Reply
Respected Contributor
Posts: 4,905
Registered: ‎04-04-2015

If the only plan someone can afford - even with current subsidies, has a very high deductible that must be paid before coverage kicks in - or lives in an area where insurers are pulling out - such as Iowa which may be left with no insurers since Medica is also thinking of leaving- then tell me how your pre-existing condition is covered and treated??

 

 

 

 

Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 5,069
Registered: ‎05-27-2016

@Carmie wrote:

The insurance company I work for considered a pre-x condition anything you were diagnosed or treated for in the past 12 months.  You could purchase insurance, but your Pre- x condition would not be covered for the first 12 months. This was a waiting period.

 

Sometimes higher premiums are charged for pre-x.  Not many insurance companies will outright deny you coverage, but there are exceptions.

 

The reason pre-x conditions create a problem is because some people never purchase health insurance.  When they are diagnosed with an illness, they want insurance.  When their illness is over, they drop the coverage.  It's like buying car insurance after an accident and wanting the auto insurance to pay for it.

 

What used to happen was young couples would not purchase insurance until the wife became pregnant, for example.

 

This causes everyone who has continuous coverage to pay more and is not fair to them.

 

Newborn babies added to their parents coverage after birth  have never been subject to Pre-X and they are covered for the first 30 days. Any baby who is born with medical problems with parents who have no coverage will receive treatment under medicaid regardless of how much money their parents makes.  

 

Handicapped children who are covered under their parent's health insurance also have Medicaid as a back-up.

 

Insurance is complicated.  I don't know what the solution is that is fair to everyone.  Other countries have coverage for all, but it is not perfect either.

 

No matter what happens, not everyone's is going to be happy. The bottom line is, we are all going to have to pay something for this to work. 


@Carmie.  Is this true even for states who didn't expand Medicaid?  Only about 33 states did that in response to the ACA.  This my not apply to all states is what I'm thinking with regard to the automatic Medicaid.  I thought SSI has to kick in for that, then they are eligible.  If a State has not expanded Medicaid, then where does that leave these babies?

*Call Tyrone*
Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 5,069
Registered: ‎05-27-2016

The problems as I understand them with the pharmaceutical companies and big insurers (who gobble up little insurers) is that they operate within the "free market."

 

Many assumptions are made about the economic impacts of various scenarios to bring down costs.  None of it is ever a guarantee because we kind of treat medical insurance companies at arm's length (with the exception of making sure certain screenings are uniform and other protections for the greate good).  

 

As long as medicine is regarded as a free market money making operation (like car companies, cable companies) and more ~ they are not obligated to lower costs for us.  I think we need to stop counting their money in the hopes that they do what some economists "think they will do" which ain't necessarily so.  Since our system is free market they will always charge what they want.  No matter what.

 

 When I worked I had excellent insurance coverage and paid a small portion of it through paryroll deductions.  There was not a year that went by that my portion didn't go up.  It always went up.  I appreciated my benefits and the small part I had to pay at that time because I covered my entire family including hubby who had paltry health insurance.

*Call Tyrone*
Honored Contributor
Posts: 21,870
Registered: ‎10-25-2010

@itiswhatitis wrote:

@Carmie wrote:

The insurance company I work for considered a pre-x condition anything you were diagnosed or treated for in the past 12 months.  You could purchase insurance, but your Pre- x condition would not be covered for the first 12 months. This was a waiting period.

 

Sometimes higher premiums are charged for pre-x.  Not many insurance companies will outright deny you coverage, but there are exceptions.

 

The reason pre-x conditions create a problem is because some people never purchase health insurance.  When they are diagnosed with an illness, they want insurance.  When their illness is over, they drop the coverage.  It's like buying car insurance after an accident and wanting the auto insurance to pay for it.

 

What used to happen was young couples would not purchase insurance until the wife became pregnant, for example.

 

This causes everyone who has continuous coverage to pay more and is not fair to them.

 

Newborn babies added to their parents coverage after birth  have never been subject to Pre-X and they are covered for the first 30 days. Any baby who is born with medical problems with parents who have no coverage will receive treatment under medicaid regardless of how much money their parents makes.  

 

Handicapped children who are covered under their parent's health insurance also have Medicaid as a back-up.

 

Insurance is complicated.  I don't know what the solution is that is fair to everyone.  Other countries have coverage for all, but it is not perfect either.

 

No matter what happens, not everyone's is going to be happy. The bottom line is, we are all going to have to pay something for this to work. 


