Post by saraandmichael on Jun 28, 2012 11:36:50 GMT -5
on a personal level?
for us, it means that evan will always, always, ALWAYS be able to have coverage.
so should my husband lose his job before i become employed, his $360,000 annual medication costs wouldn't cause us to make the choice of liquidating assets to pay for it or to forgo giving it to him.
I always wonder what people who are so opposed to the whole deal would say if they heard a personal story like yours. My co-worker's son has a genetic disorder related to growth and she is so grateful for this news.
I always wonder what people who are so opposed to the whole deal would say if they heard a personal story like yours. My co-worker's son has a genetic disorder related to growth and she is so grateful for this news.
Some bullshit about getting a better job, or getting two jobs, because they paid for college and their health insurance and they worked 4 jobs, while starting a business and taking care of 5 children, so why can't you just take responsibility for having a sick child?
<3 I feel like a lot of people who are against it are really healthy/have never been ill/know what it's like to have an expensive-to-treat chronic condition and it pisses me off.
<3 I feel like a lot of people who are against it are really healthy/have never been ill/know what it's like to have an expensive-to-treat chronic condition and it pisses me off.
Yes!
The per-existing clause is what I love about it as well.
Post by Anne Blythe on Jun 28, 2012 11:50:46 GMT -5
I have a couple of major health issues, and I'm 25. Right now, the ACA allows me to stay on my dad's insurance until my next birthday while I'm in school. After that, a new insurance company will have to take me and cover things related to my pre-existing conditions. Since we are very poor, we will probably qualify for some sort of government aid so that all three of us can have health insurance, instead of just me (through my dad's plan) and Jack (through Medicaid).
for us, it means that evan will always, always, ALWAYS be able to have coverage.
so should my husband lose his job before i become employed, his $360,000 annual medication costs wouldn't cause us to make the choice of liquidating assets to pay for it or to forgo giving it to him.
I mean, its great that my fiance, with his Type 1 diabetes and seizure issues, will always be able to "get' insurance. In theory.
But at what cost? And what level of care? What good is an individual mandate if he can't afford the premiums? Or he's stuck with the crappy student health insurance we had when I was in law school which didn't cover jack shit?
I like the bill in concept. I'm concerned in execution.
Post by peachykate on Jun 28, 2012 11:52:44 GMT -5
Jackson and I will both never have to worry about being denied coverage for pre-existing conditions. They are minor but you just never know and it will be something that will no longer cross my mind if DH and I ended up either loosing or getting new jobs with different insurance.
Pre existing for me also. Knowing that, i won't get denied, because i have MS, if god forbid anything happened to my husband. His company offers fabulous insurance, but again, at least it is of some comfort knowing i wont be automatically turned away for preexisting, if something happened to him or his job.
apalettepassion.wordpress.com/ WHO IS BONQUIQUI!?!?!?!??!
"I was thinking about getting off on demand, but it sounds like I should be glad that I didn't"
I always wonder what people who are so opposed to the whole deal would say if they heard a personal story like yours. My co-worker's son has a genetic disorder related to growth and she is so grateful for this news.
Bootstraps! Personal Responsibility! Tough choices!
I'm all about bootstraps. But how can someone with heart use the bootstraps argument when there is an innocent fucking child involved? Heinous.
On a personal level, I'm happy for those that have struggled so much with health issues and now can rest a little easier.
But, I'm also very concerned about the Medicaid expansion. The state of Illinios currently owes the hospital that I work for $62 million dollars in back bills. This is only Medicaid. This does not include the other $15 million for people who have been to our hospital for care that are employees of the State of Illinois and have their insurance.
We are a small, 300 bed hospital. They've warned us that they might just "forget" about that $62 million they owe us and start over the next fiscal year (which is in a month or so I believe)
They've started laying people off. We are probably going to be bought out by another, larger health organization. And then I won't have a job, at all.
So that all, obviously, worries me. The state of Illinois can't pay its bills now, for people using Medicaid. How will they pay it when MORE people are utilizing it?
(and I'm not wanting to have an arguement about this. illinois obviously has major issues in the area of money and budgets. lol. i'm just scared for my job)
On a personal level, I'm happy for those that have struggled so much with health issues and now can rest a little easier.
But, I'm also very concerned about the Medicaid expansion. The state of Illinios currently owes the hospital that I work for $62 million dollars in back bills. This is only Medicaid. This does not include the other $15 million for people who have been to our hospital for care that are employees of the State of Illinois and have their insurance.
