Does anybody on the right rely on the ACA for their insurance?

The reason is that the foreign government have price controls on how much they can pay for drugs. The drug companies sell on the margin or they don't sell at all which means they make less profit.

 

Hmmm. Sounds like a great idea to me. I might buy insurance if companies could offer a product I actually want.

 

So why hasn’t America done the same as everyone else?
Stop trying to blame YOUR failure on the success of the rest of the world

 

Do you have ACA coverage?

 

And if they make wild claims AFTER about what constitutes a “pre-exisiting condition?

The Australian comedy film “The Man who sued God” Outlines insurance companies shenanigans perfectly

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Sued_God

ANYTHING can be a pre-existing condition including being male, being female and breathing

 

Just one hitch; one of the Koch Brothers died recently. Unless there's another one, the Koch is singular.

 

So you don't deny that is what is happening?

 

I’m no fan of insurance companies. But I understand their role and business model. I’d go into any purchase eyes wide open and on a sound footing where if any suing was to be done I could be the one doing it.

That’s an interesting story and might be an interesting watch.

Ironically, a lightening strike insurance claim was what taught me pay attention to the actual coverage/exclusions and legal aspects of policies, not what agents tell you to make a sale.

If someone has a true story of an insurer adding undisclosed pre existing conditions after the fact to deny a claim I’d like to see it. Having not paid much attention to the market details for nearly 20 years it’s very possible I missed something.

 

"As a matter of fact, this is the very reason why they are overturning obamacare." < You can prove that right?

Can you show something suggesting the GOP are trying to do away with pre-existing conditions coverage? If not then we have to take it at face value that a plan they roll out to replace the ACA will include such coverage as the GOP senators and POTUS are claiming.

 

Actually I only want yes answers. Makes no sense for anybody to respond if they don't.

 

There is nothing closer to slaves than ideologues.

 

What????

That's hilarious! Billionaires are the only ones that count on the right.

 

That's another thing. And that's where the ACA saved money. Because uninsured people wouldn't go to a doctor until their illness was irreversible. The healthcare costs were covered by bumping up the rates of everybody else, and the legal costs were covered by tax payers.

Anyway, you seem very intent on changing the subject....

She was admitted to the hospital in the later stages of her pregnancy when I we were on group insurance for high blood pressure. Even though it was a Cadillac plan, after 3 days the insurance called the hospital saying they would cover her stay anymore. Her doctor got on the phone with the insurance company and told them he could not release her because it would be dangerous for the baby, and that they would be responsible if something happened to her or the baby. So they gave her 2 more days. After which they refused to cover her further. I was doing my numbers to figure out how I was going to pay for the very expensive stay, but fortunately her water broke, and she gave birth that last day. When the company I worked for shut down, I went into business on my own and tried to get individual insurance. The only company that would take her demanded double the premium and excluded her for anything related to blood pressure for a year. Despite the fact that she had had no problems with it for years. That's how I found out that insurance companies communicate these things to each other.

Insurance corporations are only interested in profits. And once the ACA is repealed, they will go back to being very little regulated and that will cost many lives and/or livelihoods. My question is if there is anybody here who depends on the ACA. Looks like there are, and many of them are not even aware of what they are about to lose.

 

Because he thinks he can appeal the elections to the Supreme Court and get them to appoint him President like they did with Bush.

Well... looks like you have way more confidence in Democrats than I do. If they are to have that, they will need not just to gain control They'll need a "supermajority" in both chambers. Because we don't know how many Blue Dogs there will be and what they are going to do.

 

My vote counts as one vote. Billionaires vote counts as one vote.

 

Gallop mischaracterizes much of their results. Accepting their statistics at face value for the sake of discussion: The 78% who said they did not have to change doctors or plans is not a positive side. 22%, which is a large total number, who were forced to change plans and doctors (and depending on the overlap it might be as high as 44% who had to change one or the other) is a major negative.

The 28% of Americans who got insurance after ACA begs credibility. That would approach 100 million which far exceeds even the most hyperbolic estimate made by the proponents, and is magnitudes greater than the estimated 3 to 5 million who beneficially got insurance after ACA and who previously really wanted/needed insurance but could not afford it. The vast majority who obtained insurance after ACA but were uninsured before didn't want insurance. So the question is are the people who first got insurance after the ACA happy about it, or disgruntled because they were forced to buy something they didn't want.

Adding adult children was a true benefit of ACA although for many it was an empty benefit. College students lost their couple of hundred dollars a year for full coverage. Besides simply making insurance companies cover children to age 26 would have been a minor easy fix not requiring upsetting the entire fruit basket.