@Carmie.  Is this true even for states who didn't expand Medicaid?  Only about 33 states did that in response to the ACA.  This my not apply to all states is what I'm thinking with regard to the automatic Medicaid.  I thought SSI has to kick in for that, then they are eligible.  If a State has not expanded Medicaid, then where does that leave these babies?


This has been true as long as I can remember, Way before ACA, back at least to the 1980's.  The ACA MIght have " put in in writing" as they did many with many other things that were already covered. I remember shaking my head when I read some of the things listed in the ACA.  It was eye popping to see the lack of knowledge amount our law makers when that was drafted.

 

Many of the things were already covered by order of other laws and acts already on the books, such as the Kennedy Kassebaum Act 1996.  Ted Kennedy did a lot of good things with helping people when they changed or lost their coverage. He is also responsible for HIPAA which covers much more than the privacy most of us know about

 

I can't wait to see if this new Health Insurance passes in the Senate and see it in writing for myself.  I can't image anything that happened so fast being all that great. I do hope I am wrong.

 

I glanced at some of the provisions and it looks like the older you are, the more you will pay for insurance, it appears the price might be based on age and not usage.  I guess they think older people are sicker than younger people and so their coverage should cost  more.  

 

I think it will be years away  before we get half decent coverage for all.

 

 

 

 

Highlighted
Honored Contributor
Posts: 21,870
Registered: ‎10-25-2010

@itiswhatitis wrote:

The problems as I understand them with the pharmaceutical companies and big insurers (who gobble up little insurers) is that they operate within the "free market."

 

Many assumptions are made about the economic impacts of various scenarios to bring down costs.  None of it is ever a guarantee because we kind of treat medical insurance companies at arm's length (with the exception of making sure certain screenings are uniform and other protections for the greate good).  

 

As long as medicine is regarded as a free market money making operation (like car companies, cable companies) and more ~ they are not obligated to lower costs for us.  I think we need to stop counting their money in the hopes that they do what some economists "think they will do" which ain't necessarily so.  Since our system is free market they will always charge what they want.  No matter what.

 

 When I worked I had excellent insurance coverage and paid a small portion of it through paryroll deductions.  There was not a year that went by that my portion didn't go up.  It always went up.  I appreciated my benefits and the small part I had to pay at that time because I covered my entire family including hubby who had paltry health insurance.


Right now insurance companies are not able to sell their plans out of their area or out of their states.  Hopefully, this new insurance will lift the bans and allow companies to sell to anyone anywhere in the  US.  This will create competition and spread out the demographics to bring the cost down.

Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 5,069
Registered: ‎05-27-2016

@Carmie wrote:

@itiswhatitis wrote:

@Carmie wrote:

The insurance company I work for considered a pre-x condition anything you were diagnosed or treated for in the past 12 months.  You could purchase insurance, but your Pre- x condition would not be covered for the first 12 months. This was a waiting period.

 

Sometimes higher premiums are charged for pre-x.  Not many insurance companies will outright deny you coverage, but there are exceptions.

 

The reason pre-x conditions create a problem is because some people never purchase health insurance.  When they are diagnosed with an illness, they want insurance.  When their illness is over, they drop the coverage.  It's like buying car insurance after an accident and wanting the auto insurance to pay for it.

 

What used to happen was young couples would not purchase insurance until the wife became pregnant, for example.

 

This causes everyone who has continuous coverage to pay more and is not fair to them.

 

Newborn babies added to their parents coverage after birth  have never been subject to Pre-X and they are covered for the first 30 days. Any baby who is born with medical problems with parents who have no coverage will receive treatment under medicaid regardless of how much money their parents makes.  

 

Handicapped children who are covered under their parent's health insurance also have Medicaid as a back-up.

 

Insurance is complicated.  I don't know what the solution is that is fair to everyone.  Other countries have coverage for all, but it is not perfect either.

 

No matter what happens, not everyone's is going to be happy. The bottom line is, we are all going to have to pay something for this to work. 


@Carmie.  Is this true even for states who didn't expand Medicaid?  Only about 33 states did that in response to the ACA.  This my not apply to all states is what I'm thinking with regard to the automatic Medicaid.  I thought SSI has to kick in for that, then they are eligible.  If a State has not expanded Medicaid, then where does that leave these babies?


This has been true as long as I can remember, Way before ACA, back at least to the 1980's.  The ACA MIght have " put in in writing" as they did many with many other things that were already covered. I remember shaking my head when I read some of the things listed in the ACA.  It was eye popping to see the lack of knowledge amount our law makers when that was drafted.

