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

Gouged by the gov. I don't qualify for any subsidies.

 

i live in NY.

unlike most Conservative states, we actually value human life

 

Does anybody on the right rely on the ACA for their insurance?
Everybody by law depends on the ACA for their insurance.

 

It was in 2010 that I began as a health insurance agent for one of the major carriers, and I can tell you in that one year I spoke to at least a dozen people who had been denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions. Granted, these were individual plans and many of these people were self-employed, or as in some cases, they had group coverage through a spouse and lost coverage for other reasons. Most people, including myself, were kind of shocked at what the underwriting guidelines dismissed. In addition to the common chronic diseases, many people were automatically disqualified if they had had knee replacement surgery, or for women, if they had had breast augmentation. Rule of thumb for these types of cases, if it can be recalled, you have a pre-x.

The worst type of pre-x condition IMO, was pregnancy. Many young single women would purchase a policy without maternity coverage, but once they got a positive pregnancy test, they could only go to the state to purchase a plan to cover their pregnancy. It was for this reason the ACA mandated maternity coverage.

The ONLY pre-x for Medicare Advantage plans is end stage renal disease, but that restriction has been removed too as of 2020. The biggest issue was and to some degree currently is for people who fall in between the financial demarcation lines established by Medicare. There have been within the last 5 years several changes to the Medicare rules to help these people with lowering Rx costs, aka "Extra Help" program, and dual enrollment with state Medicaid programs helping with Part B copays and Rx. Also, one needs to keep in mind that the availability of these plans depends heavily on where you live and what providers are available and participating in your area.

The bottom line is that ever since the ACA began, it has expanded healthcare affordability for many Americans. The only places where there are still shortages are in those red states that bucked the implementation of exchanges and expansion of Medicaid. If the ACA is struck down, it will create a mess and many will suffer.

 

Not true. If your income is above 400% above the Federal Poverty Level, you do not get any assistance to pay for your plan's premium.

 

The ACA put very little price controls on medical insurance. Almost all group insurance from corporations, which is the vast majority of policies, do not exclude pre-existing conditions. Pay attention!

 

That explains everything

 

- So in one year as an insurance agent you spoke to a dozen people that were denied coverage due to pre existing conditions and these people were in individual as opposed to group plans. That bit of information backs up precisely what I have said on the subject. Pre existing conditions was primarily a problem for the small percentage of people that were not in a group plan, not on Medicare, and not on Medicaid, which is a surprisingly small percentage of the population.

- I would agree that any woman that might have a child should absolutely have a policy that includes maternity care. I disagree however, with anyone that asserts that men must have maternity care.

-The vast majority of healthcare affordability expansion due to ACA is due to expanded subsidies and an increase in the percentage income over the poverty line that qualifies for Medicaid. That is in reality the biggest impact of the ACA. It also expanded those that were already eligible to sign up for Medicaid, but in reality, if those people needed hospital care they would have been put on Medicaid regardless if they were signed up prior or not. The ACA in that sense did not expand their access to hospitals. It was always there, whether it was codified or not.

 

The ACA regulates every insurance company and policy written in the United States whether it is sold on the exchange or whether anyone gets a subsidy.

 

What does that have to do with the question I asked?

It is curious you can't back one claim and immediately jump to another unsupportable claim. Is this common with people from NY? Is in not true twice as many people have died in NY than any other state from Kung Flu? Asking for a Floridian...

 

Do you think 52 million people is insignificant?
An Estimated 52 Million Adults Have Pre-Existing Conditions That Would Make Them Uninsurable Pre-Obamacare

 

were all of them getting personal heatlcare, or did some of them get it through their employer? If they got it through their employer, they were protected via HIPPA and still will be.

 

HIPPA was as holey as swiss cheese and needed to be fixed by the ACA.

 

You are missing the point. People in group plans accounts for about 50% of the population. People on Medicare account for about 18%. People on Medicaid account for 20%. Those categories never had major problems with pre existing conditions.

Even if we ignore the reality that the people with the most health problems thus the most pre existing conditions would be on Medicare and we just attribute them evenly across the above categories, that does not come out to 52 million people. It comes out to 12% of 52 million which is more like 6 million. Of those 6 million with pre existing conditions that does not mean they are uninsurable. For example someone with type 2 diabetes would have a pre existing condition, but they are absolutely insurable, albeit at a slightly higher rate. Someone needing a heart transplant on the other hand would be uninsurable, and that level of seriousness is a tiny fraction of the 6 million with pre existing conditions that are not part of a group plan, Medicare, or Medicaid.

