ACA reversal/change?

[Carol in Cal.]

And yet when they tried to include exactly this into the ACA, it was rejected as trying to talk people into dying.  Something has to change.  There will always be people who don't want to hear the reality.

No, not that.  It's that there are people who don't want to be pressured into refusing treatment that would help them or make them more comfortable, or into assisted suicide, and don't want others to be pressured into it either.

 

Patient education needs to be very carefully crafted to avoid those possibilities.

 

The best interests of the government and the insurance companies go against this, so it's not surprising that there is suspicion of requiring it.  The suspicion is based on a reasonable fear, and that should be addressed.  Simply mocking the fear is insufficient to address the real problem.

[ktgrok]

You missed the reference I guess. 

The issue was whether it would cost more to allow everyone onto Medicare or to keep paying current premiums.  And my answer is that current premiums are already too high.

 

Yes, but the estimates all show that medicare for all would be significantly less than premiums. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

You missed the reference I guess. 

The issue was whether it would cost more to allow everyone onto Medicare or to keep paying current premiums.  And my answer is that current premiums are already too high.

 

I didn't miss it.  That is just another reason to separate it from employment.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Doesn't the FEHBP require all employees to enroll? Or show proof that they are covered under another plan? That's how it works in my company. 

 

If every employee is required to enroll there are usually enough healthy people to balance out the sick people so the plan can stay solvent. 

 

But if non-employees were allowed to enroll in the FEHBP the plan would experience what happened with the ACA plans. Only those who thought they needed insurance would enroll so there wouldn't be enough healthy people to offset the sick people. 

 

So there's no way the FEHBP can be the solution to this problem. 

 

It has to be offered to all employees but I don't believe all employees are obligated to enroll.

[DawnM]

Thanks guys.  I am still trying to understand this better.  I would ask more questions, but it might be too political.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I do think more effort needs to be put into reigning in on cost (of medical care).  Continuing to just jack up the premiums is not the reasonable way to do that.  I rarely hear anyone in my area complaining about the federal insurance stuff, but they have had a lot of affordable options for the uninsured (especially for children) for years prior to the changes.  Since the changes they have mostly just expanded upon those options. 

[mommytobees]

You want to kill grandma!  You hate old people!  You want death panels!

 

(sarcasm here...  I agree this is a real problem but I don't see it addressed any time soon, since even a brief mention brings the previous reaction.)

 

CHOKE

 

SNORT

 

I was drinking OJ....do you know how painful OJ is through the nose?!?!

 

Kris

[maize]

Not sure ACA will be repealed.

 

Campaign promises are...notorious for not coming about. Just repealing ACA in its entirety would shake things up badly and leave a lot of people angry. I still think there is a good chance that we will see modifications not a repeal.

 

I'm not a prophet though.

[umsami]

As somebody with pre-existing conditions and no other options come January, I'm scared to death.  I need to try and schedule everything I can and, of course, not get sick.  I will be surprised if the ACA is not repealed by the end of January.  Seriously. 

[prairiewindmomma]

I am terrified as well. If we go back to lifetime limits on coverage, pre-existing conditions exclusions, etc. we are so screwed.

[Spryte]

Pre-existing conditions here.

 

Very worried.

[Bluegoat]

I like your post, but when I read your examples of 'inappropriate' end of life care, I disagree with them.  I don't see any reason why someone who has paid into insurance his whole life shouldn't be able to get dialysis and live a few more years.  I don't believe that someone with COPD should be left at home to suffocate when there are relatively easy and noninvasive treatments available that will keep him more comfortable and prolong both the quality and length of his life.  I think that cancer treatment should be the choice of the patient, but if they want to pursue it, insurance should cover it.  In general, i don't think medical care should be denied to people just because they are old.

 

Where inappropriate end of life care comes in, for me, is things like rib breaking CPR on an elderly, terminally ill person who has died.  And here, again, it should be up to the patient, not the insurance company.