 

Many of the things were already covered by order of other laws and acts already on the books, such as the Kennedy Kassebaum Act 1996.  Ted Kennedy did a lot of good things with helping people when they changed or lost their coverage. He is also responsible for HIPAA which covers much more than the privacy most of us know about

 

I can't wait to see if this new Health Insurance passes in the Senate and see it in writing for myself.  I can't image anything that happened so fast being all that great. I do hope I am wrong.

 

I glanced at some of the provisions and it looks like the older you are, the more you will pay for insurance, it appears the price might be based on age and not usage.  I guess they think older people are sicker than younger people and so their coverage should cost  more.  

 

I think it will be years away  before we get half decent coverage for all.

 

 

 

 


@Carmie, yes because I am quite confused about this part.  My State does in fact have programs for low income children (low wage earners and those receiving TANF).

 

Time will tell.  I hope children/babies don't get caught up in this overall.

*Call Tyrone*
Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 5,069
Registered: ‎05-27-2016

@Carmie wrote:

@itiswhatitis wrote:

The problems as I understand them with the pharmaceutical companies and big insurers (who gobble up little insurers) is that they operate within the "free market."

 

Many assumptions are made about the economic impacts of various scenarios to bring down costs.  None of it is ever a guarantee because we kind of treat medical insurance companies at arm's length (with the exception of making sure certain screenings are uniform and other protections for the greate good).  

 

As long as medicine is regarded as a free market money making operation (like car companies, cable companies) and more ~ they are not obligated to lower costs for us.  I think we need to stop counting their money in the hopes that they do what some economists "think they will do" which ain't necessarily so.  Since our system is free market they will always charge what they want.  No matter what.

 

 When I worked I had excellent insurance coverage and paid a small portion of it through paryroll deductions.  There was not a year that went by that my portion didn't go up.  It always went up.  I appreciated my benefits and the small part I had to pay at that time because I covered my entire family including hubby who had paltry health insurance.


Right now insurance companies are not able to sell their plans out of their area or out of their states.  Hopefully, this new insurance will lift the bans and allow companies to sell to anyone anywhere in the  US.  This will create competition and spread out the demographics to bring the cost down.


I hope you're right @Carmie.  Otherwise, it is just a part of the Free Market which ain't so free for us.  We don't benefit when they consolidate with other companies or buy them.  Aetna just bought a company that now leaves one less competitor.  The same premise for just about anything else that wants the market share....

*Call Tyrone*
Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 5,069
Registered: ‎05-27-2016

@Carmie

 

Looks like it's more of the insurance company's lack of desire to do so.....

 

Take a look at this as an example.

 

As part of his plan to reform American health care, President-elect Donald Trump has proposed what sounds like a simple enough idea: Allow health insurance to be sold across state lines.

 

Health insurance companies can already operate in multiple states, but they tailor their plans to each area where they do business. Trump’s proposal, a perennial favorite of Republicans, would instead allow, say, Anthem to sell the same plan in Maine, Kentucky, and any other state it chooses.

 

Insurers would be freed from complying will all the different insurance laws in each state, encouraging states to reduce cumbersome regulations, the thinking goes. Increased competition would in turn give consumers more options and therefore reduce prices.

 

Trump put it this way during his campaign:

 

“As long as the plan purchased complies with state requirements, any vendor ought to be able to offer insurance in any state. By allowing full competition in this market, insurance costs will go down and consumer satisfaction will go up.”

 

Maine has already tried this. Not a single insurer took us up on the offer.

A law passed in 2011, called PL 90, allowed insurers from other states to sell their plans in Maine. The state’s Bureau of Insurance even reached out to major insurance companies that weren’t offering plans in Maine to tell them about the law and encourage them to do business here.

 

It received no responses, according to a bureau spokesman.

 

Maine wasn’t alone. Two other states — Georgia and Wyoming — also allowed the interstate sale of health insurance. No takers there, either.

Granted, Trump’s proposal is different, aimed at allowing sales of health plans across all 50 states instead of just a few. And he has released no specifics about how it would work. But Maine’s experience reveals some of the problems with this general approach.

 

First, let’s be clear that this proposal would likely affect a minority of Maine residents. Large employers that use their own funds to cover employees’ health expenses, rather than contracting with an insurer, are exempt from these state regulations. So that leaves out workers at big companies such as Bath Iron Works, Hannaford and Wal-Mart. It also wouldn’t affect people with health insurance through the government (Medicaid and Medicare), which is roughly half of the insured population here.