As I have said numerous times now, it was a problem, but not to the extent that it has been demagouged. We arent talking about anywhere near 52 million people that would be uninsurable. We never even had anywhere near that number including all people not just those with pre existing that were uninsured prior to the ACA. it was always argued prior to the ACA whether the number of uninsured was 15 or 30 million, and the latter estimate included illegal aliens, and many of those would have alreay qualified for Medicaid if they simply bothered to sign up. Now we are supposed to believe that it is 52 million. The exaggeration never seems to stop. I am not blaming you. I am blaming those that have started this false narrative.

 

As already highlighted the ACA did nothing to HIPPA......HIPPA is still the law.....

 

ACA added onto the swiss cheese HIPPA that allowed greedy selfish insurance companies to deny people coverage

 

I got a full-time position with a company that had Cadillac health plan which solved the problem. But, I have to work to get it. The left wants what I have not only without working for it, but making me works to give it to them.

When I needed a hip in Jan 2017, from first GP visit Jan 11th to operating table by March 19th. If I lived in Canada I would have had to wait till November 2017 to even get the surgery, then add in recovery time of 8 weeks. I was back to work the last week of May.

Trump already did the pre-existing condition protection in an executive order.

Trump can only do things to the extent the Pelosi left nut House allows. November will change that.

 

Like the example of your governor sending COVID patients to nursing homes to spread the inflection to highly susceptible people???

 

Well most of us have jobs so...

 

No it didn’t. It covered what it was suppose to do and ya settled law. The AcA was a rushed though power grab that is likely going to be struck down

 

If the question is "favor it", It's 36% of Republicans. Which is not the same as approving of it.
I don't particularly approve of it. It's just a band aid. But, without it, just stand back and watch the hemorrhage.

In any case. That's not the topic. The question is if any Republicans out there who rely on it. Apparently there are several. And they weren't even aware that it's probably going away about a week after the elections. And not coming back if Trump is re-elected. Which I find sad.

 

So you only want yes or no answers?

No.

 

Yep! Other countries don't have so many blockheads who believe that there would be "death panels" deciding who will live and who will die, just because billionaires pay propaganda so their stock in Insurance corporations doesn't drop.

 

"Our righteous rulers have created a dependent class. Are you now dependent? You should beg them for mercy that they not overturn what you are now dependent upon."

This is why collectivism is slavery.

 

The link I gave you was to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the leading aggregator in compiling statistical information about healthcare and health insurance in this country. It specifically states that this 52 million does NOT count the elderly.

You said before the pharmaceutical industry was your background. That is not my forte except for how a particular plan lists their drugs on their formulary and what the exception and appeals rules are for any given carrier. When it comes to how PBMs work, or how they determine drug costs is a mystery to me and I would be out of my element trying to describe that to someone else.

Having worked in this industry for ten years, I have witnessed first hand the miasma of paperwork and rules that folks who cannot afford everything have to go through to get the coverage they need. I am of the view that there is no acceptable amount of Americans that should be denied coverage because of their medical condition.

Prior to the ACA, Medicare had some major problems, not only in terms of customer service and ease of access to getting help, they were constantly the target of fraud. Since the implementation of the ACA, CMS has done a complete 180. However great the benefits of the ACA have been, it too will eventually need to be amended because eventually, we will run out of money to keep the current system in place as medical costs will keep increasing. There are too many hands in the pie and everyone keeps milking it. CMS knows where the problems are, but legislation is what holds them back.

Why is it that we as a country allow ourselves to make things so damn complicated? Even taxes, where the government knows precisely how much we owe or are entitled to receive a refund, has us go through the arduous task of filing our taxes when only a small percentage of tax filers ever even use all the tax rules to their advantage. The only reason we still have to file our taxes is because of the companies that do tax preparation lobby hard in DC to keep the system the same because it benefits THEM.

The same applies to health care in this country. There have been so many lies and myths propagated about Obamacare that it is pathetic. Even though I work in the industry, I seriously believe some form of basic Universal Care like Canada's or UK could be used as a framework that would be simple to understand and provide care for everyone. Those who can afford to get their own will always be able to do so.

We can do better, but going backward is not the answer.