General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAre we victims of misinformation here as well?
Here, I keep reading that Trumpcare won't cover preexisting conditions.
But here: http://www.theroot.com/we-read-all-123-pages-of-trumpcare-heres-what-you-need-1793165438
Which is a trusted source for liberal and democratic people, they say that it does cover preexisting conditions.
What the hell am I supposed to believe? Is there a detail I'm missing?
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Those of us with cancer will pay 3 times as much as those who don't have it. My most recent quote without the ACA was 2,200 per month with a 10K deductible. I will stick with my medicare until they take that away too which will be sometime in 2018.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)I just want to make sure we're still the party of facts. If it covers preexisting conditions then we shouldn't say otherwise for fear we'll lose our moral footing.
We aren't them.
still_one
(92,303 posts)insurers to levy a 30% surcharge for a year on the premiums of those who let their coverage lapse. It lifts the taxes that the ACA had imposed on the wealthy, insurers and prescription drug manufacturers. And it loosens one of the law's strict insurance reforms so that carriers can offer a wider array of policies that pick up less of the tab for getting care.
Lower-income folks could be left uninsured
The ACA contains many provisions to help poor and lower-income Americans. It expanded Medicaid to cover adults who earn up to $16,400 a year -- some 11 million people in 31 states and the District of Columbia are now insured as a result.
Also, those with incomes just under $30,000 receive generous subsidies to lower their premiums, deductibles and out-of-pocket costs on the individual market.
The republican plan would end the expanded federal Medicaid funding starting in 2020. Those on it could remain on it as long as they are continuously insured. However, with Medicaid, many go on and off it all the time, and there is no doubt participation would fall off, and new enrollees after 2020, wouldn't even qualify.
The republican plan would remove the subsidies, by instead sending states a fixed amount of money per capita. It would ELIMINATE federal responsibility by shifting that burden to the states, but states don't have the money to make up the difference, and be forced to reduce eligibility and benefits, or cut provider payments.
Older Americans less than 65, and those making 20 thousand a year would take the biggest hit.
However, the key difference for pre-existing conditions in the republican plan is that it would lift the requirement that insurers cover a certain share of the cost of getting care. It would allow the carriers to offer more confusing policies, higher deductibles and co-pays, and make it difficult to find low deductible plans that are affordable, which would put people with less means in a catch 22 situation. They cannot afford to do it, or afford not to do it, and as stated before if their insurance lapses, they could be charged 30% surcharge for pre-existing conditions, and if that was unaffordable, they would never be able to get coverage for pre-existing conditions.
The elimination of subsidies for tax credits would eliminate the most vulnerable in our society from coverage.
One other point is they would know no require the mandate. Because of that, the real threat of insurance companies not participating in the republican plan, especially in certain areas of the country, is very probable.
The republicans have an opportunity to offer Medicare for all, or at a minimum, improve the ACA, but they choose to do neither, and it will be more costly, more unaffordable, and less people will not be insured.
One cannot just say that the republican plan will cover pre-existing conditions, without going into the fine print, because within that fine-print, those with pre-existing conditions may NOT be able to afford the insurance.
Wounded Bear
(58,676 posts)sure, you can "access" it, but can you afford it?
WhiteTara
(29,719 posts)There is so MUCH disinformation,it's hard to know truth from fiction. One source I keep wondering about it International Business TImes. Has some intriguing information but I still don't know if it is reliable. Do you? Thanks.
Tanuki
(14,919 posts)".....Right now, its not clear. Currently, Republicans only have enough votes to repeal parts of Obamacare via budget reconciliation. That means they can only attack parts of the law that involve a cost to the government, by stripping away associated funding. If the GOP successfully does this, as they intend, the pre-existing conditions provision would not be touched, and would basically stay in effectuntil they manage to pass a replacement plan.
President-elect Donald Trump has said he would like to keep the provision. But Republicans havent presented a unified replacement plan, so its impossible to say with certainty what will happen. Cynthia Cox, associate director of the non-profit Kaiser Family Foundation, says a continuous coverage policy seems likely, and is included in House Speaker Paul Ryans A Better Way plan.