 

Now, back to the pitfalls of selling insurance across state lines:

 

Insurers still have to set up networks. Those networks — made up of doctors, physical therapists, hospitals, pharmacies, etc. — are formed in each state to provide care for beneficiaries. That’s how insurers keep costs down, by negotiating lower prices with providers in their networks, which should lead to more affordable monthly premiums for consumers. Networks also allow insurers to select doctors and hospitals that meet certain safety and quality standards.

But networks are expensive to set up. Insurers have to pay lawyers to draw up contracts, spend time negotiating rates and so on. That’s part of why even in states with lax insurance regulations, you don’t see 20 insurers competing for business. Allowing the sale of insurance across state lines wouldn’t make forming networks any easier.

 

Health care costs vary from state to state. Health insurers set prices largely based on how much they expect to fork over to doctors and hospitals on behalf of their customers. But the cost of health care is inconsistent from state to state because of the relative age and health of residents and other factors. That’s reflected in different monthly premiums in each state.

 

Under Trump’s proposal, a wide swath of America’s population would presumably become the customer pool for health insurers. States with cheaper health care would likely end up subsidizing customers in other states such as Maine, where health expenditures are among the fastest-growing in the past two decades.

 

That could theoretically lead to lower premiums on average. But health insurers would have to grow even bigger to serve such a big customer base. Is that in consumers’ best interests? Just look at the separate bids by insurance giants Anthem and Aetna to merge with their competitors, which sparked antitrust suits by the U.S. Department of Justice.

 

Consumers could lose benefits and still pay more. Under the current system, insurers selling plans in Maine must be licensed here.

Insurance regulators fear they’d have no authority to help customers in their own states who bought health plans from companies based outside their borders. And insurers might rush to set up headquarters in states with the least burdensome regulations. That would allow them to sell cheap, bare bones policies in Maine, undermining the insurers who already sell policies here.

 

“Interstate policies would for the first time allow insurers unlicensed in the purchaser’s state to sell health insurance, which would otherwise be a criminal offense,” the National Association of Insurance Commissioners points out.

The association also warns of a “race to the bottom,” in which insurers cherry pick the healthiest customers in each state, who are the cheapest to insure. That would leave everyone else — the older, sicker and more expensive — to face steep premium hikes, if those people can even find a plan to cover them. State regulators, stripped of authority, could do nothing to stop insurers from hiking prices or from cutting benefits, the association notes.

 

Proponents point out that the proposals pushed by Trump’s pick for HHS secretary, Tom Price, and House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, would require insurers to provide a minimum level of benefits in order for consumers who buy them to qualify for tax credits.

 

And Trump has said that health plans would have to comply with regulations in each state. But if that’s the case, it’s difficult to envision how the benefits of his proposal would be realized. They’re built, at least theoretically, on doing away with a lot of those regulations.

 

http://bangordailynews.com/2016/12/28/the-point/maine-tried-allowing-the-sale-of-health-insurance-fr...

*Call Tyrone*
Honored Contributor
Posts: 21,870
Registered: ‎10-25-2010

@itiswhatitis wrote:

@Carmie wrote:

@itiswhatitis wrote:

@Carmie wrote:

The insurance company I work for considered a pre-x condition anything you were diagnosed or treated for in the past 12 months.  You could purchase insurance, but your Pre- x condition would not be covered for the first 12 months. This was a waiting period.

 

Sometimes higher premiums are charged for pre-x.  Not many insurance companies will outright deny you coverage, but there are exceptions.

 

The reason pre-x conditions create a problem is because some people never purchase health insurance.  When they are diagnosed with an illness, they want insurance.  When their illness is over, they drop the coverage.  It's like buying car insurance after an accident and wanting the auto insurance to pay for it.

 

What used to happen was young couples would not purchase insurance until the wife became pregnant, for example.

 

This causes everyone who has continuous coverage to pay more and is not fair to them.

 

Newborn babies added to their parents coverage after birth  have never been subject to Pre-X and they are covered for the first 30 days. Any baby who is born with medical problems with parents who have no coverage will receive treatment under medicaid regardless of how much money their parents makes.  

 

Handicapped children who are covered under their parent's health insurance also have Medicaid as a back-up.

 

Insurance is complicated.  I don't know what the solution is that is fair to everyone.  Other countries have coverage for all, but it is not perfect either.

 

No matter what happens, not everyone's is going to be happy. The bottom line is, we are all going to have to pay something for this to work. 


@Carmie.  Is this true even for states who didn't expand Medicaid?  Only about 33 states did that in response to the ACA.  This my not apply to all states is what I'm thinking with regard to the automatic Medicaid.  I thought SSI has to kick in for that, then they are eligible.  If a State has not expanded Medicaid, then where does that leave these babies?


