Please let's not let this be a political debate if possible:) I have a serious question for parents of type 1 children who are against the Healthcare law. Can you tell me why? For me, the parents I know who have children with pre-existing life threatening conditions, knowing our children will not be kicked off our health insurance policy because of this is such a blessing. Insulin would cost probably 80% more without insurance. We would have to afford it of course but it would break us. So just wondering why others do not feel the same, unless you can afford to buy your diabetes supplies cash of course:) The co-pay we can afford, but to pay cash- wow! Just wondering. Hope my question does not upset anyone. Thanks in advance for your answers.
There is one more useful thing in the law for parents with children : children can be covered on the parent's plan up to age 26 now, if they are still dependents. This is important while children are in college, before they get their own jobs with insurance.
Imagine the cost of a kid in college with diabetes AND no insurance.
One of my many problems with the Ryan plan is the suggestion that "we'll give vouchers to people to replace Medicare" as if insurers are going to insure say 60 year olds with stints, hyperlipidemia, HTN, T2, knee problems, etc. for $5-6K/ year.
Of course, the government can "step in" and mandate that insurers create products to cover this market but once they take that step, they are pretty much recreating Obamacare, with government controlling access to health care. $6K/ year seems like a lot for insurance but that's because the underwriting exposure for "heavy duty" cases is limited and spread around through employee health care and then "capped" because employers are basically done covering those folks at 65.
No experience as a parent, but as a student that was diagnosed in college (living on my own, paying my own medical bills!). Your protection would be to know the existing laws of your state. As I found out, all of my student insurance would cover me, since it was a group plan. & when I finished school & was looking at insurances, all the southern states have the same requirement that Group plans must cover pre-existing conditions. Individual plans will cover pre-exisiting conditions if you were previously covered, & if not, then you have to go 6mths before coverage kicks in, but then you CAN get coverage. Knowledge not hysteria is the way to combat bad policy.
I agree with you dejahtoris. I am beyond worry for my 27 year old son who is a professional musician. At this point in time, he cannot find any affordable health care. If he were to go onto public assistance, he could have some help, but that too would limit the mds he could see and would not cover his medical bills. As it is, he cannot afford testing strips, so tests infrequently. Out of pocket expenses for everything from insulin to sharps. None of us can afford an out of pocket health care plan at this time. Hoping that something will become available to him soon.
My daughter is 25 and also has diabetes. We didn't know this would happen, so am hoping people don't jump on the band wagon and ask me why we had another kid when one already had a problem - the older child was actually diagnosed 10 years after she was. The insurance coverage for her is a godsend right now. Just out of school and getting her feet under herself is hard enough without going through what is happening to my son.
Yes my adult non d child is still on our insurance because of that which is awesome because she has her own health issues. It has also closed the "donut hole" for my retired parents on a fixed income, thus saving them ALOT on their medications. Not to mention free preventative care which saves everyone money in the long run.
Check healthcare.gov or pcip.gov which is the high risk insurance pool. I know the States are to expand medicare but the laws are just going into effect so not many people know about it. https://pcip.gov/
I was diagnosed not terribly long after the Affordable Care Act passed. I, for one, do not find any comfort whatsoever with the new regulations. I couldn't afford private policies out of pocket before it passed, now the costs of such plans are sure to rise. Group plans (employer plans) had to cover preexisting conditions before, and they still have to. (with certain short term exceptions when coverage has been allowed to lapse-- there is no reason anyone's coverage should lapse between group plans with COBRA benefits.) This does get a little tricky for the self employed.... Extremely low or no-income people were covered by medicaid before, and still are, although funding for this will be cut in order to fund a massive and dysfunctional regulatory framework in the federal government now.
I have worked my entire adult life in an industry highly regulated by the federal government. I could never have even imagined the level of dysfunction that the federal government operates at until I built a career that involved dealing with it on a daily basis... based on that experience, I am certainly not very happy to see them getting involved in regulating healthcare.
Unfortunately they don't have much of a track record to fall back on. Social Security...broke. Medicare....broke...I can only speak for Illinois medicaid, but pretty much broke (since they can't print money they just don't bother paying the medical providers).
While reform needs to happen, putting all our hopes in the government could be a recipe for disaster.
I'm a conservative thinker and usually vote that way but I also believe in universal healthcare. Imagine that a conservative that believes in universal healthcare I just don't like the way the health care laws are laid out. The old system is full of waste and the new system does nothing to improve the way healthcare is delivered it just shifts cost around. Universal healthcare in this country already exist to a great degree. It's not perfect but for the most part everyone gets healthcare but some have to work harder to get it. Currently the uninsured and underinsured are being subsidized by the well insured. It's so unfair that some have Cadillac insurance plans because they work for a large corporation and others that work for small companies have minimal or no coverage at all. Obamacare does nothing to fix the system it just puts a liberal twist on it. The insured will continue to support the system. I say let all taxpayers according to their ability support a system that is fair to all.
Just imagine the large number of people required by hospitals and doctors just to navigate the current hodgepodge system. Then there is the human resource cost to business of providing insurance for their employees, why are employers in the healthcare business anyway. These are resources that would be better spent elsewhere. And that's not the only waste in the system but rather just the tip of the iceberg.
I don't know if a voucher system is the answer but I would be willing to try it. Whether it worked or not would be in the details. Isn't that the way it always is because the devil is always in the details. But that's why we have a political system of two different parties so that they can balance each other out and come to a fair decision.
All I know is that the old system didn't work and the new system doesn't look promising.
Gary S
Well said.
Maybe the "Cadillac healthcare plans" that are "unfair" are provided by large companies because the large companies have concluded that having healthier employees leads to more productivity. In turn, perhaps the country needs to try providing these sort of health care plans for everyone!
It also seems as if when you say "taxpayers to their ability support a system" you are echoing Marx's "from each according to his abilities and to each according to his needs" which I don't think is a bad idea. There are people who have, for lack of a better word excess money that could be better off redistributed. The nauseating sweet 16 parties on MTV, for example. The 16 year olds could be perfectly fine suffereing through ONE pink sports car!
Like, so who can afford COBRA payments when they are unemployed????
Many years ago, when I was working as a substitute teacher and had my son at home, I was taking home $800 a month (except during the summer and holidays, when I made nothing) and paying $400 a month in rent for a small apartment, and was considered too rich for Medicaid, because the upper limit for total income was $300 a month. So, seems like there are lots of low-paid people with no insurance who are too wealthy and live in too much luxury to qualify for Medicaid.
I want to see answers from people who know what they are talking about. It's really too bad that I could have done better financially (but probably not medically, because not many docs will take Medicaid patients) if I had been on welfare and not working. But that wasn't MY fault -- it's the fault of people who just have no idea of what it's like to be working poor.
So, do you honestly feel that now, with the new laws that if you were again making only $800/month, or whatever that equates to adjusted for inflation to todays dollars, that you would be better off? I'm afraid the answer would be no, and even more afraid that if it was yes, it would be wrong.
My children do not have diabetes, but there is still time for that. I'm a business owner and a T1D that has always supplied insurance to all of my employees at no cost. I will do what ever I can to survive and if the US healthcare system was government controlled today I would not be alive today because the system would never cover the kind of health care I need today and if I'm paying half my salary for a social system I could not afford the extra expense of my health care needs and my condition would never be covered under a social system.
A government system will be a limited social program, people with money will flourish and people without will still die a earlier death. The voucher system is not new there are several EU country's like Germany that use this system.They can buy coverage above what their voucher covers but it takes out of pocket money. It still adds up the same, wait for the low cost care or pay for immediate treatment today...and some things cannot wait.
There was a time when family, church, and community was all we needed but now many think the government can supply everything we need....Rome will fall again.
I think the new law is defintely a step in the right direction. Is it good enough? No, it's not. But with fierce opposition from the Republicans and lobbyists protecting profits for providers, what do you expect.
And to reverse the question...what have the Republicans proposed that would solve this problem other than everybody should be able to self pay?
For those of you whose families have never needed government provided health care services, I am very happy for you. My family has not been so fortunate. My brother has diabetes and is on insulin - he suffered a traumatic brain injury after being employed since high school in a low paying job that did not pay enough to buy health insurance.
For those of you who believe that the government should not be involved in health care, I would ask you:
What should happen to the PWD who don't have the money to self pay for their needs? Would you leave them to die?
A voucher system for Medicare will only push more people into Medicaid (if the Republicans don't eliminate that program). I live in a state where our governor has chosen not to expand Medicaid and actually refused those federal dollars. So then what?
Sounds like "survival of the fittest" to me. Is that what we want our country to become?
The Roman empire never had a national healthcare system.
The expansion of medicaid to more people is coming in cases where the Governors refuse to enforce it. If the States won't put it in place, the Federal Govt will. It will mean more people will get free preventative services. More people will be insured and thus not be forced to go to the ER for basic care. In those ways and others (such as high risk pools- pcip.gov- and provisions for small businesses to go in together and make health insurance affordable for their employees) it will save us billions in the long run and save hospitals as well. That is why every major hospital system as well as the AMA and other Doctors association like the new HC law. By the way, the only ones being controlled by the Federal Government with the Healthcare law are the Insurance companies. The people who use it actually have more rights under the law.