Cox advises people to ensure they have coverage right now, because if this continuous coverage policy is implemented, its unclear when people would need to be insured to qualify. Its also unclear how continuous coverage would be defined and whether there might be any flexibility. Can you go a month without insurance and still not be discriminated against for having a pre-existing condition? Three months?
In that light, purchasing a bare-bones policy
could make sense. Some Republican plans promote skimpy insurance options, Cox says, which dont cost a lot but have tons of coverage exclusions. But they would be an option so people could have continuous coverage in the event that they are laid off from their job or cant afford a better plan.
Its never good to have a gap in coverage, says Larry Levitt, senior vice president of the Kaiser Family Foundation. But if these replacement plans pass, it could be catastrophic.
RobinA
(9,894 posts)there's no way to have reasonable preexisting coverage without a mandate (no freedom, according to Repubs) or government input. I despise insurance companies, but asking them to cover someone who decides to buy insurance after they get diagnosed with something is just never going to work.
Nitram
(22,843 posts)resolve differences between the House and the Senate.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)How those costs are shared is what's significant. Under Trump care many with preexisting conditions will not be able to afford health insurance. Not even close.
Vinca
(50,299 posts)to rates that will be unaffordable for average people. Same with older people. Big insurance will be able to charge a 50 year old 5 times as much as a 20 year old. They don't seem to understand the concept of insurance.
wishstar
(5,271 posts)I haven't seen people saying they will be turned down on basis of pre-existing but that coverage will be increased with inadequate tax credits, plus if they wait to file, or stop paying premiums and try to re-enroll they will be hit with big permanent surcharge.
A thread here talked about a 55 year old woman from Monroe NC who complained at town hall because her ACA coverage now gives her enough subsidy so that her monthly premium is only $250, under new plan she will have to pay over $5000 more per year because insurance co. will be allowed to charge higher premium while tax credit won't be enough to offset the higher premium. She has a life-threatening liver condition. Under new plan, if her finances cause her to miss only a couple months of premiums, she will be subjected to permanent 30% higher rate.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Do you have a link?
The problem the OP points out is that this is a kind of news-aggregation service at the grassroots level. People bring the news they think is true. If they're wrong, we assume that it'll drop, but until then people read it. But a lot of "true" is just "it agrees with what I know," where "know" is a synonym for "think" or "believe." Such is life.
A lot of people read unthinking. Moreover, we remember what fits our narrative to a much greater extent. So it's easy to have completely different narratives drawn entirely from just DU.
So here are some alternative views, with no intent to call anybody out but just to answer, "Do you have a link?"
1. The problem is that the (R) plan has coverage for pre-existing conditions.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028759324
2. The (R) plan will not have coverage for pre-existing conditions:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028683786
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028759167
All of these follow the "blind men and the elephant" analogy. They see part of what's proposed and overgeneralize to the whole. It's in part knee-jerk reaction: They hear part of the plan and react strongly to that part, and remember just that part. "What you see is all there is" is a sloppy and fast way of thinking, but it outpaces accurate and slow most of the time.
Going back to the "news aggregation" bit, though, it's clear that if individual DUers fall for fake news or, even worse, true-but-trivial news that's sensational or scandalous, which fits their narrative in a way that causes them to mistakenly think it's important, then that's what you get. HRC email server stories on constant tap, lots of RT news posted simply because it's contrary to the established view (which, being established, must be establishment and therefore propaganda meant to brainwash us into mindless conformity, unlike the case in most other countries ... like Russia; yeah, go figure).
Tanuki
(14,919 posts)of the fact that the proposed plan leaves open the possibility of a return to placing people with pre-existing conditions into "high risk pools", where they could have exorbitant premiums, coverage exclusions, lifetime caps, etc.
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/fortune/2017/02/25/aca-prexisting-conditions/%3Fsource%3Ddam