 

One of the reasons why we have so many interventions is that insurance companies will try to avoid paying for whatever they can.  It is entirely unacceptable to me to have the law support them on this, and to have it tilt toward pushing folks to consider themselves worthless and pressure them toward suicide 'to save money'.

 

In my experience it isn't that these things are not allowed for those patients - but rather it isn't assumed that it will be desirable or just what will be done. 

 

Which actually tends to result in better care IMO.

[poppy]

Saw this -  multiple paths for Trump to end ACA, with or without Congress.

I think Trump might be more moderate than Congress, so I hope he doesn't go down the path of defunding it without at least offering something in return.

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/11/09/501203831/trump-can-kill-obamacare-with-or-without-help-from-congress

[abacus2]

Congress has been voting to repeal ACA over and over recently. In January, I believe they will be successful. I just hope maybe they will keep some of the provisions.

[maize]

Congress has been voting to repeal ACA over and over recently. In January, I believe they will be successful. I just hope maybe they will keep some of the provisions.

It's easy to vote for something you know will be vetoed, that is nothing more than political posturing.

 

I'm hoping there will at least be real in depth discussion and an effort to address the most urgent problems that would be created by reversal.

[teachermom2834]

I suspect there will be more a chipping away at the ACA mandates rather than an immediate complete repeal.  

 

I am against the ACA but my biggest issue is the inability for people to purchase catastrophic policies.  

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Well I guess this problem is now solved. 

 

I'm glad I have insurance through my DH's employer.  I think if we had an ACA plan, I'd be wracking up the healthcare services before the end of this year. I'd be getting everything done that we might possibly need. Although I don't think I'd be doing much diagnostic testing because if they find anything it becomes a pre-existing condition so it's probably best not be diagnosed with anything if there's a possibility you might lose your coverage. 

 

I have no idea how the repeal of the ACA is going to affect the people enrolled in these plans. I'd guess that the policies won't be cancelled as soon as the ACA is repealed because there is a contract between the subscriber and the insurance company that is good for a year provided the premiums are paid. However, the subsidies would probably stop so the premiums would become unaffordable to most subscribers. 

 

And if the coverage lapses then there won't be a certificate of creditable coverage so people won't be able to enroll in new plans because of pre-existing conditions. Pre-existing conditions are prohibited by the ACA so when the ACA is repealed they should come back. 

 

Old school (pre 2009) advice - don't get sick! 

 

Just spit balling, but the way the funding works at the federal level means it is unlikely the subsidies would be stopped immediately.  They would not be renewed for next (2018) though.

 

A full repeal with nothing in its place is going to be a disaster.  And thinking that expanding HSAs is the answer would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

 

Edited November 10, 2016 by ChocolateReignRemix

[Scarlett]

You can but you are not eligible for subsidies unless your employer's cheapest plan is exceeds a certain percentage of your income/cost level.

 

We are in the situation where insuring me is the only OOP cost for our good employer-provided insurance. The kids and my husband are 100% employer paid. Which is a great benefit and one reason why my husband works where he does but the cost for that plan for me is more than we would pay if I could have bought on the exchange and recieved the subsidy level our income qualified is for. Because there is a cheaper plan available via my husband's employer, not eligible for assistance. But switching to the lower cost plan just for me is not an option (every one has to be on the same plan) and switchingy kids to the lower plan would compromise the frequent ASD related services they receive.

 

It's basically moot as my husband is switching to a higher pay level of work very soon and actually just got a raise but over the last couple of years, this has cost us about $12,000 extra OOP on a very modest income (since my husband was in school).

 

Overall I am a supporter of healthcare reform, but I wish people could just buy into Medicare or Medicaid on a sliding scale.

 

 

Did you try to apply for you only?  I was in a similar situation and healthcare.gov told me to apply for just me....I have to list dh's income too but I can then say that the insurance for me is too expensive. 

[LucyStoner]

Did you try to apply for you only? I was in a similar situation and healthcare.gov told me to apply for just me....I have to list dh's income too but I can then say that the insurance for me is too expensive.

The insurance for me meets the affordability test because there is a cheaper plan than the one we opt to have for me. And we can't elect to put the boys and my husband into the better plan and me into the lower and moving us all to the lower plan isn't viable for the boys healthcare usage.

