pre-existing condition? all you need to do is wait 6 months n pay through your nose to get coverage

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0630/coverage-uninsured-people-poor-health/


"To qualify for the temporary program, a person must have a pre-existing medical condition and must have been uninsured for six months or longer. The main beneficiaries are likely to be the self-employed and their families, and those who work for small employers that don't provide coverage. Only U.S. citizens and legal residents qualify."

Let's see them put lipstick on this pig and tell us what a wonderful deal this is

Another disappointment

BP is probably going to finish me off.

there could be a provision in the new HC bill that might allow this to happen.

:shrug:

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/06/29/high-risk-pool-time-bomb-looms-while-baucus-wins-medicare-for-his-chosen-few/

"...Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) made sure to include a provision in the law to expand Medicare to the victims of asbestos contamination in Libby—in his home state. I can happily report that less than two months after the President signed the new law, people in Libby were getting their Medicare cards. Too bad Baucus doesn’t use his powerful Finance chairmanship to make sure millions of other Americans in need also get help so quickly..."


And this from he comments section, comment #2 ...

"I can happily report that less than two months after the President signed the new law, people in Libby were getting their Medicare cards. Too bad Baucus doesn’t use his powerful Finance chairmanship to make sure millions of other Americans in need also get help so quickly.

Well played sir. No one can deny the folks of Libby Montana deserve medical coverage despite their pre-existing conditions, but that section of the bill should be amended to offer Medicare coverage to every American with a pre-existing condition (or better yet, every American full stop).

I just looked up the bill section — SEC. 10323. MEDICARE COVERAGE FOR INDIVIDUALS EXPOSED TO ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARDS– man every bill should have this clause, sure to drive the CBO bonkers –
8) WAIVER OF BUDGET NEUTRALITY.—The Secretary shall not require that pilot programs under this subsection be budget neutral with respect to expenditures under this title.

Since we’re likely to see people get sick or have their health threatened by the BP oil spill, I would take note that the Secretary is given “discretionary deeming” authority to enroll victims of other environmental health emergencies into Medicare. Whether its asthmatics who takes ill from crude oil fumes or if we’re faced with a Katrina-style masss evacuation, Sebelius has the authority to create “optional pilot programs” with coverage eligibility starting “the date of such deeming” and is given broad waiver powers so premiums and other paperwork shouldn’t hold anyone up. If the Administration can be bothered to act, it will be interesting to see how AHIP lobbies against it."


Here is one article with a few details on the Libby/W.R. Grace site, if Medicare can pay for Grace victims, then it can also pay for people whose health is affected by BP.


Libby Asbestos Superfund Site: W.R. Grace Acquitted
Posted by Trish Riley, May 22, 2009

http://www.gogreennation.org/2009/05/libby-asbestos-superfund-site-wr-grace-acquitted/

“A collective stunned silence hit the state of Montana at lunch time on Friday, May 8, as news filtered out from U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy’s Missoula courtroom that W.R. Grace & Co. and three of its former executives had been acquitted of all crimes in connection with the asbestos poisoning of Libby, Montana.

More than 270 people from Libby lie in their graves due to asbestos from the mine, and another 1,800 (from a community of about 12,000) walk around with the likely death sentence of an asbestos-related diagnosis..."

and I don't see being able to afford it anytime soon... I guess I should take solace in the fact that BP isn't drowning my state in oil..

from the piece:

"But here's the catch: Premiums will be a stretch for many, even after government subsidies to bring rates close to what healthier groups of people are charged.

And $5 billion that Congress allocated to the program through 2013 could run out well before that."

The Insurance Company Profits Before People Plan. They'd better hurry up with those debtor's prisons -- perhaps THEN those with pre-existing conditions will get appropriate care. :sarcasm:

Those countries that offer it have substantial taxes to pay for their citizens' health care. At least though, everyone pays according to their ability and income level. The way we do it, it's not equitable at all. Typically those who can least afford it, pay the most.

$5 billion is a drop in the bucket to insure the 47 million without coverage for the next 4 years. If/when my husband needs treatment again, it will probably cost close to a $1 million. He's just one guy with cancer. When you think of the folks who actually are going to be flooding the application desk on July 1 when this opens up, and THEIR health needs and COSTS, it's not hard to imagine that this is going to troubled from the very start.

Because that is not the reality, and not what I asked.

I don't think the compromise to get people some kind of insurace was the best thing we could have done. It should have started immmediatly. But, realities of politics made an immediate start impossible. No bill and no coverage is not better than what was passed, at least in my opinion.

should be

I am definitely not saying that is the way it should be

By using a six month waiting period what they are effectively doing is blocking those who need access to it now

It is an immoral and unethical implementation of an already very compromised healthcare plan

with the latter group including those with less than a six month break in insurance and those who can't afford the rates. Why would anyone want to bring up those losers?
:sarcasm:


Other than placating insurance companies, what would be a practical reason for leaving people vulnerable for six months?

bound to significantly increase their profits

for a pre-existing condition? My daughter has a rider for anything asthma related, which, of course, is the thing she needs most often from her health care. We opted for the rider rather than let her go without insurance. Is she out of luck?

She won't be affected by this bullshit statement. This "loophole" actually won't apply to many people: You will have to be diagnosed with a new condition and NOT have any type of insurance coverage at the time for this to actually be a problem. The scenario the OP posts about is actually VERY uncommon. Signed, chronically ill and covered person.

Anything related to asthma/sinus/allergies is an out-of-pocket cost for us.

let alone MUCH MORE than one would pay in 2014 when discrimination on pre-existing conditions is banned. We should therefore repeal HCR and restore the pre-HCR status quo.

:sarcasm:

:sarcasm:

matters to you..:sarcasm: Oh NOES someone who actually benefits from HCR, I needs to be told to SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP!!!