This has been true as long as I can remember, Way before ACA, back at least to the 1980's.  The ACA MIght have " put in in writing" as they did many with many other things that were already covered. I remember shaking my head when I read some of the things listed in the ACA.  It was eye popping to see the lack of knowledge amount our law makers when that was drafted.

 

Many of the things were already covered by order of other laws and acts already on the books, such as the Kennedy Kassebaum Act 1996.  Ted Kennedy did a lot of good things with helping people when they changed or lost their coverage. He is also responsible for HIPAA which covers much more than the privacy most of us know about

 

I can't wait to see if this new Health Insurance passes in the Senate and see it in writing for myself.  I can't image anything that happened so fast being all that great. I do hope I am wrong.

 

I glanced at some of the provisions and it looks like the older you are, the more you will pay for insurance, it appears the price might be based on age and not usage.  I guess they think older people are sicker than younger people and so their coverage should cost  more.  

 

I think it will be years away  before we get half decent coverage for all.

 

 

 

 


@Carmie, yes because I am quite confused about this part.  My State does in fact have programs for low income children (low wage earners and those receiving TANF).

 

Time will tell.  I hope children/babies don't get caught up in this overall.


 

Honored Contributor
Posts: 21,870
Registered: ‎10-25-2010

@itiswhatitis wrote:

@Carmie wrote:

@itiswhatitis wrote:

@Carmie wrote:

The insurance company I work for considered a pre-x condition anything you were diagnosed or treated for in the past 12 months.  You could purchase insurance, but your Pre- x condition would not be covered for the first 12 months. This was a waiting period.

 

Sometimes higher premiums are charged for pre-x.  Not many insurance companies will outright deny you coverage, but there are exceptions.

 

The reason pre-x conditions create a problem is because some people never purchase health insurance.  When they are diagnosed with an illness, they want insurance.  When their illness is over, they drop the coverage.  It's like buying car insurance after an accident and wanting the auto insurance to pay for it.

 

What used to happen was young couples would not purchase insurance until the wife became pregnant, for example.

 

This causes everyone who has continuous coverage to pay more and is not fair to them.

 

Newborn babies added to their parents coverage after birth  have never been subject to Pre-X and they are covered for the first 30 days. Any baby who is born with medical problems with parents who have no coverage will receive treatment under medicaid regardless of how much money their parents makes.  

 

Handicapped children who are covered under their parent's health insurance also have Medicaid as a back-up.

 

Insurance is complicated.  I don't know what the solution is that is fair to everyone.  Other countries have coverage for all, but it is not perfect either.

 

No matter what happens, not everyone's is going to be happy. The bottom line is, we are all going to have to pay something for this to work. 


@Carmie.  Is this true even for states who didn't expand Medicaid?  Only about 33 states did that in response to the ACA.  This my not apply to all states is what I'm thinking with regard to the automatic Medicaid.  I thought SSI has to kick in for that, then they are eligible.  If a State has not expanded Medicaid, then where does that leave these babies?


This has been true as long as I can remember, Way before ACA, back at least to the 1980's.  The ACA MIght have " put in in writing" as they did many with many other things that were already covered. I remember shaking my head when I read some of the things listed in the ACA.  It was eye popping to see the lack of knowledge amount our law makers when that was drafted.

 

Many of the things were already covered by order of other laws and acts already on the books, such as the Kennedy Kassebaum Act 1996.  Ted Kennedy did a lot of good things with helping people when they changed or lost their coverage. He is also responsible for HIPAA which covers much more than the privacy most of us know about

 

I can't wait to see if this new Health Insurance passes in the Senate and see it in writing for myself.  I can't image anything that happened so fast being all that great. I do hope I am wrong.

 

I glanced at some of the provisions and it looks like the older you are, the more you will pay for insurance, it appears the price might be based on age and not usage.  I guess they think older people are sicker than younger people and so their coverage should cost  more.  

 

I think it will be years away  before we get half decent coverage for all.

 

 

 

 


@Carmie, yes because I am quite confused about this part.  My State does in fact have programs for low income children (low wage earners and those receiving TANF).

 

Time will tell.  I hope children/babies don't get caught up in this overall.


 CHIP is still available to all children above a certain household income.  For some it is free, others have to pay for it.  If your income is too low, you children have to go on Medicaid.

 

I used to service the CHIP program in PA over the phone.  It was the most frustrating thing I have ever done at work.  Parents with no or very low income were mad as hello when they sent in an application for CHIP and it was forwarded to Medicaid.  They did not want Medicaid, but their income was too low for CHIP.  my ears used to ring for hours after a i went home for the day.