Pre ACA laws

[Just_Steve]

High risk pools work for auto insurance, no reason they shouldn't work for health insurance.

[foxfirev5]

A small percentage before ACA. However it is a larger number post ACA. Since it currently doesn't effect me maybe I shouldn't care. No way. Or let's wait until a bill is passed and then we'll react.

[MBAustin]

samclem - Thanks for the link to the article about invisible high risk pools. I had never heard of this concept before and it's good to see information about different approaches that have demonstrated that they work.

[brewer12345]

Just a simple question: given the level of competency of our elected officials at all levels, who would like to bet that a robust, workable approach would be the one taken rather than the one that generates the most political points?

[ShokWaveRider]

Put it this way, it does not work in Florida, as it will be up to the states to manage, It will not work in Florida. It is purely a selling point.

[Fedup]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShokWaveRider High risk Pools do not work. (Remember Medicated High Blood Pressure is a Pre-Existing Condition) When we first came to Florida after living in the Caribbean on a sailboat for 3 years. I tried to get health insurance. I could not because of my High BP. Florida had a high risk pool at the time. I applied and they said it was FULL and taking no more applications. High Risk Pools are FINITE. If they are full you are SOL. So my wife went back to work until ACA was introduced.

What's wrong with going back to work for healthcare? All my family members with high BP are currently doing that. I don't know that many people who can retire in their early 50s and 40s.

[brewer12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fedup What's wrong with going back to work for healthcare? All my family members with high BP are currently doing that. I don't know that many people who can retire in their early 50s and 40s.

Fine by me, as long as it applies to Medicare beneficiaries as well.

[Fedup]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345 Fine by me, as long as it applies to Medicare beneficiaries as well.

What do you mean? People 65 and older? They already paid in the system.

[brewer12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fedup What do you mean? People 65 and older? They already paid in the system.

They paid a tax that does not even come close to funding Medicare. So what? So did everyone else. If you want to throw a segment of the population to the wolves just because they don't look like you, I see no reason why we should hold 65+ up on a pedestal in the healthcare market. What is special about 65? Why not 60? 50? 40? 70? And just curious: who adds more value to the economy, a working 40 YO or a retired 65 YO? Who is raising kids, the next generation of little taxpayers?

A bit more compassion and fairness would be nice. I will not be holding my breath.

[Fedup]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345 They paid a tax that does not even come close to funding Medicare. So what? So did everyone else. If you want to throw a segment of the population to the wolves just because they don't look like you, I see no reason why we should hold 65+ up on a pedestal in the healthcare market. What is special about 65? Why not 60? 50? 40? 70? And just curious: who adds more value to the economy, a working 40 YO or a retired 65 YO? Who is raising kids, the next generation of little taxpayers? A bit more compassion and fairness would be nice. I will not be holding my breath.

From my time hanging around here what I've seen is a pattern. While I have compassion for people who are sick but I don't have compassion for people who are too young in book and who want to retire early regardless. They have all sorts of reason for not wanting to work. How is that fair to other people who are still working? Having a pre-existing condiction like High blood pressure does not preclude ones from being working. One of my brother had since his early 40s, same with my sister and plenty do.
People think it's a right that they get to take off 3 years sailing, yet demanding to pay less than a $100 a month for health care. We pay nearly $10k per year and we have private and Medicare. Talk about fairness. It's not. It's fair if it works out for you, but what about others?

[brewer12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fedup From my time hanging around here what I've seen is a pattern. While I have compassion for people who are sick but I don't have compassion for people who are too young in book and who want to retire early regardless. They have all sorts of reason for not wanting to work. How is that fair to other people who are still working? Having a pre-existing condiction like High blood pressure does not preclude ones from being working. One of my brother had since his early 40s, same with my sister and plenty do. People think it's a right that they get to take off 3 years sailing, yet demanding to pay less than a $100 a month for health care. We pay nearly $10k per year and we have private and Medicare. Talk about fairness. It's not. It's fair if it works out for you, but what about others?

Right, because there are so many retirees in their 30s and 40s... In the real world, these people are statistically insignificant. Most of the people who are affected by your throwing the sub 65s to the wolves are working people. Their employers don't provide insurance, they are temporarily unemployed, they are self-employed, etc. Either that or they are 55+ and subject to age discrimination, health problems that make it difficult to work, are caring for an elderly relative, etc. Yes, lets crush all of these people so that the Boomers get "what they have coming." Uh-huh.

Realistically, we are all in the same boat. You aren't special or particularly deserving because of your demographic group. "Damn kids, get off my lawn" is not a terribly compelling argument for anything but stuff that reflects poorly on the person saying it. A real solution to the healthcare mess is needed for the entire country and a lot of it has to do with controlling costs. Why is your insurance package so expensive? Why was I quoted over $700 a month with a 12k deductible for 4 people who use virtually no medical services beyond checkups? Its a cost problem and one that very obviously is beyond the ability (or willingness) of the insurers to control.

To be clear: I don't expect this morass to be cleared up. If anything, I expect the existing swamp to have toxic waste, Burmese pythons, mutant feral hogs and a supertanker of bat guano dumped into it in the next few years.

