighted paying our high deductible, because I know the alternative is to actually pay for all the care, and we frankly can't at this point.
I'm hoping our utilization decreases now that I'm done with baby-having. Hoping my son outgrows his need for massive hours of therapy. I'll be happy to pay premium only.
|
|
daisy
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 24, 2013 0:43:49 GMT -5
Posts: 739
|
Post by daisy on Jan 12, 2017 19:26:54 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. Yep and my cancer was supposed to be a benign cyst so I'm on the side of getting it checked out ASAP!
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on Jan 12, 2017 19:32:27 GMT -5
I am waiting for a new and improved machine where they don't have to squeeze the crap out of you. Me too! I got excited when they told me they have a new technology. I thought maybe it wasn't going to squeeze the crap of me, but no...still does I have thick breast tissue so sometimes I have to go back in for a 2nd one, which makes me nuts. They do a 2nd one and then end up doing an ultrasound. Why don't they just do the freaking ultrasound Your doctor can demand that they do. I've skipped part one and done the second for years now.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 21:29:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2017 20:28:17 GMT -5
My cancer was suppose to be a lipoma. That was my first diagnosis. Yep and my cancer was supposed to be a benign cyst so I'm on the side of getting it checked out ASAP! Now you all are freaking me out even more. Basically even if they say it's nothing I need to be stressed? Awesome.
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,870
Member is Online
|
Post by NastyWoman on Jan 12, 2017 20:53:18 GMT -5
Well anyone with ACA insurance better hope they not have any "pre-existing conditions", or kids under 26 on their insurance, or...they will be SOL:
Last night, Republicans:
blocked an amendment that would have protected people with pre-existing conditions blocked an amendment that makes it easier for young people to stay on their parent’s plans until they are 26 blocked an amendment allowing contraception to be covered under health insurance blocked an amendment protecting the expansion of Medicaid blocked an amendment that would make it easier for children to be covered under Medicare/CHIP blocked an amendment that would make it harder to keep veterans from getting coverage from the VA
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Jan 12, 2017 21:00:45 GMT -5
Last night, Republicans:
blocked an amendment allowing contraception to be covered under health insurance
Really? So no insurance plan is allowed to cover contraception? I suspect that's a mistype and that the amendment was a requirement for health insurance to cover contraception.
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,870
Member is Online
|
Post by NastyWoman on Jan 12, 2017 21:11:17 GMT -5
milee that would be my guess too, but I did not want to make any changes to the report. Still even if you and I are correct, as I think we are, that is a stupid decision considering the fact that they also want to reduce the number of kids dependent on medicaid etc. IMO this is a penny wise -pound foolish decision
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on Jan 12, 2017 21:46:48 GMT -5
My health insurance never paid for bc. I remember thinking it was dumb because it was cheaper than me having a baby but insurance never did.
|
|
dee27
Senior Member
Joined: Sept 28, 2016 21:08:12 GMT -5
Posts: 2,211
|
Post by dee27 on Jan 12, 2017 22:00:12 GMT -5
My health insurance never paid for bc. I remember thinking it was dumb because it was cheaper than me having a baby but insurance never did. My insurance did not pay either.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 21:29:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2017 22:12:10 GMT -5
Mine always covered birth control. It wasn't 100% like it is now, but it was just a regular prescription copay like any other script.
|
|
daisy
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 24, 2013 0:43:49 GMT -5
Posts: 739
|
Post by daisy on Jan 12, 2017 22:37:43 GMT -5
Yep and my cancer was supposed to be a benign cyst so I'm on the side of getting it checked out ASAP! Now you all are freaking me out even more. Basically even if they say it's nothing I need to be stressed? Awesome. Medicine is not perfect, I'm sure you know that . We just want you to go get checked and not let it hang out there like I almost did. Don't let them tell you it's nothing - it's a lipoma or a cyst that they can excise...it's something and you are better off knowing exactly what it is. Mine was a 'cyst' in my left breast...according to the mammogram, and it was only when it grew significantly in a matter of months that an ultrasound said cancer. That led to treatment, which saved my life, 8 years ago this month. Not saying this to scare you, it's just kind of a soapbox I have when someone mentions 'having a lump'.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Jan 12, 2017 22:41:55 GMT -5
I have several friends that do just that, When they go in tell that they will be paying cash, the cost drop a lot! Not here it doesn't. If you want to pay in cash you have to pay 100% of the costs UP FRONT. That's non-insurance adjusted costs too. So if DH had wanted to pay cash for his MRI that would have been $5725 at the desk upon sign on or they would have refused to do the procedure. Sometimes hospitals will negociate with you rather than put you on a payment plan but it has to be a certain percentage of what you owe as determined by the hospital. You don't get to set the price. I posted here that My Grandson, wanted to borrow $6000. because of the deductible on his Obamacare insurance package. So where did Obamacare help him?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 21:29:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2017 22:46:53 GMT -5
It didn't cost him 60k?
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Jan 12, 2017 23:13:10 GMT -5
He still didn't see a Dr.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 21:29:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2017 23:17:39 GMT -5
What? Then why did he need 6000?
