Court ruling, let's discuss....

Svenny1011

Looks like the Supreme Court upheld ObamaCare today. 

For me, I don't see the issue with it. It seems like a good idea that people should be required to have health insurance, but I definitely need to do some more reading on it now that it has passed.

I just wish they would mandate maternity coverage in all states. In my state, NV, there is no maternity coverage so it is all OOP. Luckily, my insurance is based in Colorado which offers it, so I'm covered. But that is besides the point..... 

So, what are your thoughts and opinions on the ruling? I know there are some smarty lawyers in here that might have some good insight. 

steph620

Honestly, I know nothing about Obama Care. But I do agree with you about the maternity coverage thing. It is RIDICULOUS, and I was shocked when moving here to NV that there was like one insurance that had it!

Mother Meghan

I'm a bit ignorant on the subject as well. I'm with you, it sounds good in theory...

I'm with you on maternity coverage. I have it here in CA, but I feel for those who don't.

Deblondie1

I only know enough to be glad that it is a step in the right direction. But from what I am gathering, there are still some issues that have to be hammered out. But it's a start! 

BellaLux

It's the beginning of a very complicated process, that has very good provisions. But will not be an easy task. I'm not an attorney, but a public health pracitioner, so my perspective is from an access to quality care point of view, while acknowledging the current deficits in the health care system

I would highly recommend visiting https://www.healthcare.gov/ to find out more about the law and how it impacts you and your loved ones! The best thing is to educate yourself.

Svenny1011

BellaLux:

It's the beginning of a very complicated process, that has very good provisions. But will not be an easy task. I'm not an attorney, but a public health pracitioner, so my perspective is from an access to quality care point of view, while acknowledging the current deficits in the health care system

I would highly recommend visiting https://www.healthcare.gov/ to find out more about the law and how it impacts you and your loved ones! The best thing is to educate yourself.

Thanks! I'm a bit concerned on how it will impact the overall healthcare system, but I agree that it is a step in the right direction.

I was looking at all the comments on FB, and I'm tired of seeing people say things like they will get threatened with jail time if they don't get insurance. From what I've read, that is simply not true and the ruling specifically did not make not having insurance a criminal or civil penalty that would send someone to prison. It is simply a fine. I think a lot of people are making snap judgments and aren't fully educating themselves before they say things. I get tired of that!

6to82010

Grace0609:

I prefer the federal government to have LESS control over my life, rather than MORE. I also would like reform to occur that LOWERS health care premiums rather than RAISES them.

here here.  

Svenny1011

GhostMonkey:

anastasiacarmen:

The one major problem I have with it is that it is not mandatory for everyone.

I have free health care and have since the day I was born and probably will until the day I die bc my father was in the military, he retired (so him and my mother are cover for life and us kids were covered until 24), I joined the military at 21, my husband is now in and plans on retiring.

So I'm very inexperienced when it comes to buying insurance and what it does/doesn't cover. But I do think you you are going to make ppl get it you should be making everyone get it.  Other wise those with it are still paying for those with out it (since I believe the cost of insurance has been driven up in our country by the uninsured who don't pay their bills).

LMAO. Tricare isn't free once you retire. You must pay to keep it.

https://www.tricare.mil/mybenefit/home/Costs/HealthPlanCosts/TRICARERetiredReserve

And you are right- uninsured people are a big part of increases healthcare costs. That raises the claims amount for those with health care. Total claims is how they determine how much your increase is for the following year. Everyone being insured is a good thing. It will lower costs. One way is by opening up preventive care to those that were uninsured prior to this. That alone will save millions.

 

GM is right, from what I understand. We were told in our staff meeting on Monday that if it passes, our company's employee insurance costs will go down this year when our contract is renegotiated in August. While it is only 1% lower, it is a movement in the right direction considering their costs went up 15% last year alone. 

Twinsy12

bbg676:

I am glad they upheld the policy, if for no other reason than the fact that coverage for pre-existing conditions is required.  Often, when people discuss it, they talk about things like type 2 diabetes or COPD (which some see as self-caused).  But there are so many more pre-existing conditions that are completely out of the person's control.  Autoimmune diseases, most cancers, congenital diseases, etc. 