Edited November 9, 2016 by LucyStoner

[Scarlett]

The insurance for me meets the affordability test because there is a cheaper plan than the one we opt to have for me. And we can't elect to put the boys and my husband into the better plan and me into the lower and moving us all to the lower plan isn't viable for the boys healthcare usage.

 

 

Oh I see.  What a pain. 

[QueenCat]

If the Democrats that are in the Senate filibuster, then they need 60 votes to repeal. The Republicans hold the majority but not 60. They can do it with simple majority only for the portions that are directly related to the federal budget.

[TranquilMind]

Sounds like a reason to completely divorce healthcare from employment.

 

On this we agree.  Now if we can only figure out a way to do it that won't bankrupt everyone. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

On this we agree.  Now if we can only figure out a way to do it that won't bankrupt everyone. 

 

It can be done.  We spend more per capita now than other western nations to achieve lower outcomes so it isn't an insurmountable task.

[TranquilMind]

It can be done.  We spend more per capita now than other western nations to achieve lower outcomes so it isn't an insurmountable task.

 

True.  If we just poured the ridiculous amount of money used on elections alone into important stuff, we could do so much. 

[Lanny]

They must do something about the ACA or it will implode. The man who designed it (he works in Harvard university or somewhere like that), his last name is Gruber (?), said that  "the only reason it passed was because of the stupidity of the American people".  I believe they intended it to fail. The law is almost 3000 pages long. Nobody read all of the pages and nobody understood the implications.  They must make major changes or it will cease to exist, because few young people and few healthy people are enrolling and paying premiums.  

[Guest]

They must do something about the ACA or it will implode. The man who designed it (he works in Harvard university or somewhere like that), his last name is Gruber (?), said that "the only reason it passed was because of the stupidity of the American people". I believe they intended it to fail. The law is almost 3000 pages long. Nobody read all of the pages and nobody understood the implications. They must make major changes or it will cease to exist, because few young people and few healthy people are enrolling and paying premiums.

Gruber's comments have been broad and vile, for sure. He really just affirmed what a lot of people were claiming and being told was alarmist. Ick.

 

I'm really excited to see what shakes out of the cabinet and congress when they try to fix this. We have found something that was total fail and now it's time to try another solution - I'm hopeful learning has occurred. The American people were pretty darn clear what they thought of the ACA even right out of the gate and it hasn't improved as they've spent more time living with it. We can do much, much better.

[umsami]

Reminder. If you need birth control, especially something long term and expensive like an IUD, it's probably a good idea to get it now, while it is covered.

[Lanny]

Gruber's comments have been broad and vile, for sure. He really just affirmed what a lot of people were claiming and being told was alarmist. Ick.

 

I'm really excited to see what shakes out of the cabinet and congress when they try to fix this. We have found something that was total fail and now it's time to try another solution - I'm hopeful learning has occurred. The American people were pretty darn clear what they thought of the ACA even right out of the gate and it hasn't improved as they've spent more time living with it. We can do much, much better.

 

When I read your reply, I got a thought. There are people here on WTM who participate in Faith based Health Care cooperatives. I am not sure what the correct term is, but they seem to be happier with what they pay/receive than people with "normal" medical insurance at this time. From what I understand, now, new people cannot join those cooperatives?

 

The methodology seems to work well, on that small scale.  If that type of system could be used, in a totally revised ACA, or in a "single payer" system, that might result in consumers and providers who are happier and with lower costs for the consumers.

 

The part of that I don't have an answer for is how to cover the people who cannot pay for their medical insurance.  That requires the government to pay for their coverage.

 

These are complex issues and they are not new issues.  I remember when I lived in TX, I had an Individual Major Medical Insurance policy, for many years, Every year or two, the insurance company would raise my premium and I would have them increase my deductible, so I could keep the premium relatively stablel I can only imagine, if I still had that policy (which I cancelled in 1995), what Premium I would be paying in 2016 and what the Deductible would be.

[Guest]

I am actually a member of one of those after the ACA precipitated a 400% increase in monthly costs for the plan we were using, and kept the deductibles the same. We switched to CHM and have been very happy.

 

Co ops work depending on the scale, but actually abolishing group based bargaining for health insurance, and employer provided insurance options, would fix the cost issues extremely quickly. If every individual has individual insurance or none at all it would quickly reform the cosf problem - essentially moving back to a concierge or cash system and allowing individuals to purchase medical insurance based on their personal risk factors and financial management. Coupling that with an HSA style Medicaid reform where each patient had control of their own health spending account and money put in for them to spend where they needed it would free a lot of the medicaid stigma and doctor selection issues, and allowing appeals for a higher amount based on incidents or need would provide for the sicker members without so much waste and fraud.

 

There are lots of good ideas, and states have been trying some of these on their own as well. We shall see.

[AimeeM]

Pre-existing conditions here.

 

Very worried.

I didn't read through the rest of the replies down-thread, but it's my understanding that the new president-elect would keep the pre-existing conditions policy; that there are things he wants to keep from the ACA, even if he wants to repeal it in general.

 

ETA: I did some fact-checking and, indeed, the president-elect did say that he wants to keep the pre-existing conditions portion and believes it necessary in the "modern age."

Edited November 10, 2016 by AimeeM

[umsami]

I didn't read through the rest of the replies down-thread, but it's my understanding that the new president-elect would keep the pre-existing conditions policy; that there are things he wants to keep from the ACA, even if he wants to repeal it in general.

 

ETA: I did some fact-checking and, indeed, the president-elect did say that he wants to keep the pre-existing conditions portion and believes it necessary in the "modern age."

 

But the only reason the insurance companies "allowed" it because they assumed that healthy folks and young folks would sign up to make up for the older, sicker folks.  That didn't happen, so they have no reason to want preexisting conditions kept in any new plan. 

[Tanaqui]

A lot of people are scared of this new Congress repealing the ACA because Republicans in Congress have tried to do it in the past.

 

However, in the past they were consistently vetoed by Obama. It was safe to try to repeal the ACA because they could never carry it through. Somehow, I'm not all that sure they'll be eager to do it when they might actually succeed. Now that we've had it a few years, I'm just not positive that a repeal is going to play so well with their constituents.

 

I've noticed that even the garden-level trolls* we get on progressive/liberal blogs and sites have changed their tune dramatically in just a few years. They no longer pop up to natter on and on about how it's a waste of money and nobody "deserves" free health care.

 

* Anybody who goes to a blog or site or forum just to be a contrarian is trolling. It's not their opinions that are the problem, it's where and how they express themselves. I don't want to get embroiled in an argument over people's opinions here either.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I am actually a member of one of those after the ACA precipitated a 400% increase in monthly costs for the plan we were using, and kept the deductibles the same. We switched to CHM and have been very happy.

 

Co ops work depending on the scale, but actually abolishing group based bargaining for health insurance, and employer provided insurance options, would fix the cost issues extremely quickly. If every individual has individual insurance or none at all it would quickly reform the cosf problem - essentially moving back to a concierge or cash system and allowing individuals to purchase medical insurance based on their personal risk factors and financial management. Coupling that with an HSA style Medicaid reform where each patient had control of their own health spending account and money put in for them to spend where they needed it would free a lot of the medicaid stigma and doctor selection issues, and allowing appeals for a higher amount based on incidents or need would provide for the sicker members without so much waste and fraud.

 

There are lots of good ideas, and states have been trying some of these on their own as well. We shall see.

 

Would love to see the math on this.

[SeaConquest]

I have a friend who taught a law school class on this topic this morning. His thoughts:

 

So, in short: complete and total repeal is impossible as long as GOP doesn't have 60 senators, but a budget reconciliation move (which doesn't allow unlimited debate) could get rid of premium subsidies and tax credits, individual mandate, Medicaid expansion, and other revenue-related measures. But it would be hard to (legislatively) remove other measures focused on regulating private health insurance. But state exchanges and Medicaid expansion are toast.

 

ETA: If this is correct, my husband and children will all lose their health insurance. Thanks, Trump voters!

Edited November 10, 2016 by SeaConquest

[MaeFlowers]

I have a friend who taught a law school class on this topic this morning. His thoughts:

 

So, in short: complete and total repeal is impossible as long as GOP doesn't have 60 senators, but a budget reconciliation move (which doesn't allow unlimited debate) could get rid of premium subsidies and tax credits, individual mandate, Medicaid expansion, and other revenue-related measures. But it would be hard to (legislatively) remove other measures focused on regulating private health insurance. But state exchanges and Medicaid expansion are toast.

 

ETA: If this is correct, my husband and children will all lose their health insurance. Thanks, Trump voters!

Everything I've read says his plans are to defund it. I'm not sure, however, it would have survived as it is much longer. If I understand it correctly, once govt subsidies to the insurance companies ended, more companies would pull out of the exchange and/or prices would skyrocket. Those subsidies are set to end in 2017, I believe.

 

I'm also not sure that keeping it and trying to make it work as planned by other parties would have necessarily worked either. From the analysis I've seen, I think people might have been very unhappy under that plan, as well. (I'm being vague due to board rules. I don't want to make this political.)

 

Like I said before, we kind of got caught in an insurance abyss between what we could afford and what the govt said we could afford. We aren't losing anything because we don't have insurance. I think that the ACA failed in what it originally set out to achieve. I am genuinely sorry that so many if you are feeling so much angst right now. I am just trying to stay positive and am hoping that the replacement is truly better for everyone.

[Tanaqui]

If the ACA fails - and, again, I'm not sure that that will work as well politically for Republicans as they claim, and I'm pretty sure most of them are well aware of this fact - then the replacement I would have liked is a single-payer system. That's what I wanted the whole time. The whole civilized world can manage it, so why can't we?

 

But single payer is something I'm fairly certain we can not get under a Republican-dominated Congress with a Republican president.

[Lanny]

I think I am correct about this. In (very) recent years, the State of Vermont decided not to go to a Single Payer system, because of the astronomical costs involved. I believe this past Tuesday, in the State of Colorado, there was a Referendum about having a Single payer system and the voters rejected the idea.  The issue is the enormous costs associated with covering people with incredibly expensive medical issues.  I don't see an inexpensive way to cover enormous expenses.  The only way I see to do that is to have a huge "Risk Pool", where everyone is covered, those who are young and in excellent health and those who are not. That seems to be "Single Payer" covering the entire U.S. population. There are no inexpensive ways to do this.

[kewb]

I am very concerned about repealing aca. Both dh and I have preexisting conditions. Mine, I can afford to pay out of pocket if necessary.

Dh will die. We won't be able to afford insurance. We won't be able to pay for his prescription meds. We won't be able to pay the specialists he needs to see. Yes, he will die and he will be in horrible pain while we wait for it to happen. He will be miserable to be around and it will take an additional toll on the family. Living with someone who has a chronic illness isn't difficult enough. No insurance will be adding insult to injury.

[Guest]

Around me, the cost to a nongovernment working person with family is unsustainable. Annually these plans have a 6k deductible, 10k oop and you get an annual physical for each person which does not include bloodwork -- about $600 for 4, in return for thousands in premium. The drug prices are high....my prescription, an old generic, was on the Target low cost plan before ACA, without insurance at 25 for 3 months. Now it costs me zero, is not available on the generic low cost plan anywhere, and the insurance is billed 100 per month...annual cost went from 100 to 1200. An older person would be better off self insured with a catastrophic plan. The younger guys without family have a nightmare as they cant make enough money to set aside the annual oop before they get hit wth a surprise. All of our town fundraisers are for young adults who have employment, cancer, and havent been in the workplace long enough to bank the 2 years of deductible and oop needed for diagnoses and treatment. Their followups wll all be at their expense as the deductibles are high.

People are making the choice in the exam rooms to not do diagnostics such as an ultrasound following a mammo, because they cant pay their deductible or coinsurance on the spot. And they are asked to dress, go out to the clerk, and pay before the diagnostic is performed. And the diabetes ...if you havent read the story of insulin prices, you should if you arent on medicare because you wont be affording that as a working person. People are also leaving the school district...being in a crowded classroom with children who have medical issues means pinkeye, pneumonia, flu etc are more likely...and if you arent working poor and subsidized, that doctor visit and rx are a big hit to your budget. Cheaper to move to a middle class area.

Edited November 10, 2016 by Heigh Ho

[Bluegoat]

I don't know that I would count on him doing anything he said he would do, about health care or anything else.  Election promises often have to take a back-seat to reality, but in this case in particular, I think Trump tended to say whatever would go over well with his voters, whether or not it was something he believed in himself.  And after all, it was not that long ago he was giving money to politicians who wanted to create a new healthcare system and get away from it being controlled by private insurance.

 

At this point, I think it's really up in the air how he will carry on - I have wondered what his real goals are in seeking the presidency - does he actually want two terms? Does he need to keep his voters happy?  Who knows?

 

 

 

 

[TechWife]

I don't have a lot of time, so I'll be brief. My main concern with this is the effect it would have on filling the "donut hole" and reduced Medicare Part D premiums for low income elderly people. This provision alone is what makes it possible for my mother to get medication she needs. Without it, her prescriptions would run well over $1000 per month. She is 86 years old. My question to congress would be "Which medications do you want my mom to stop taking?"

[QueenCat]

When I read your reply, I got a thought. There are people here on WTM who participate in Faith based Health Care cooperatives. I am not sure what the correct term is, but they seem to be happier with what they pay/receive than people with "normal" medical insurance at this time. From what I understand, now, new people cannot join those cooperatives?

 

The methodology seems to work well, on that small scale.  If that type of system could be used, in a totally revised ACA, or in a "single payer" system, that might result in consumers and providers who are happier and with lower costs for the consumers.

 

 

The Faith based health care cooperatives don't cover pre-existing conditions or mental health, at least not the ones I'm familiar with.

[MedicMom]

I believe you can still purchase on the exchange but you are not eligible for a subsidy if your employer offers any level of coverage. So if you are low income but your employer offers a plan outside what you can afford, or even if the employer doesn't pay anything towards family coverage, you are cannot access a subsidized plan.

 

One of several provisions that was negotiated at the end which made the law significantly less effective.

This is what affected a lot of people I work with. Our health insurance has gotten progressively more expensive with higher deductibles and premiums and less coverage, yet none of us can afford anything on the exchange. I don't qualify for a subsidy, but the government thinks I can afford to pay $700 a month for my husband and I and $450 a month for three kids on the child health insurance plan. It's insane. It doesn't work.

[maize]

If the ACA fails - and, again, I'm not sure that that will work as well politically for Republicans as they claim, and I'm pretty sure most of them are well aware of this fact - then the replacement I would have liked is a single-payer system. That's what I wanted the whole time. The whole civilized world can manage it, so why can't we?

 

But single payer is something I'm fairly certain we can not get under a Republican-dominated Congress with a Republican president.

Yeah.

 

It seems to me that one of the simplest solutions would be to allow employers and individuals to buy in to Medicare as their insurance option, perhaps with subsidies or an income sliding scale for individuals (how are subsidies currently funded?)

 

I do have a hard time seeing this Congress going for that, but...it really wouldn't be a single payer system, just a government option. I think the real enemies will as always be the insurance companies themselves?

 

You know, if I were a Republican led congress, I would like to show the American people that Republicans CAN make real progress in substantive healthcare reform that will make people's lives better. These are, after all, mostly very intelligent people who know they will be up for re-election soon...

 

Guess it wouldn't hurt to write to my senators and congressman. They're all Republicans.

Edited November 10, 2016 by maize

[Lanny]

Yeah.

 

It seems to me that one of the simplest solutions would be to allow employers and individuals to buy in to Medicare as their insurance option, perhaps with subsidies or an income sliding scale for individuals (how are subsidies currently funded?)

 

I do have a hard time seeing this Congress going for that, but...it really wouldn't be a single payer system, just a government option. I think the real enemies will as always be the insurance companies themselves?

 

You know, if I were a Republican led congress, I would like to show the American people that Republicans CAN make real progress in substantive healthcare reform that will make people's lives better. These are, after all, mostly very intelligent people who know they will be up for re-election soon...

 

Guess it wouldn't hurt to write to my senators and congressman. They're all Republicans.

 

The ACA subsidies are funded by U.S. taxpayers.   I agree with what Bill Clinton said, a month or so ago. To paraphrase, "the ACA is a crazy system" (I think those are his words).  And he said "that people are having their premiums doubled and their coverage cut in half and that many people are "bustin it, 60 hours a week to pay for this".

 

It isn't just the ACA. That's the  part of the health care insurance that is collapsing (as I think it was intended to do, when they wrote the law).  This affects everyone with Health Insurance. There are lots of people who have Group Insurance from their employers and their out of pocket costs are going up and their coverage is declining, with higher deductibles and OOP costs. Those policies have had the elimination of Pre Existing conditions and other requirements of ACA added and so their costs have gone up, to cover the additional obligations required by ACA. 

 

The "bottom line" to me is that this is ONE of the HUGE problems the President and the Congress hopefully will address and hopefully they will come up with some major improvements. before the system implodes.  

 

Joe Manchin, Democratic Senator from WV, was/is in big trouble, because his DD runs the company that makes the Epi Pens that are so expensive. 

[Spryte]

I am very concerned about repealing aca. Both dh and I have preexisting conditions. Mine, I can afford to pay out of pocket if necessary.

Dh will die. We won't be able to afford insurance. We won't be able to pay for his prescription meds. We won't be able to pay the specialists he needs to see. Yes, he will die and he will be in horrible pain while we wait for it to happen. He will be miserable to be around and it will take an additional toll on the family. Living with someone who has a chronic illness isn't difficult enough. No insurance will be adding insult to injury.

 

kewb, I haven't read past your reply yet, but have to give you  :grouphug: .  

 

You articulated my own fear.  I am farther along in treatment than your DH, and I'm in remission (technically, this stuff is never gone, and I have relapsed so many, many times over the years, I fear it with a deep, visceral, all-consuming fear, when I let it surface.  It takes one's breath away.).

 

I hope there will be an answer for us.

[Spryte]

The Faith based health care cooperatives don't cover pre-existing conditions or mental health, at least not the ones I'm familiar with.

 

Right, and don't they reserve the right *not* to cover anything, at any point?  I don't know, but feel like I've seen creekland mention that, though she said she's never run into that issue, and everything has been covered.  That caveat would make me nervous, all the time.

 

It's a moot point for some of us, set up the way it is, as one must be an active christian to join.  We can't even join our local homeschooling coops because I won't sign a statement of faith unless I mean it.  It wouldn't be honest.  We're not christians.

[Ravin]

I haven't read all that's being said here, but everything I'm hearing about GOP intentions is "repeal and replace." I really doubt the intention is to leave a vacuum that would create an even bigger mess/crisis.

[redsquirrel]

I'm so worried about losing the protection for preexisting conditions. That will go.  I have a kid who is on the verge of getting a serious diagnosis and that will count as a preexisiting condition.  He'll be ok until his is 18 or 21, but what happens after that? He's going to need medication and that won't come cheap without insurance.

 

And we won't get to keep our kids on our insurance until they are 26.  So that means they are back at risk during those vulnerable years.  A broken arm or a car crash at age 25 can mean financial ruin.

[maize]

I'm thinking of the Republicans actually manage to put together a decent healthcare plan...the Democrats are likely to fight it tooth and nail. Because that is how the game of politics is played; they will not want the opposing party to get credit for anything successful.

 

In my dreams, politicians would consistently have the good of the people at heart, and bipartisan cooperation would be the norm. That is a dream world though.

Edited November 10, 2016 by maize