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,870
Member is Online
|
Post by NastyWoman on Jan 13, 2017 1:57:56 GMT -5
My health insurance never paid for bc. I remember thinking it was dumb because it was cheaper than me having a baby but insurance never did. Mine always did and I am older than you. That may be part of the reason why teen pregnancy in my country has always been lower than it is here in the US.
|
|
gooddecisions
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:42:28 GMT -5
Posts: 2,418
|
Post by gooddecisions on Jan 13, 2017 6:57:41 GMT -5
My health insurance never paid for bc. I remember thinking it was dumb because it was cheaper than me having a baby but insurance never did. This is real disappointment. I remember thinking it was cheaper to just have an abortion than pay $50+/month for a pill. Hopefully there will be some $4 generic options available at the pharmacy again. I'm extremely disappointed. This is not making America great again. I don't have pre-existing conditions (that I know of) and I am healthy (as far as I know). But, my mom got the run around by insurance companies for the liver transplant she needed to survive an auto-immune disease. She died at 43.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on Jan 13, 2017 7:45:33 GMT -5
Mine was plain old Norinyl at $30 a month.
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Jan 13, 2017 8:45:52 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. No you can't unless maternity coverage goes away for everyone. That is how insurance works. A large group of people get banded together and as a group use a smaller amount of coverage. If you peel out groups of people to remove coverage like with maternity coverage then it simply goes away for everyone. This is like flood insurance. Once companies were allowed to remove it from their home owners policies it simply went away and the only one left to "insure" against it was the gov. Maternity coverage is the same thing. In the states that allowed it to be added separately only the people who thought they were going to use it ever bought it and not often even then because of how insanely expensive it was. As a result in those states the gov paid for the vast majority of all births that weren't covered by a group health insurance. Which for the record doesn't allow people to I cut out that maternity coverage and get a discount.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Jan 13, 2017 8:50:34 GMT -5
This is the part I don't agree with. Pre-ACA, plenty of insurance plans covered contraception. Some covered 100% with no copay (just like what is required under the ACA), some treated it like any other RX so required a copay and some didn't cover BC at all. Why wouldn't this be the case in the future? Why assume that most wouldn't cover BC at all?
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Jan 13, 2017 9:00:57 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. No you can't unless maternity coverage goes away for everyone. That is how insurance works. A large group of people get banded together and as a group use a smaller amount of coverage. If you peel out groups of people to remove coverage like with maternity coverage then it simply goes away for everyone. This is like flood insurance. Once companies were allowed to remove it from their home owners policies it simply went away and the only one left to "insure" against it was the gov. Maternity coverage is the same thing. In the states that allowed it to be added separately only the people who thought they were going to use it ever bought it and not often even then because of how insanely expensive it was. Not even remotely true. Pre-ACA, you could purchase plans with or without maternity coverage. I know - I still have (a grandfathered) one. Pre-ACA you could price out insurance based on what types of coverage you wanted. My guess is that an 85 year old man wouldn't get much of a price break on excluding maternity coverage from his plan since the actuarial assumptions would pretty much already provide for the fact that he wouldn't be giving birth. But for me as a woman in her 30's and now 40s, the premium difference between plans that had maternity coverage and those that didn't was substantial. As for the assumption that if I had gotten pregnant that the state would have paid for my care - again, not true. I could have covered the costs of my first two births out of my assets, and would have had to do the same if I'd had a third baby with no maternity coverage. Not everybody is a deadbeat with no savings.
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Jan 13, 2017 9:15:20 GMT -5
No you can't unless maternity coverage goes away for everyone. That is how insurance works. A large group of people get banded together and as a group use a smaller amount of coverage. If you peel out groups of people to remove coverage like with maternity coverage then it simply goes away for everyone. This is like flood insurance. Once companies were allowed to remove it from their home owners policies it simply went away and the only one left to "insure" against it was the gov. Maternity coverage is the same thing. In the states that allowed it to be added separately only the people who thought they were going to use it ever bought it and not often even then because of how insanely expensive it was. Not even remotely true. Pre-ACA, you could purchase plans with or without maternity coverage. I know - I still have (a grandfathered) one. Pre-ACA you could price out insurance based on what types of coverage you wanted. My guess is that an 85 year old man wouldn't get much of a price break on excluding maternity coverage from his plan since the actuarial assumptions would pretty much already provide for the fact that he wouldn't be giving birth. But for me as a woman in her 30's and now 40s, the premium difference between plans that had maternity coverage and those that didn't was substantial. As for the assumption that if I had gotten pregnant that the state would have paid for my care - again, not true. I could have covered the costs of my first two births out of my assets, and would have had to do the same if I'd had a third baby with no maternity coverage. Not everybody is a deadbeat with no savings. I didn't say every person I said the vast majority and that stands.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Jan 13, 2017 9:31:51 GMT -5
Guess I'm missing the phrase "vast majority" in there when you flatly state that maternity coverage goes away and "that is how insurance works." Even the quote shows that maternity coverage doesn't go away, it shows that it is an expensive rider that few people choose to purchase. Yeah, maternity care is expensive - why would we think it somehow becomes free because we want it to be? This is the very heart of the problem with the ACA - healthcare is expensive and there's no way to wave the magic wand to make it inexpensive.
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Jan 13, 2017 9:45:55 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. No you can't unless maternity coverage goes away for everyone. That is how insurance works. A large group of people get banded together and as a group use a smaller amount of coverage. If you peel out groups of people to remove coverage like with maternity coverage then it simply goes away for everyone. This is like flood insurance. Once companies were allowed to remove it from their home owners policies it simply went away and the only one left to "insure" against it was the gov. Maternity coverage is the same thing. In the states that allowed it to be added separately only the people who thought they were going to use it ever bought it and not often even then because of how insanely expensive it was. As a result in those states the gov paid for the vast majority of all births that weren't covered by a group health insurance. Which for the record doesn't allow people to I cut out that maternity coverage and get a discount. Quoting my own post since you choose to edit it when you quoted it.
|
|