I agree! I've got a few of those pre-existing conditions so that part of the policy is very important to me. 

mcar001

 I have Crohn's Disease, and I was diagnosed with it at 22 while I was a full-time college student, so I was still on my dad's insurance. However, the disease made me unable to continue college full-time, so I was dropped from his insurance when he renewed the next year. My prescriptions are $600/month, and I was unable to continue refilling them. Without this preventative care, I had to had an emergency resection surgery about a year later, which cost both me, and the healthcare system, thousands of dollars. 
So from what I understand from ObamaCare, I think it will be a great thing for those of us who fell onto a hard diagnosis at the wrong time.

Svenny1011

mcar001:

 I have Crohn's Disease, and I was diagnosed with it at 22 while I was a full-time college student, so I was still on my dad's insurance. However, the disease made me unable to continue college full-time, so I was dropped from his insurance when he renewed the next year. My prescriptions are $600/month, and I was unable to continue refilling them. Without this preventative care, I had to had an emergency resection surgery about a year later, which cost both me, and the healthcare system, thousands of dollars. 
So from what I understand from ObamaCare, I think it will be a great thing for those of us who fell onto a hard diagnosis at the wrong time.

One of my best friends was diagnosed with Ulceritive Colitis in high school. While not the same thing, it is a lifetime issue she has to deal with through medications, etc. It was SO scary in high school when she missed months of school because of it, leading up to her diagnosis. I'm sorry you have to deal with it - I know it is completely life changing, expensive and frustrating.  

BellaLux

Svenny1011:

mcar001:

 I have Crohn's Disease, and I was diagnosed with it at 22 while I was a full-time college student, so I was still on my dad's insurance. However, the disease made me unable to continue college full-time, so I was dropped from his insurance when he renewed the next year. My prescriptions are $600/month, and I was unable to continue refilling them. Without this preventative care, I had to had an emergency resection surgery about a year later, which cost both me, and the healthcare system, thousands of dollars. 
So from what I understand from ObamaCare, I think it will be a great thing for those of us who fell onto a hard diagnosis at the wrong time.

One of my best friends was diagnosed with Ulceritive Colitis in high school. While not the same thing, it is a lifetime issue she has to deal with through medications, etc. It was SO scary in high school when she missed months of school because of it, leading up to her diagnosis. I'm sorry you have to deal with it - I know it is completely life changing, expensive and frustrating.  

And this is why the provisions on pre-existing condition, prevention of lifetime max coverage and ability of insurance companies to drop clients are so important. It is not until someone or a loved one suffers from one of these that people truly understand how importance of affordable health care. And for people who feel as though they don't "need" health insurance...what happens when God forbid  you get into a major accident or develop a chronic disease----that is what drives up medical costs!

lobosabby

6to82010:

Grace0609:

I prefer the federal government to have LESS control over my life, rather than MORE. I also would like reform to occur that LOWERS health care premiums rather than RAISES them.

here here.  

I already pay enough. My costs are not going down. Mine are going up, because it's a "tax."  I already pay enough in taxes.

Svenny1011

And from what I understand, PCOS is considered pre-existing condition, right?

Edited for clarity. 

PinupMomma08

Grace0609:

I prefer the federal government to have LESS control over my life, rather than MORE. I also would like reform to occur that LOWERS health care premiums rather than RAISES them.

 

This! 

alongamore17

Grace0609:

I prefer the federal government to have LESS control over my life, rather than MORE. I also would like reform to occur that LOWERS health care premiums rather than RAISES them.

  My thoughts exactly!

BellaLux

bbg676:

lobosabby:

6to82010:

Grace0609:

I prefer the federal government to have LESS control over my life, rather than MORE. I also would like reform to occur that LOWERS health care premiums rather than RAISES them.

here here.  

I already pay enough. My costs are not going down. Mine are going up, because it's a "tax."  I already pay enough in taxes.