The 20% who got pre-existing conditions covered is a bona fide benefit although the number is questionable (though I can't argue with it). The vast majority of insured get their insurance through corporate group plans and the vast majority of those cover pre-existing conditions.

The 53% who reported premium increases after ACA doesn't strike me as a significant negative per se as premiums might have increased without ACA. However, the question misses the size of premium increases, and ignores the biggest cost negative which is the massive increase in the deductibles.

 

Everybody who has insurance has ACA coverage.

 

The Koch family.

There were 2 more brothers. One also died this year, the other is alive. I don't know how active he or the rest of the family are in Koch industries.

 

Yet another over exxaggerated reality. While this situation does occur, not nearly to the extent that it is implied by the left. I suppose you have your occassional cancer patient that is diagnosed late and could have otherwise lived, but if you are going to table that as saving money, Id venture to say that an individual costs the healthcare system more if they catch and treat cancer earlier rather than someone that doesnt catch it until it is too late and they die from the disease. Thats not to imply that the issue breaks down solely into costs rather than the humanity of life, but for you to pretend like this is an overall cost savings is a stretch in logic.

-Changing what subject?

Hmmm....Speaking about changing the subject, you and I were specifically discussing how many people we have come across with pre existing conditions that were not being to keep or get health insurance due to that pre existing condition. You brought up your wifes high blood pressure doing just that, and I said there is more to that story and now you describe a situation where she was not dropped from her policy or unable to get health insurance, but instead she was denied coverage for a particular medical decision which is something that happens literally all of the time with people with the greatest insurance coverage around. For that matter, it happens everyday in places with universal health coverage as well. This is not something that is solely the domain of private health insurance. Every health system in the world (including Medicare) has requirements that must be met in order to justify the expense of a particular medical decision. What you have described with your wife is her insurance company saying that her condition does not meet the requirements for that length of hospitalization. That is a non story. For every condition there is a specified length of time that an insurance company will pay for their hospitalization For example for a pregnancy, it is usually something like 48 or 72 hours. If they want to keep someone longer, they have to have a documented and acceptable reason to qualify for a longer stay. In your wife's case, clearly that documented reason was not met. That has not one thing to do with pre existing conditions.

 

But is it a negative? Assuming you have a longstanding relationship with a doc I suppose it could be. But is getting rid of the kind of useless insurance ended by the ACA providing minimal coverage inadequate to pay for an unexpected serious disease or accident a negative?

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/11/this-is-the-real-reason-most-americans-file-for-bankruptcy.html

Consider the financial burden to creditors when someone files for bankruptcy.

 

Does anybody on the right rely on the ACA for their insurance?
I'm pretty sure there are. W Virginia comes to mind, but they are far from the exception. I am consistently puzzled by the practice of our lower class, uneducated populace voting conservative or Republican or Trump, since all those work in a coordinated fashion to pass laws that hurt the poor, the unemployed, & the uneducated. But I give these Republicans credit for being super good at spreading misinformation & lies that are demonstrably convincing.

 

Look. I don't know you and, for all I know, you could be the most intelligent person in the country. But don't let them ever convince you that there is no such thing as dumb questions.

Evidence? Look to Senator Whitehouse's exposition. Too long to repeat on this forum.

 

False. ACA is not an "insurance" product.

 

I don't know what you're trying to say. The situation before the ACA is of being one accident or one diagnosis from losing everything. Many people have been in that situation. Others have been in the situation that they just don't get treated because they can't afford going to the doctor and their health worsens. I don't know what "situation" you are talking about. Obviously there are more people who don't get cancer than people who do. But that's just one example of the many situations people lived before the ACA.

You're participating in this thread without reading the OP? Even just reading the title would have prevented you needing to ask that question.

You would have to explain the difference between being unable to get health insurance for a medical condition and getting denied coverage for a particular medical decision (the latter doesn't even make sense)

Absolutely not! This is the only industrialized country in the world where that happens. As well as many non-industrialized countries that have universal healthcare.

No. It doesn't. I lived in a country with universal health coverage. In fact, my son came up last year with appendicitis when he was on vacation there. He underwent surgery and received outstanding medical care without paying a dime.

Nope! The case I explained above I was paying (much less than I pay here for healthcare insurance) does require that you are a citizen or resident who is paying into the system. But there are nations that don't have any requirement. For instance, a friend had an accident in France and he had to go to the hospital and stay overnight. They didn't pay anything. And before you start going into the "you just want healthcare for free" nonsensical talking point, consider that we pay more than double per-capita what France invests in their healthcare system.

 

ACA is the law that regulates all health insurance products.

And if you are referring to "coverage" literally as a product, why are you saying that to me and not to the person I'm responding to? That poster and I understand perfectly what he/she was referring to. If you don't, then take it up with them.