[Fedup]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345 Right, because there are so many retirees in their 30s and 40s... In the real world, these people are statistically insignificant. Most of the people who are affected by your throwing the sub 65s to the wolves are working people. Their employers don't provide insurance, they are temporarily unemployed, they are self-employed, etc. Either that or they are 55+ and subject to age discrimination, health problems that make it difficult to work, are caring for an elderly relative, etc. Yes, lets crush all of these people so that the Boomers get "what they have coming." Uh-huh. Realistically, we are all in the same boat. You aren't special or particularly deserving because of your demographic group. "Damn kids, get off my lawn" is not a terribly compelling argument for anything but stuff that reflects poorly on the person saying it. A real solution to the healthcare mess is needed for the entire country and a lot of it has to do with controlling costs. Why is your insurance package so expensive? Why was I quoted over $700 a month with a 12k deductible for 4 people who use virtually no medical services beyond checkups? Its a cost problem and one that very obviously is beyond the ability (or willingness) of the insurers to control. To be clear: I don't expect this morass to be cleared up. If anything, I expect the existing swamp to have toxic waste, Burmese pythons, mutant feral hogs and a supertanker of bat guano dumped into it in the next few years.

Th percentage of people with pre-existing conditions without any employer's or government plans are like 1.4% of the population. Neither ACA nor AHCA is to help control cost. It's up to the doctors and the patients. I go to my general practitioner and the guy practically throw everything at me. I typically said no to most things. Same with people who need health insurance. It takes all sides.

As far as cost, my husband and I paid $250 a month for 4, back in 2003 time frame, pre-ACA. So it's not that much of a diiferent than what you and your family pay now.

[brewer12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fedup Th percentage of people with pre-existing conditions without any employer's or government plans are like 1.4% of the population. Neither ACA nor AHCA is to help control cost. It's up to the doctors and the patients. I go to my general practitioner and the guy practically throw everything at me. I typically said no to most things. Same with people who need health insurance. It takes all sides.

The percentage of people with pre-existing conditions depends on the definition of those conditions. Give the insurers free rein and guess what will be included?

There is an obvious way to control costs (google monopsony), but given the way the republic is transitioning into a kleptocratic imperium it is pretty obvious that will never happen.

[Fedup]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345 The percentage of people with pre-existing conditions depends on the definition of those conditions. Give the insurers free rein and guess what will be included? There is an obvious way to control costs (google monopsony), but given the way the republic is transitioning into a kleptocratic imperium it is pretty obvious that will never happen.

I think this is yet to be seen. Too much speculation on what are considered pre-existing conditions.

[brewer12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fedup As far as cost, my husband and I paid $250 a month for 4, back in 2003 time frame, pre-ACA. So it's not that much of a diiferent than what you and your family pay now.

$250 subject to CPI over that period would be $334 today. I can guess what the deductible and max OOP acceleration was between 2003 and 2017 as well.

[Fedup]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345 $250 subject to CPI over that period would be $334 today. I can guess what the deductible and max OOP acceleration was between 2003 and 2017 as well.

Why CPI? Health insurance has gone up more than CPI. I don't remember but I think max deductible was $5k and I was allowed to go to 3 doctors at at cost of $30. We never did use it. We still don't use our heath insurance that much now.

[brewer12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fedup Why CPI? Health insurance has gone up more than CPI.

Bueller?

You are illustrating my point. If you do not like CPI, how about median household income? In 2003 it was 43,318. I could not find 2017, but the last point in the series was 2015 at 56,516. Express annual premiums as a percentage of income and you just might start getting the idea why this is a society-wide problem, and not just something you can gleefully dump on those of us under the age of 65.

[travelover]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fedup What's wrong with going back to work for healthcare? .........

There is no reason in the world that health insurance should be linked to employment. That link was a curiosity of history that bypassed wage controls after WWII.

[Fedup]

Quote:

Originally Posted by travelover There is no reason in the world that health insurance should be linked to employment. That link was a curiosity of history that bypassed wage controls after WWII.

That's good to hear but that's how it's been working in USA. When I first graduated from college, I had to pick up a job 3000 miles away because I had to have insurance. Otherwise I would be a bum today. It's a good motivator for people who lack motivation, including me of course. Granted during the dot com burst and the Great Recession, a lot of people fell on hard time with no jobs and therefore no health insurance. But in general it's a good idea to go to work. I get that some work place doesn't offer insurance, but most do. I know it's a foreign concept to preach work in an early retirement forum. But retire early if you have all those factors taken care off, if not stay working. That's what my husband did and he didn't like his last job.

[brewer12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fedup That's good to hear but that's how it's been working in USA. When I first graduated from college, I had to pick up a job 3000 miles away because I had to have insurance. Otherwise I would be a bum today. It's a good motivator for people who lack motivation, including me of course. Granted during the dot com burst and the Great Recession, a lot of people fell on hard time with no jobs and therefore no health insurance. But in general it's a good idea to go to work. I get that some work place doesn't offer insurance, but most do. I know it's a foreign concept to preach work in an early retirement forum. But retire early if you have all those factors taken care off, if not stay working. That's what my husband did and he didn't like his last job.

And women should stay in the kitchen, because that is the way it always was.