I wish there was! Only on Oahu and Maui at this point. We live on the Big Island part of the year.There's a Whole Foods on the big island in Hawaii, I wonder if they're hiring?[emoji16]
I wish there was! Only on Oahu and Maui at this point. We live on the Big Island part of the year.There's a Whole Foods on the big island in Hawaii, I wonder if they're hiring?[emoji16]
People are coming out in droves to let their representatives know. Why do you think so many of them are refusing to have town hall meetings?
The great thing about Medicare is the network covers the entire US, not just 50 square miles of some small metro area that doesn't even have certain specialists.
Is Medicare really all that great? Recall reading an article that stated 20% of doctors are refusing to accept new Medicare patients and it's only expected to get worse with all the 'baby boomers' joining the Medicare ranks.
Is Medicare really all that great? Recall reading an article that stated 20% of doctors are refusing to accept new Medicare patients and it's only expected to get worse with all the 'baby boomers' joining the Medicare ranks.
I don't understand how doctors can turn away 60% of their clientele and still get by. Isn't Gen X like half the size of the boomer generation, and we won't need the doctors as much as the boomers do (until we get old ourselves).
4. Go without insurance (or get whatever insurance you can get). I would be reluctant to do that for the obvious reasons. If I did this I would set aside enough money that I could pay for most medical problems that come up. If I got hit with a really serious condition that would be expensive to treat, then I would look to travel to another country where the costs were less and get care there. Not ideal, but possible. Another variation of this might be try to go to another country and buy insurance there (if possible).
There is no new bill, just the report of a potential amendment.
4. Go without insurance (or get whatever insurance you can get). I would be reluctant to do that for the obvious reasons. If I did this I would set aside enough money that I could pay for most medical problems that come up. If I got hit with a really serious condition that would be expensive to treat, then I would look to travel to another country where the costs were less and get care there. Not ideal, but possible. Another variation of this might be try to go to another country and buy insurance there (if possible).
The key word is "potential". It is not an amendment, just another proposal. If it does pass muster, make it into the bill, and get a spot on the legislative calendar, we can talk about it. In the meantime, there's nothing to talk about.OK, but the amendment still makes it a new"er" bill at the end of the day. Same results.
Guess I'm a little surprised at the passivity I see in this thread. If you have concerns about what might be happening to the ACA, then let your elected representatives know about it. If enough folks do that, then the ACA might just get fixed in a way that will benefit us all.
I have not tried to wrap my head around a scenario where no insurance is to be had. Cannot imagine that will occur. Albeit, what is available could be quite expensive. If this is the case, I will be royally irritated but fork over the money because going sans-health insurance is not an option as far as I am concerned.
Back in the day (pre-ACA) people used to get turned down for insurance all the time. There were people with plenty of money who could not buy health insurance.
If community rating goes away (which is possible) then insurers might be required to offer coverage to those with pre-existing conditions but could charge whatever they wanted to for it. Insurance for those with cancer, for example, would likely be so expensive to be unaffordable.
Another possibility is that the requirement to offer coverage to those with pre-existing conditions could go away making it possible no insurance would be available at all. Even if high risk pools were offered in the past they were so underfunded that there were often waiting lists to get on them (sometimes years long) or they excluded pre-existing conditions for a period of time (not really very helpful for someone who has a serious condition needing immediate treatment).
For many years prior to ACA, a number of states required health insurance providers to offer non-medically underwritten policies. New York comes to mind in that regard. So there were states that you could move to and get HI even if you had a pre-existing condition: and you were not penalized on the cost front.
Certainly more state insurance commissions allowed medically underwritten policies than did not.
“Before the ACA, there was basically no individual insurance market in New York,” Schaub said. “There was only about 23,000 people because there weren’t any subsidies and so insurance companies, knowing they were going to have to write you a policy no matter your health condition, they charged very high premiums and the vast majority of people in the individual market could not afford that.”
That didn't mean policies were effectively available. Yes, NY required community rating pre-ACA However, my understanding was that premiums were very high and very few insurers participated.
This discusses the history:
https://www.healthinsurance.org/new_york-state-health-insurance-exchange/
This says:
City & State - After Obamacare: What are New Yorkâ€[emoji769]s options if the Affordable Care Act is repealed?
I recall on another forum I participated in back then someone from New York telling me how much the premiums were for individual coverage and it was insanely high, far beyond the means of most people.
I had one of those policies. The premiums were high, the lifetime limit was low, the networks were limited, and the policy coverage met a minimum standard but was by no means comprehensive.That didn't mean policies were effectively available. Yes, NY required community rating pre-ACA However, my understanding was that premiums were very high and very few insurers participated.
./.
I recall on another forum I participated in back then someone from New York telling me how much the premiums were for individual coverage and it was insanely high, far beyond the means of most people.
People mentioned single payer and don't necessary understand what it really means. I hear this often in the net. It's always mean the government is going to provide health insurance like the U.K.
The British system is technically not single-payer, as it consists of a number of financially and legally autonomous trusts, and private health insurance options are also allowed. Only Canada and Taiwan have true nation-wide single-payer systems.
As long as there is a huge industry that makes billions off of Americans, because the system is set up for obfuscation by hospitals, doctors, drug companies, equipment companies, and insurance companies, they all overcharge on stuff they shouldn't. Insurance companies don't pay when they should. But the consumer cannot fight this alone. Anyone who thinks that one can shop for health care the same way one buys a pair of shoes is delusional.