Gotta Cover Those Pre-Existing Conditions

Status
Not open for further replies.
I wonder why they can't say if you have existing health insurance in the last year or 5 year or even 10 years, then you can't be denied for pre existing condition. Lots of people who have health insurance until the get laid off. I admit I only skimmed the whole thread. ....

I don't see that as workable. If someone has not had insurance for the last 1, 5 or 10 years and has a pre-existing condition does that then mean that they can never buy health insurance? Is that what we want? That a close cousin to where things were before.
 
How can they keep pre-existing conditions coverage and get rid of the individual mandate, which ACA opponents hate more than anything else?

I've heard conservatives say pre-existing conditions requirement is not fair to insurers so they should not be forced to provide coverage.
 
How can they keep pre-existing conditions coverage and get rid of the individual mandate, which ACA opponents hate more than anything else?

I've heard conservatives say pre-existing conditions requirement is not fair to insurers so they should not be forced to provide coverage.


Well, we could limit the types of treatment made available for pre-existing conditions so that the sickies wouldn't be a drag on the system.

For example:
http://youtu.be/9m2FxgyADpQ

It's been done before. Sound fair to everyone?


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum
 
How can they keep pre-existing conditions coverage and get rid of the individual mandate, which ACA opponents hate more than anything else?

I've heard conservatives say pre-existing conditions requirement is not fair to insurers so they should not be forced to provide coverage.
That's why I thought it was encouraging to see candidates embrace the concept of covering pre-existing conditions. They apparently feel they can't run on a platform that removes coverage for pre-existing conditions.

And yes, even though the individual mandate is hated by ACA opponents, I don't see how you can remove it without dropping pre-existing conditions.

The insurer fairness thing is a big can of worms. We have so few large medical insurance companies now. Congress has given them a pass on anti-monopoly rules. Plus they helped write the ACA.
 
And yes, even though the individual mandate is hated by ACA opponents, I don't see how you can remove it without dropping pre-existing conditions.

I agree. One reason employer medical coverage has worked so well for decades is that nearly everyone was enrolled; I suppose there were exceptions for people who were on a spouse's or parent's plan, but since there was little incentive to opt out when the employer provided it at little or no cost to the employee, the insurer got the healthy employees, too. (And, of course, even being healthy enough to work FT meant lower costs on average.) You couldn't game the system by waiting to enroll till you got sick because typically you could enroll only when you started, as of January 1, or if certain qualifying events happened (e.g., married, spouse lost job, etc.)

Medicare has similar requirements. If you hit Medicare age and don't immediately start Part B and prescription coverage and try to enroll a few years later when you get sick and/or get an expensive prescriptions, you'll get hit with a permanent surcharge on your premiums. The only way around it is if you had "equivalent coverage"- in DH's case he signed up when I retired and I was 61, he was 76. He'd been on my employers' plans so there was no surcharge.
 
I don't see that as workable. If someone has not had insurance for the last 1, 5 or 10 years and has a pre-existing condition does that then mean that they can never buy health insurance? Is that what we want? That a close cousin to where things were before.


Why not? This encourages people to buy insurance. No mandate necessary. What we have now doesn't work for most people anyway. Some people has huge deductible and the premium is also expensive. They get to spend zero health care.


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum
 
Last edited:
I agree. One reason employer medical coverage has worked so well for decades is that nearly everyone was enrolled; I suppose there were exceptions for people who were on a spouse's or parent's plan, but since there was little incentive to opt out when the employer provided it at little or no cost to the employee, the insurer got the healthy employees, too. (And, of course, even being healthy enough to work FT meant lower costs on average.) You couldn't game the system by waiting to enroll till you got sick because typically you could enroll only when you started, as of January 1, or if certain qualifying events happened (e.g., married, spouse lost job, etc.)

Medicare has similar requirements. If you hit Medicare age and don't immediately start Part B and prescription coverage and try to enroll a few years later when you get sick and/or get an expensive prescriptions, you'll get hit with a permanent surcharge on your premiums. The only way around it is if you had "equivalent coverage"- in DH's case he signed up when I retired and I was 61, he was 76. He'd been on my employers' plans so there was no surcharge.


I like the surge charge too or give people with health insurance like car insurance more discount the longer they have the insurance. The penalty is too small compare to the insurance premium.


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum
 
Last edited:
Well, we could limit the types of treatment made available for pre-existing conditions so that the sickies wouldn't be a drag on the system.