We are a small, 300 bed hospital. They've warned us that they might just "forget" about that $62 million they owe us and start over the next fiscal year (which is in a month or so I believe)
They've started laying people off. We are probably going to be bought out by another, larger health organization. And then I won't have a job, at all.
So that all, obviously, worries me. The state of Illinois can't pay its bills now, for people using Medicaid. How will they pay it when MORE people are utilizing it?
(and I'm not wanting to have an arguement about this. illinois obviously has major issues in the area of money and budgets. lol. i'm just scared for my job)
i;m not looking to argue. i am sorry about the instability of your job. i have never really considered it from that side.
The federal government is also behind on their payments to us. We are one of only a handful of medical organizations who have attested to Meaningful Use. (Holla, that was all me) and we were promised a check for a few million dollars. It has yet to arrive. Our director has had multiple phone calls and we've negotiated getting about a quarter of it. The problem lies in that we had to spend a lot of money to meet the requirements of the government to meet Meaningful Use. And now, we're basically out that money. Because we don't see the payments coming in as promised.
It just sucks. I am so torn because I do see where some of the ACA is great for obvious reasons.
But, I don't see this ending well for me. And lots of other people in the healthcare field. If we are owed that much money, how much is owed to bigger hospitals in higher population areas. It's scary, and sad.
The expansion of Medicaid will depend on your state's decision. They can either expand coverage and receive additional funds, or keep the programs they have in place and keep their current funding rate.
Yes, I know. But like I said...it's Illinois. And they don't always evaluate their budgets and financial status prior to making decisions.
It means I get to read idiotic Facebook statuses all day from people I went to high school with that are Republicans because their parents told them they were Republicans.
Me too. Most of the ones I'm reading say something along the lines of, "I'm not opposed to everyone having healthcare, just don't ask ME to pay for it!"
Jeanna it's situations like yours that concern me. I'm very much in support of the bill, but I do worry about it solving one problem but creating another. But to people like the ones I know who say, "Healthcare is not a right! It's not in the Constitution, blah blah" what do they think people are supposed to do? Pay thousands out of pocket to visit the doctor? In many areas, companies just don't offer health insurance so telling someone to find a job that offers it is basically saying let them eat cake. Overall I'm happy about the bill.
Not for me personally, but a friend lost her insurance when she was diagnosed with cancer. Even if you're comfortable (money wise), monthly apts./mammograms, Rx drugs, you name it are quite expensive without insurance. This also mean my poor mother can't be denied and she has all sorts of problems.
I read an article a few months back that under some insurance, being pregnant is a pre-existing condition... Fucked up....
The law says that the companies can't turn you away for a pre-existing conditions, but no where does it specify a cap on premiums.
Won't they just raise the prices to cover this? ultimately having a negative effect b/c most people can't afford it?
I thought premium ceilings would be part of the deal.
Am I missing something?
What you are missing is that:
A. Young healthy people, who typically forgo coverage due to cost (but have a positive effect on the risk pool, lowering costs) will be mandated to purchase coverage as well;
B. People who have Pre-existing conditions with no insurance are still getting care - but typically in the form of the more expensive negative health outcomes, which we are all paying for anyway.
And I just read this and realized the tone comes across as snotty. It is not intended to be at all! I was trying to be clear.
The law says that the companies can't turn you away for a pre-existing conditions, but no where does it specify a cap on premiums.
Won't they just raise the prices to cover this? ultimately having a negative effect b/c most people can't afford it?
I thought premium ceilings would be part of the deal.
Am I missing something?
What you are missing is that:
A. Young healthy people, who typically forgo coverage due to cost (but have a positive effect on the risk pool, lowering costs) will be mandated to purchase coverage as well;
B. People who have Pre-existing conditions with no insurance are still getting care - but typically in the form of the more expensive negative health outcomes, which we are all paying for anyway.
I still don't understand why they didn't impose a limit. why not just do it? what is the point of leaving it open like this and taking the risk that prices can get out of control?
Also, let me add that many in the healthcare/insurance/health costs industry believe this is the first step in a monumental shift in the way health care coverage is purchased.
Eventually we will see the first big employer opt out of offering coverage, and opting to pay the fine instead. As soon as that happens, companies will follow suit. What we'll be left with is a competitive market which will benefit the public, as companies need to compete to win customers.