I meant the complete opposite. I DO agree with you completely.

At least it won't be the status quo! :sarcasm:

It doesn't matter if you were offered coverage at a completely outrageous price, you were still offered coverage and that alone will eliminate you from the high risk pool. But, on the bright side, it's pretty much a sham anyway, since it was never funded adequately.

This is another smoke and mirrors thing. They passed something they could tout as a high risk pool that covered the uninsured with pre-existing conditions, but in reality it is structured to cover the least amount of people in this category they possibly can.

Telling ill people to go without coverage for six months is tantamount to telling them to forego treatment and get sicker and/or bankrupt before they are able to enroll. It's just "sensible" legislation, that's all.

Do go on.

I have followed the entire HCR VERY closely, it's been "my" issue for years. Additionally, I have family members who are hanging on by a thread to find out if they will qualify

While I did believe based on previous reading that a denial of coverage would be required throughout the entire pool, it now appears that is not the case in all states.

But, if you read this link to a Flordia newspaper from 2 days ago, they certainly seem to be implying that you need a denial
http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=20106280348

"Beginning Thursday, Floridians will be able to apply online for coverage that would begin Aug. 1.

Applicants should keep copies of denial letters from private insurance providers. Those without such denial letters should apply for insurance so they can obtain one."
********************************************************

Here is a great site for those who care deeply and personally about what is going on with the National High Risk Pools

http://www.ncsl.org/?tabid=14329#Submitted_2010

The description of the California law passed makes it sound like a denial is necessary. The legislation being considered in Illinois says: "Would provide health coverage for high-risk people denied insurance"

edit to correct link

...Not a state program?

The word "federal" appears prominently in both titles.

Unsurprising. Given the choices you offer, I pick the highway.

with the fed. Each state is working it out.

I've stated in other posts that Illinois hasn't yet worked it out yet, whether one has to have a denial and been uninsured for 6 months before they can apply (which is what is required in IL now), or whether you just have to be uninsured (which seems to be implied in the new law).

I was on the phone with my congressman's office just last week and they still didn't have an answer.

Like "the death donut hole".

The gap is inexcusable. Why have such a thing? For some it just means that they will die during that wait with no-coverage, more than a few will go bankrupt paying for their healthcare at retail prices, and many more will get exponentially sicker while they put off treatment until they can get coverage.

It's pretty crappy and actually needs some kind of terrible name akin to "death panels" which was devastatingly effective imho. Wrong, but effective. At least with this six month gap, it actually IS truthful to call it the "death donut" or _________ (insert your favorite phrase here).

IT ALSO DOESN'T ALLOW YOUR CURRENT INSURER TO DROP YOU WHEN YOU ARE DX'd -OR IF YOU LOSE YOUR JOB AND START A NEW ONE.
Frankly I'm tired of the bullshit that HCR will not help people (LIKE ME) with pre-existing conditions. It already has! I won't have to go through the bullshit I went through when I changed jobs a couple of years ago--A DU'er actually helped me pay for some expensive meds. But the new laws MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE for the insurance companies to play that game again.
I'm so tired of people who don't have a clue what we, as chronically ill people deal with...My meds cost $2,500 a month. I pay maybe $150 per month with insurance. They HAVE to pay for the meds and thanks to the HCR, I don't have to worry about them dropping me like a hot potato if I change jobs...:grr:
I must not be a true progressive though right? :banghead:

Good for you, but most of us in our 50s LOSE our job and have to pay 2500 a month for diabetic medicines and HCR does nothing. If you think that paying 3 times the rate and being in a high risk pool is a win for dems good for you. I am glad you changed jobs "a couple years ago". Today the onloy jobs are part time with no benefits and HCR is a bust.

I suppose you think the dems caving on finance reform is another win?

The only bad think about dems losing power in November is that John Boehner will be a couple heartbeats from the presidency.

Think about HCR, why do people hate it? It isn't universal and it doesn't control costs. It was another big business win and a loss for the little guy.

afford the premiums, but after COBRA is up, based on the Raw Story article, you would still have to wait 6 months before you qualified for insurance with a pre-existing condition

I have to wonder who are they really trying to help with this caveat

In 2014, your health insurance will not cost one penny more than a similarly-situated person who is healthy and does not need diabetic medicines.

Yes, older people have to pay up to 3 times as much as younger people. Prior to the bill, they would often have to pay 10+ times as much as younger people.

The entire POINT of the bill is to provide help to people who are unemployed or have jobs WITHOUT BENEFITS.

The idea that people hate HCR and think it shouldn't have been passed because it ONLY helps 30 million people as opposed to 50 million people is bonkers. To the extent that anyone believes this nonsense, they are wrong (though I think this view is quite limited, given that 85%+ of Democrats approve of the bill).

I suppose you think that increasing disclosure for everyone but the NRA/Sierra Club is WORSE than not increasing disclosure for anyone?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

"The only bad think about dems losing power in November is that John Boehner will be a couple heartbeats from the presidency."

Allow me to put this bluntly. You have NO IDEA how you/we have it right now. NOT A CLUE. You will quickly learn should John Boehner take power. Reality has a tendency to focus the mind.

Are you saying there is no 6 months waiting period right now?

What about those that cannot wait 6 months?

My wife had an Uncle in the hospital for 3 weeks. He was under Medicare. One bill received from the hospital was 4110000 dollars!!!

If he didn't have Medicare and didn't have insurance, do you think he could have waited six months before treatment, provided of course if he had a pre-existing condition?

Some of us aren't so lucky.

as the annual deductible, our annual out of pocket is 11000+ and each year from now on that will be an additional expense for our family. Our deductible is about 2500, but you need to look at the the annual out of pocket as well.

Get your annual check ups!