For example:
http://youtu.be/9m2FxgyADpQ

It's been done before. Sound fair to everyone?


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum


With the existing plan, most people avoid to have the small income because they don't really want the Medicaid plan. I know my sister does. But she barely exercises, if she can, she would watch Korean soap for 24 hours. Yes she is the sickest person in my family and also poorest.


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum
 
Well, we could limit the types of treatment made available for pre-existing conditions so that the sickies wouldn't be a drag on the system.

For example:
http://youtu.be/9m2FxgyADpQ

It's been done before. Sound fair to everyone?

Sounds to me like you are trying to get this thread closed!

Isn't this the kind of post that would earn a warning for most of us?
-ERD50
 
And yes, even though the individual mandate is hated by ACA opponents, I don't see how you can remove it without dropping pre-existing conditions.

It's easy if you don't care about detonating the entire law . . . "see, we told you it wouldn't work."
 
....Some people has huge deductible and the premium is also expensive. They get to spend zero health care. ....

Why do you think they call it insurance? :facepalm:

For car insurance you pay premiums and most years don't have any claims but every once in a while you do. Ditto with home insurance. In fact, home insurance is probably a better analogy in that some years you have no claims, some years perhaps a small claim and every so often someone has a big claim.
 
For years or rather decades, we had no health insurance claims. Then suddenly, between my son and myself the insurance had to pay in the 6 figure over 3 years, and that's after we paid our $30K deductible ($10K/year). It could be a lot worse. So, I am not complaining anymore.

By the way, our care level was good. Not much to complain about. We got the best treatments that medicine had to offer. In my shoes, Bill Gates would have a nurse stationed by his hospital bed 24 hours at his beck and call, but he would not get different medicine or surgeries.
 
Last edited:
For years or rather decades, we had no health insurance claims. Then suddenly, between my son and myself the insurance had to pay in the 6 figure over 3 years, and that's after we paid our $30K deductible ($10K/year). It could be a lot worse. So, I am not complaining anymore.


Years ago, a solo-practice consulting actuary I knew tried to get coverage for his family with a $10k deductible and couldn't find it. My, how times have changed! I can't complain about my high deductible; like you, I want to be protected against the really expensive nightmares. I would, however, like more transparency about what tests and other procedures will cost me when weighing options!
 
Years ago, a solo-practice consulting actuary I knew tried to get coverage for his family with a $10k deductible and couldn't find it. My, how times have changed! I can't complain about my high deductible; like you, I want to be protected against the really expensive nightmares. I would, however, like more transparency about what tests and other procedures will cost me when weighing options!
Our serious illnesses were covered by a pre-ACA policy. I think post-ACA, the care should still be the same.

And yes, I still want to know what each procedure or medicine costs, even if it is covered by the insurance. I do not know beforehand, but do get the invoices afterward for everything. The problem is all the items are coded with no description, as if they do not want you to know. I guess I could look the codes up somewhere, but have not done that.
 
Why do you think they call it insurance? :facepalm:
Except it really isn't. A better name would be called health care intermediation, with a rider for insurance. The "insurer" is not simply insuring risk, as is the case with life and homeowners. They are imposing themselves between providers and consumers and extracting money from each. If we, as consumers, had the option of health care at the same price as the insurer, the market might structure itself more like auto insurance. Now, however, we are forced into the insurance product by law and also coerced by pricing.
 
... If we, as consumers, had the option of health care at the same price as the insurer, the market might structure itself more like auto insurance...
I have told this story before, but it is worth repeating.

About 30 years ago, the megacorp I was with was seeing the handwriting on the wall about escalating health care costs. It pushed for more transparency in hospital billing, requirement that the patient be informed of options, having 2nd opinion, etc.... It tried to form a coalition with other major employers in town to push state laws mandating some of these ideas. They were trying to get patients to understand and appreciate the cost of healthcare.

Nope, the measure failed in the poll. People just did not care. Back then, I got free healthcare and dental coverage as an employee. My family was covered by me paying peanuts ($50 a month perhaps, too low to even remember). And I could go to any specialist for anything.

And I think the deal like the above was pretty much standard then. People were spoiled, and they thought that any change would mean they would not get the status quo, so why changed anything at all. Of course the cost increase was not sustainable, and look at how expensive health insurance is now from employers, and the high deductible of several $K is now standard.

I say people get what they deserve.

