Google Pays $500 Million in Drug Ad Settlement - WSJ[quote=“Sam19, post:141, topic:57237”]
What I said about cobra coverage and group plans not excluding PCs is completely correct, and I specifically excluded individual plans from my description (in an attempt to answer the original question posed to me about changing jobs). Not really fair to characterize that as ‘wrong’
[/quote]
You are right. It was not wrong - It only covered a part of the “insured” map. I will edit my comment.
Well, my experience doesn’t match yours. Prior to the ACA, I had to buy an individual plan for myself and my family due to an expiration of my Cobra. This was at the depth of our little recession when jobs were very hard to come by. I was rejected from purchasing a family policy due to treated high blood pressure. I then applied to my state risk pool and had insurance within a week. This insurance was a bit expensive, $1500 a month for my family, but was fantastic insurance. No copay’s on regular visits, no copays on medications unless name brand, $5 copay for specialist visits. My maximum Out of pocket was $500 for an individual, $1000 for the family. I would gladly trade my current insurance for the old policy. Oh, and I could go to any provider in the state, there was no one that was out of network. Guess when this insurance ended…
And I am as certain as I can be based on my life’s experience that the preexisting condition protection is here to stay in some form… how that can possibly be managed with reduced cost remains to be seen… but I find it highly unlikely that the entire Republican Party is going to simultaneously commit political mass suicide
I don’t hang out with a lot of writers or musicians. I probably do know some self employed commercial fishermen who Have had individual plans now that I think about it. In a functioning system they’d have had that policy since before they or a family member became ill, and then they’d have been pretty much obligated to keep that policy for as long as they were self insuring because nobody else would want to insure them… that’s kinda how it worked back when the system actually worked… just like a homeowner cant have a policy and then after their home burns down and they collect on their policy they can’t go get a new and different policy for the full (pre problem) value of the home and then collect on it burning down the first time again
I don’t think it’s been a huge problem that people are gaming the system by buying into the insurance marketplace only when they become sick. Perhaps I’m mistaken but I just haven’t seen data showing that’s the main problem. I do think there’s a problem with relatively young people not signing up, but that’s different from people who were healthy only signing up when they become sick. (Most of those young people have many many years before they develop serious conditions and will probably sign up for insurance well before they become ill, once they get decent jobs or get married, etc.) I also know there are many people who will slip through the cracks under the old system. Like young sick people; they get out of college and there are no jobs; they have a chronic condition, no income and no way to sign onto their parents’ insurance. They are screwed.
The individual mandate was not a strong enough disincentive to going uninsured, so not enough young healthy people signed up. Seems like a pretty easy fix; just increase the penalty for not holding insurance and costs go down for everyone. Of course, it doesn’t seem like anyone is seriously considering “easy fixes” to Obamacare at this point.
Historically that has not been major problem at all, because it simply wasn’t allowed. If you wanted to be insured against unforeseen health problems, you had to have insurance in advance… it was just that simple… that doesn’t strike me as unfair or unreasonable. More recently and under the newer legislation the problems are more complex and the solution more complex than just getting more people to sign up as well, and they’re driving costs up accross the entire industry not just for the people covered on the exchanges. I’ve explained before how my own families insurance coverage has gone downhill in quality and increased in cost substantially since then so I won’t bother to do it again here.
If I was a young person entering working years with a serious health condition I would be trying to make sure I was highly employable with a marketable skill and plan to utilize workplace coverage for my entire life until retirement.
That’s because there are no easy fixes. Paul Krugman (NY Times columnist) wrote a good summary many years ago about the interlocking components of ACA, which he reproduced a few days ago on his blog at the paper (on Jan 10, 2017). Here’s the 2010 language he quoted in the recent blogpost:
Start with the proposition that we don’t want our fellow citizens denied coverage because of preexisting conditions — which is a very popular position, so much so that even conservatives generally share it, or at least pretend to. So why not just impose community rating — no discrimination based on medical history? Well, the answer, backed up by lots of real-world experience, is that this leads to an adverse-selection death spiral: healthy people choose to go uninsured until they get sick, leading to a poor risk pool, leading to high premiums, leading even more healthy people dropping out.
So you have to back community rating up with an individual mandate: people must be required to purchase insurance even if they don’t currently think they need it. But what if they can’t afford insurance? Well, you have to have subsidies that cover part of premiums for lower-income Americans. In short, you end up with the health care bill that’s about to get enacted.
There’s hardly anything arbitrary about the structure: once the decision was made to rely on private insurers rather than a single-payer system — and look, single-payer wasn’t going to happen — it had to be more or less what we’re getting. It wasn’t about ideology, or greediness, it was about making the thing work.
1 Like
Thats a pretty uncharitable and short-sighted way to look at things.
Robots are going to be taking over an increasing fraction of our jobs in the future and it’s not so clear what’s “employable” anymore. Highly employable careers may shift dramatically in the years it takes to get an education. And some people simply don’t have a skill-set or abilities that translates well to being “highly employable.”
I think it’s unrealistic to expect all people with PWDs to magically have a job that ensures lifelong employment with absolutely no gaps of more than 18 months.
Krugman sums up the problem in strait forward language. The math is inescapable. The only problem is lots of people especially politicians don’t seem to be able to do math.
No matter how well you plan or how hard you work life sometimes throws you a curve ball.
The thing about COBRA is when you need it is when you are unemployed and have no money to pay. Catch 22.
1 Like
Or they don’t believe in math … or science.
1 Like
This is one of the most dismaying recent trends. I must admit that I can’t figure this one out.
1 Like
First Off thank your friends who voted for Trump. Second and I hope you are able too find a employer who has benefits including HEALTH CARE
I don’t think it’s uncharitable to expect people to play the hand they’re dealt in life appropriately and responsibly. I had to. And if they encounter hard times and lapses in coverage… that’s what families are for, to turn to in times of need. And if people don’t have families that’s what safety nets are for.
Maybe it’s because I think like this that I’m able to have no concerns or worries about lapses in my insurance coverage… it’s kinda nice
Math and science, like the truth, don’t you know, has a liberal bias!
1 Like
I think you overestimate both a) the amount that others can rely on family and b) the extent of the social safety net in many states. A huge chunk of the population doesn’t have the benefit of intact family nowadays and besides, poverty is concentrated in family and social circles; if you’re flat broke, the odds are your parents, cousins and siblings are too. As for the social safety net, Medicare is great but to qualify for Medicaid in most places you have to be completely, utterly destitute. That leads to the scenario where people will have to go bankrupt before the government will pick them up. To me that seems both cruel and pointless; why not assist a person when they’re having a rough time before they go broke, so they are in a better position to be independent and contribute to society once they are back on their feet?
Count yourself lucky if you have a decent job (I’m not sure what your job is actually), a wife with a stable and reliable income and insurance access, no sick kids.You also live in a state that provides seasonal benefits for workers who are unemployed for large chunks of the year (fishing, tourism, etc.), and also has expanded Medicaid. This is hugely different than most of the south, where to qualify for any public assistance, you have to be utterly, completely dirt poor.
When any math and science that don’t fit the desired narrative come with the price tag of the scientists career While simultaneously being deliberately ignored by the media, you’re kinda right…
Okay, now we’re veering way out into “too political” territory IMHO. I’m really not sure what science you’re talking about but I have a hunch that it’s not relevant for a diabetes support forum.
Agree completely, except for the part about Medicare being “great”. We clearly have different experiences. 
I meant great relative to “dying on the street from an easily preventable disease.” 