It's NOT the government raising your health care premiums.  It is the insurance companies, who use your health to make as much money as possible.  It is literally a business.  They (insurance companies) have their own "death panels" where they refuse care or treatment on those that have short life expectancies or for expensive treatments they (the insurance companies) don't deem necessary or cost-effective. 

It's also the insurance companies that are finding ridiculous loop holes that are really screwing people over.  Take, for instance, free preventative care.  This includes colonoscopies.  Thousands have now had them done because they are free, covered care under the law.  BUT, if they find ANYTHING while under for the colonoscopy, the free colonoscopy becomes fully charged because it turns into 'diagnostic'.  And, for some reason, doctors are not informing their patients of the possible charges.

https://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/02/14/angry-patients-stuck-with-big-medical-bills-after-bait-and-switch/

It isn't the legislation that caused this problem.  It is the insurance companies, who, again, I remind you are BUSINESSES.  Businesses out to make money.  Money off of people who are sick (and those who are not sick).  Except, those that are not sick, before the legislation, typically don't purchase insurance until they actually need it. 

And if we REALLY want to complain about what government should and shouldn't do - I say Congressmen and women and their family should NOT get free health care for life.  At least, not until the rest of us do, as well.

bbg, I heart you! This is absolutely on point!!!  I respect differences of opinion, but they need to be based on facts and unfortunately what most people believe about the Affordable Care Act is just not true. Most are exremely ill informed! My husband and I were just having this same discussion (and his point of view is from an ER doc, where a large bulk of our outrageous healthcare costs stem from...uninsured using the ER as their primary care)

Twinsy12

mcar001:

 I have Crohn's Disease, and I was diagnosed with it at 22 while I was a full-time college student, so I was still on my dad's insurance. However, the disease made me unable to continue college full-time, so I was dropped from his insurance when he renewed the next year. My prescriptions are $600/month, and I was unable to continue refilling them. Without this preventative care, I had to had an emergency resection surgery about a year later, which cost both me, and the healthcare system, thousands of dollars. 
So from what I understand from ObamaCare, I think it will be a great thing for those of us who fell onto a hard diagnosis at the wrong time.

I have Crohn's disease too and was diagnosed in 2003, as was my twin sister. I hope you're doing better now since your resection! My sister had that done in college as well. It's been very stressful since college making sure that we find jobs with insurance that covers pre-existing conditions. 

Kaetbeth

lobosabby:

6to82010:

Grace0609:

I prefer the federal government to have LESS control over my life, rather than MORE. I also would like reform to occur that LOWERS health care premiums rather than RAISES them.

here here.  

I already pay enough. My costs are not going down. Mine are going up, because it's a "tax."  I already pay enough in taxes.

Just to be clear - the "tax" part is the penalty you pay if you don't have insurance. If you have insurance, you aren't getting taxed. That was what the SCOTUS ruled on.  

5dogs

Twinsy12:

mcar001:

 I have Crohn's Disease, and I was diagnosed with it at 22 while I was a full-time college student, so I was still on my dad's insurance. However, the disease made me unable to continue college full-time, so I was dropped from his insurance when he renewed the next year. My prescriptions are $600/month, and I was unable to continue refilling them. Without this preventative care, I had to had an emergency resection surgery about a year later, which cost both me, and the healthcare system, thousands of dollars. 
So from what I understand from ObamaCare, I think it will be a great thing for those of us who fell onto a hard diagnosis at the wrong time.

I have Crohn's disease too and was diagnosed in 2003, as was my twin sister. I hope you're doing better now since your resection! My sister had that done in college as well. It's been very stressful since college making sure that we find jobs with insurance that covers pre-existing conditions. 

I also have Crohn's & thyroid issues - not good things to have when you're a small business owner (aka having to have private health insurance). I joke with DH that I married him for his health insurance.

jovencita1224

First of all, I will say that health care REFORM is necessary.  It still is, because this particular bill is terrible.  And yes, I read the bill, in it's entirety, for myself.  