The "insurer" is not simply insuring risk, as is the case with life and homeowners. They are imposing themselves between providers and consumers and extracting money from each.

Another entity that would provide the same function would also have a "friction cost". :)
 
Last edited:
Except it really isn't. A better name would be called health care intermediation, with a rider for insurance. The "insurer" is not simply insuring risk, as is the case with life and homeowners. They are imposing themselves between providers and consumers and extracting money from each.


What money are they extracting from providers?
 
What money are they extracting from providers?

Are you kidding? Have you ever looked at a medical bill?

Amount for procedure: $989
Insurer negotiated amount: $102
 
Bear in mind that the 'amount for procedure' number, the chargemaster price, is set to address the "Saudi sheikh problem" , and isn't related to the actual cost and normal profit margin for a procedure.

"You don't really want to change your charges if you have a Saudi sheikh come in with a suitcase full of cash who's going to pay full charges."
-- Warren Browner, California Pacific Medical Center CEO
 
Right, but if I go in with no insurance and hand them a credit card, do you think I only pay the $102 amount?
 
Right, but if I go in with no insurance and hand them a credit card, do you think I only pay the $102 amount?

They'll generate a statement with the chargemaster amount, but if you are wise you'll dicker to pay up front if possible at a reduced rate. If after the fact, you'll want to offer immediate payment of a smaller amount as payment in full. Get a starting price with one of these:
https://www.healthcarebluebook.com/
FH Consumer Cost Lookup

You won't get the insurance company price, but you'll do better than the chargemaster rate. Ask for a "prompt pay" discount.
 
Why do you think they call it insurance? :facepalm:



For car insurance you pay premiums and most years don't have any claims but every once in a while you do. Ditto with home insurance. In fact, home insurance is probably a better analogy in that some years you have no claims, some years perhaps a small claim and every so often someone has a big claim.

I'm not sure your analogy to car and house insurance is appropriate. People use health insurance for well check too. Not just for catastrophic.
It doesn't work the way people expect it to work. If you have a deductible of $12,000 per year then it's almost as if you have no insurance. This is very common complain for ACA.


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum
 
It doesn't work the way people expect it to work. If you have a deductible of $12,000 per year then it's almost as if you have no insurance. This is very common complain for ACA.

It's a common complaint. And a fairly misleading one too. One huge benefit of health insurance is that you get charged your insurer's "negotiated rate" for services. For me, that price is about 1/8th the sticker price.

So even if I don't exceed my deductible and never get reimbursed a single cent from my insurance company I may still get tremendous value from the policy. In fact that was my situation in 2015 where we more than earned back our insurance premium just through negotiated discounts.

Now some argue that you can get those same prices and better by negotiating to pay cash. I personally have never been able to make that work. And it certainly wouldn't work in any emergency scenario.
 
DH tried this with an office visit.

His PCP of many years retired in 2015 and passed him to his replacement MD. Nice enough new doctor but he changed DHs high blood pressure medication and started him on a statin. He said they do things differently than the retired PCP.

DH tried the new dosages and the statin and needed a minor adjustment. He needed to come back for an office visit in Jan 2016. By then we had changed insurances and his new PCP is currently out of network. The new insurance is a HMO and there is no coverage for out of network.

Fine. DH knew he would be seeing the PCP for one last visit and our insurance would not cover it. I explained the cost of this and DH wanted to see the now out of network PCP.

So he went to his office visit in Jan 2016 and explained to the staff that he wanted to pay for this outside of the insurance. He took a credit card and cash and asked to pay, hopefully with a discount of some sort.

They told him that they could not process an office visit like that. All visits had to be sent to their billing department. He tried to explain that he changed insurance, etc and to not submit it, no one would be paying this but him.

The answer was that they had to submit it, there was no other way. So they submitted it to our 2015 insurance which took a few weeks and rejected it. They billed us and he called to explain and they said they had to submit it to his current insurance. So he gave them the info and it was rejected as out of network and not preapproved.

When the next bill comes he will call them again and at most they will offer a 10% discount. The bill is $178 and our old insurance used to adjust it to $112 as the negotiated rate, but we will probably have to pay $160.

This really bugs me because DH could have just found a new PCP with our new HMO and only paid $40 co-pay (ACA Bronze plan with $6650 deductible but not HSA eligible) but he insisted that he wanted to follow through with the one who changed his dosages.

So yeah, the idea that you can just go in and pay cash and not bother with insurance hassles......I wish it was that simple!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom