News Pre-existing conditions

[Deleted member 37474]

Okay... so I was just reading up on this. I am curious, in regards to mental health how this all works when you consider privacy. (I don't even let my therapist share info with my medical doctors as of yet. Wouldn't sign that form.) My current ins. Coverage allows 20 mental health visits a year with copay prior to full pay towards the deductible. I guess my labels aka ptsd and whatever else are listed on my chart. :-( not the cause. But I could see companies dropping mental health altogether if it isn't required by law to be on there. I wonder if that is changing? Plus my whole family has autoimmune issues. And three of us weigh too much. I think it really comes more down to the whole annoyance that if you aren't society's perfect human you won't be able to afford care. Just more stressors to deal with.

 

[Deleted member 541]

So, if this law passes, which I don't think it will the way that it's written now. BUT! Should it pass, then some pre existing conditions wouldn't be covered and then ins company's could charge more for people with certain conditions........Ok so I'm finding this kind of funny, (not really) but I have a SHITLOAD of preexisting conditions. Which one would they charge me for or would it be a combination of ALL of them??? If it's a combination then my premiums would be in the hundreds of thousands and my copay would be in the thousands. I don't make enough money and some months I'm so broke, that I can't afford to PAY ATTENTION!!!!!!

If this law passes, then basically I'm screwed, as are millions more. Supposedly we are a rich nation (ok so we're in debt up to our eyeballs) but health care shouldn't be just for the young and healthy, or the rich.... just saying. I'm frustrated, and a bit scared about where all this is going!!!!

 

[Deleted member 41765]

@TexCat @SheCat OHMY oh my, how embarrassing!! Apologies to you both!

 

[Fadeaway]

+1 for abusers -1,000,000 for victims

At first I felt even more like a victim, but now, that has given way to anger. I am not sure they have though through the consequences of this one.

 

[scout86]

The way I'm understanding the current proposal, it would 'allow the state's the option' of letting states charge puerile with pre-existing conditions more than people without them. I haven't heard a definition of 'pre-existing'. There is also something about charging people more if they go for a period of time without insurance. The idea there, I guess, is to keep people from waiting until they're sick to sign up for insurance. On the 'pre-existing conditions' part, what I've heard the conservatives say is that 'the states will probably leave things like they are.' There more involved, like high risk pools and pays what. It sounds like kind of a shell game to me.

The problem is, health care is expensive and regular people can't afford it. Insurance is expensive too. But, insurance companies don't exist to help people pay for health care. They exist to make money, even if they are, nominally, 'not for profit'. The way to make money is to insure mainly people who won't cost you more money than they pay in. If they are going to cost you money, you either don't want to insure them, or you want to charge enough so you make a profit anyway.

It's more complicated than that, of course. There ARE people who go to the ER for stupid things and don't follow directions, and all that. But I kind of think they are approaching this from the wrong direction.

I wish we could make the politicians get health care the same way the rest of us do. Or sign us all up for their plan.

 

[Deleted member 41765]

Rape as a pre-existing condition? How does that work, any idea?

I am unsure ( a great question) and need to make an attempt to further research (and stop reacting all over the damn place). That said, I believe my news source to be both reputable and fact based.

 

[Deleted member 41765]

I am curious, in regards to mental health how this all works when you consider privacy.

I am curious now as well, and hadn't considered this point. Thank you. And yes, more stressors to add to the pile!

I'm frustrated, and a bit scared about where all this is going!!!!

As am I!!! And I am so grateful for all of these responses (one was off topic and thus unnecessary). It is grounding to realize others are thinking about this.

At first I felt even more like a victim, but now, that has given way to anger. I am not sure they have though through the consequences of this one.

Yep. Me too. And as we know anger likes to MOVE... I am semi-hopeful that the consequences were not considered, as it was very much rushed through the senate.

@Mal Content Agree with everything you wrote. 1,000 thanks to you!

 

[Deleted member 541]

@scout86 I agree with you on much of what you wrote. There is this too. My stupid nurse practitioner MAKES me come in all the time. I have to go in on Monday after seeing her just 3 months ago. Why??? Because I saw her for an injury with my back when I fell in Dec, and she referred me to a physiotherapist. So she wants to see how I'm doing?!?!?! REALLY The guy I'm seeing is in the same building, his office is 10 feet from hers. We have electronic communication, they all have my records.

I've asked before to only see her once a yr, except when I need to come in for illness. NOPE can't do that. She won't give me scripts for more than 2-3 refills, so I have to come back in....So I find a ton of wasteful office visits too.

Yes, healthcare is expensive, but so are the wasteful office visits that do nothing but line the drs pockets!!!!

And why is it that Walmart can offer TONS of medication to people for $4.00, but you go to say Rite-aid and the same script is $48?????

The whole thing makes me sick!

 

[Rumors]

Please Note: I've specific reasons I did not post under the politics category that I do not wish to s...

@joeylittle this is not a political statement on my part, however I read the bill and the OP states that coverage for pre-existing conditions will be "eliminated" and that is a misrepresentation of the truth.
In the bill, pre existing conditions must be covered BUT insurance companies are no longer required to charge the same for healthy individuals as they do for sick individuals. In 2010, Obamacare mandated that insurance providers provide coverage at the same rate for all individuals, hence the meaning behind affordable care. If someone with a heart condition could now afford insurance coverage then ideally the system wins because they have coverage and are paying in to the system versus not having coverage and costing the system. Those costs were to be offset by healthy individuals who were as well required to pay in but did not use their insurance. Unfortunately, we haven't found this to be feasibly true and the debacle is that it has cost the system bc individualized coverage became less indivualized and therefore it became more socialized and more government backed.
So, with all respect to those who are posting their "feelings" about this replacement of Obamacare I ask that you at least have the facts correct. That list that supposedly excludes rape and c-sections really means that you will be covered, but will likely have a higher premium. I don't like it and it makes me angry that I may have to pay more bc I have asthma. I didn't ask for asthma nor do I smoke... BUT, I am less healthy than someone who doesn't have it so I will be penalized by means of higher premium for having an illness I can't help. It makes me feel angry....

 

[scout86]

It's my understanding (could be wrong) that Wal-Mart has a couple things going on there. First, they are huge and have a lot of negotiating power. Second, it might actually pay off to sell some drugs below cost, to get you into the store so you'll spend money on other things.

The whole 'privacy' thing means that your T can't tell them specifics of your case. They still bill for your visits and those bills are coded with a reason for the visit. They know when you see your T and they have a reason why. Your T, in the process of getting in the company's network, agrees to give them the information they need for billing, they agree to what they will be paid by the company. The company gets to decide things like how many visits they will pay for. Insurance companies run the world and they are liking out for themselves. That other people get help asking the way is sort of incidental.

 

[scout86]

One of the ideas I've heard expressed is that this is all about 'choice'. That they will allow people to choose whether or not they have insurance, as before. If you can't afford to pay for it, you can 'choose' not to have it. At the risk of being off into politics, I've got to say, I'm baffled at how being able to choose not to have insurance you can't afford is a right to be valued, while many of these same politicians don't think individuals should be able to CHOOSE a lot of other things. The 'choice' thing seems to be an argument of convenience and the whole thing is pretty hypocritical.

Had anyone contacted their representatives? (Besides me.)

 

[Rumors]

@scout86
Yes, you are correct in that there will no longer be a penalty for not having coverage. The word "choice" is benign to the principal that you will not be monetarily penalized for not having it... That was the issue at hand for many.