Affordable Care Act access
 

If you know anyone who doesn't have insurance currently, or has insurance but isn't covered for some of their pre-existing conditions, or was refused insurance, here's the website to see if they are eligible for insurance under the ACA (temporary pools before the exchanges for everyone are up in 2014)

www.healthcare.gov

For example: I have health insurance now, expensive, and my current health insurer will still not cover me for two pre-existing conditions: asthma, and any future arthritis.

Not very fair, as I don't have problems with either thing the insurer chose to exclude. It also means that in 30 years, if I develop arthritis somewhere, they won't ever pay. What old person doesn't eventually develop some arthritis? Nice racket, huh?

So, I am currently paying alot of money to be insured, but not covered for everything.

I was offered a choice of three plans: a regular type of plan with rather typical deductions and co-pays for about $250 less than I am paying now, a very affordable HSA, and a "luxury" type of plan for about $150 less than I am paying now.

The advantage to all these plans is that all my health problems are covered. For less than I am paying now for partial coverage. And all preventive care is free.

Yes, you bet that today I abandoned my expensive ripoff regular insurer for this. I do have to provide letters from my insurance company verifying they won't cover me for the pre-existings.

And no, Dell, you are not paying for any of it. I am.

Thank you, President Obama.

Is there a way you can develop carpal tunnel?

I'm sorry.



That was mean.

O-b-a-m-a F-u-z-z-y M-a-t-h C-l-u-b

ROR!!

Carpal is covered on Obamacare. Finding a good doctor is the tough part. Most of the good ones are retiring. They want no part of clown shoes care.

=:>




But I am a very bad man.

Miss Riot;


I know you are insane,but that is somewhat appealing to me.Are you possibly in need of a FetchBoy? Do you enjoy giving oral sex? Are you pretty? I have a fine dupa, do you?

Please don't ignore me.I would be sad.



All the best,

Tommy The Trained Seal
( bark!!)

:tro::tro::tro:

I am so behooved.



This is interesting.I tried clicking on my name which showed up as the last post in this thread...in this room.You know...from the general view of the whole building.But I kept getting your profile.


So then I figured it must be because you just posted here and the present is faster than the past on this board...for clicking purposes,I mean.



Well I thought it was interesting.

I think you were trapped in the Twilight Zone.

:L: 'ed up

Just pray when this insane plan gets repealed your insurance company doesn't mail you a GFY. BTW who is the company insuring you under your new cover-all plan?

One of the seven spiritual works of mercy is to "instruct the ignorant."

You should seek an instructor.

Ah, both your concerns answered, if only you'd bother to do the most superficial and easy of self-investigation ;)

If only your highlighted stuff made sense. It does not. Try again. Think more slowly, and use your big boy words.

Never heard of a company named Superficial. But good luck with them.

Purposeful ignorance. Good luck with that :tro:

:{>:

!!


Hey, if she's pretty and curvy... who cares whats she thinks?

But that was funny.

And to think I believed you when you said the government would not be providing insurance. :confused:

OK not really.

Question: Who pays when the Dept. of Health Services goes into debt treating your conditions?

oh, c'mon dell. you know who pays everything the govt does. it's why i snickered to myself when riot mentioned in her post that her preventive care is free. nothing is 'free'. everything has a price, whether on the front end or hidden somewhere else.
now, preventive care might not have a copay, but it's paid for elsewhere.

Who will help you learn about how the ACA works, and that the Dept of Health Services has nothing to do with treating anything? That the insurance is provided by private companies, and the treatment by the same private providers you have?

Face it, Dell - you can't talk about subjects you know nothing about.

You make a good point, the word "free" is misleading. Let's rephrase it correctly: there are no copays for preventive care. And that's a very good thing, as it reduces the cost of health care by addressing prevention. Yes. It's paid by the people who are paying the monthly premiums to the private insurance companies that are providing the services (the private companies are gaining thousands of new customers). Just like when you pay only a copay at your insurance, and your premiums pay for the rest of your care. Wouldn't it be nice if preventive care had no copay with your insurance? Screening blood tests, Pap smears, etc? That would certainly encourage better health care, wouldn't it? Certainly nothing to snicker about.

Sweetie, are lobotomy smears free of copay?




You should check into this service.

Really,really.

A species that's a cross between a Unicorn and Humanoid will cover the expenses of preventative care. It's confidential. Leave Obama alone!!!

like i said, i snickered when you said free. as for preventive care, or coverage will encourage visits...i doubt it. many people dont go for care, don't go to doctors, they only go to the emergency room when they can't stand the pain.
there are people my husband works with who have all the coverage you could ask for-still have bad teeth, don't get physicals, etc. why? probably because they don't care about any of that. some do, most don't. having insurance won't change that-and there are going to be plenty of people who would rather pay the fine than will buy insurance, because a lot of people don't see the need-until they get sick that is. then they'll complain that they can't get taken care of, just like it's always been.

yeah, it's all so cheap and easy-that's why it's been so hard to pass all these years. when it sounds too good to be true...well, everyone knows that adage.

There aren't enough :tro:'s for this one.:D

My little squeeze box....how can I evah thank you?











Don't tell me.............as you know.

Educate me then!

As I asked before what private company did you cancel from and what private company is now insuring you (you know, accepting all your previous conditions and no co-pays for preventitive care)?

You seem to think I have the same crystal ball you have. I don't.

And I know the Department of Health Services has no part in treatment. I simply want to make sure they or for that matter ANY government agency has no part in payment of the fat bills when cost of treatment, of the less than healthy, people with pre-existing conditions (like you), exceeds the premiums collected.

This plan is similar to private insurance companies offering DUI offenders and those with multiple accidents / tickets auto insurance at the same rate as a good driver. Guess who is more prone to use their policy? :zz:

You've been suckered again!

dell, years ago my brother had to get high risk insurance because of multiple accidents. i assure you, he didn't pay the same rates as a good driver.

on the other hand, you do raise a valid point. who will pay when the bills are higher than the money from premiums? oh wait...i bet i know. the same people who pay for every other govt program that doesn't quite do what it says it will.

I llllove it when you talk dirty!

LOL - please. I've watched you ignore reality for the past two years on this board. You have no interest in it. Don't feign one. It's unseemly for you.

But strangely, insurance companies have jumped on participation in this, welcoming 30 million newly insured to their ranks. So there must be profit there, or they wouldn't want in. Normally insurance companies refuse to ever insure about 10%, decline to insure another 20% for some things, then insure the remaining 70%. And rescind every one of them they can if a hugely costly thing happens. No wonder they get a huge profit margin.

But, for every person in that 30% who has kidney failure and is on dialysis, or has uncontrolled Type II diabetes, or has had cancer cured or active, you have someone who is really rather healthy and won't have those costs (the 20%)

So they are betting the pool will break even at worse, which seems likely. The 20% will pay for the 10%. The 10%, who are uninsured and only getting expensive non-routine interventional care now, will get routine care that will bring down their costs markedly and help ameliorate the expensive disasters treated infrequently. There will be profit - not huge, but definite profit.

They will keep the very healthy 70% out of these pools, and rake in even more increased profit there.

Insurance company stocks have gone up over the past two years, and I don't expect that to change. When the pros say there will be profit there, believe them.

I'm trying to make this real. What company did you leave and who is insuring you now? Stop answering like the former congressman from NY. :confused:

And I said, get off your lazy toush and find out yourself. It's easy. You even have the link. I refuse to do your homework. I've done it before, you just ignore it. There is no use trying to bring any facts to any debate with you regarding healthcare. You have always had zero interest in reading up on the ACA, preferring to keep repeating various nonsense about a variety of plans in discussion back during the healthcare talks.

You could debate actual provisions of the ACA, but you've always ignored them in favor of nonsensically vague right wing talking points. So your feigned interest in the reality of it is just that.

If you want to join in a discussion about the pros and cons of the ACA, I suggest you learn about it. Because your, "it sucks, prove me wrong!" is lazy beyond belief.

your deflecting answers regarding what company you left and who your current insurer is has demonstrated, clearly, what a fantasy this is for you.

:tro::tro:

Here's a list of your contributors

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...pinion_LEADTop

Not at all. It demonstrates that, once again, you are too lazy to click a link and learn what you are spouting off about.

Then, you wouldn't do something moronic, like post figures about Medicare changes, generalized costs, etc., and completely fail to mention the portion of the ACA we are discussing.

Do you even understand the difference? I don't think so. I suppose I could post a bunch of facts and figures about insurance companies in general, it would have as much context (none) as what you've introduced, in reference to the one portion of the ACA under discussion in this thread.

Yes, Dell. You copied a bunch of generalized one-sided figures about the ACA. Good for you!

Which, btw, doesn't even mention the other side (savings) - which makes it deficit neutral.

And not one thing of what you listed anything at all to do with the section of the ACA I was posting about. Which again, is the whole damn point. You have no understanding of the ACA, and have never made any real attempt to do so.

"The ACA sucks! Obama sucks!" - yeah, we get that's how you feel.