The supreme court has effectively ruled that the fine for not carrying insurance is, for all intents and purposes, a tax.  And when it is defined as a tax, a failure to carry insurance OR pay that tax/fine carries with it the exact same penalties as any other failure to pay taxes, which can include wage garnishment, liens on personal property, and even jail time.  That is sort-of the extreme, but yes, technically, if you have no insurance and you refuse to pay the tax, eventually you could go to jail for tax evasion.  Hey, it is what landed Al Capone in jail.  

What makes me angry is that a family of 4 making 90k in a low cost of living area of the country can get a government subsidy for paying their health insurance premiums.  As a family of 4 living in an EXTREMELY high COL area (a basic single family home in an area that is 1-1.5 hour commute to the city can NOT be had for less than 500k-daycare is a minimum of $300/week for an infant),  us making just over 90k forces us to have to pay the FULL price with no subsidy AND extra in taxes to make up for the subsidy that is going to the family of 4 making 90k in middle-of-nowheresville, USA.  Why?  When their 90k most likely allows for the mother to be a SAHM if she wanted, and in order to even pay rent around here my DH and I both need to work...why am I paying for THAT person?  Where is the "fairness" in that?  

Svenny1011

jovencita1224:

 

The supreme court has effectively ruled that the fine for not carrying insurance is, for all intents and purposes, a tax.  And when it is defined as a tax, a failure to carry insurance OR pay that tax/fine carries with it the exact same penalties as any other failure to pay taxes, which can include wage garnishment, liens on personal property, and even jail time.  That is sort-of the extreme, but yes, technically, if you have no insurance and you refuse to pay the tax, eventually you could go to jail for tax evasion.  Hey, it is what landed Al Capone in jail.  

From what I've read today, what the SCOTUS decided was that it wasn't considered a criminal offense not to pay the fine or tax, and therefore it won't send you to jail or give the govt the ability to put liens on property, etc. Maybe I'm missing something?

ETA: Excerpt from a summary today: "As Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the Supreme Court's majority opinion, "The Act ? bars the IRS from using several of its normal enforcement tools, such as criminal prosecutions and levies." 

artistlife

I am all for it. Being in insurance for so long I have seen some crazy premiums for stupid reasons. Are you extremely healthy but over 50? High premium. Are you a woman who had diabetes while pregnant? High premium and pre-existing clause because you are higher risk to have diabetes LATER. Also, even if you get maternity coverage, gestional diabetes will still be preexisting and will notbe covered. Then there is my son. He was given a preexisting exclusion for ear infections. That's right. As a two year old he had had 4 ear infections and they excluded them! Oh and in the long run insurance premiums will go down thanks to obama care. With more people insured usual and customary charges will decrease. With preventative care bills will lower because of less emergency issues and finally insurance premiums are based on risk factors. The larger the group the more the risk is spread out. If employers are required to offer coverage then people who previously paid high premiums for individual policies will now have a group to share risk with and lower premiums.

jovencita1224

Life isn't fair--but that is one of the fundamentals of the arguments for this health care reform is that the current system is inherently unfair.  Because the view is that health care (in the form of health insurance) is a basic human right.  Which, sorry, its not.  Not that I have no sympathy for those that have been denied coverage for pre-existing conditions, because that is the one thing I think is good about the bill.

Yes, there is a subsidy that does NOT take effect until 2014 that will give anyone with income of less than 400% of the federal poverty level for their family size some extra money to pay their health insurance premiums.  Seeing as how the 2012 federal poverty level for a family of 4 is $23,050; 400% would be exactly $92,200, so...yeah.  This subsidy is phased on a sliding scale based on income, so a family of 4 making $28K would be getting much more help than the family making $92,200...but still getting help nonetheless. 

And yes, this will be funded from additional taxes.  How do you think the government funds anything it does?  It has to get income from somewhere, and the way the government gets income is from taxes.  Income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes...taxes are how the government (federal, state, and local) raises money for all of its expenditures...which includes paying salaries of teachers and police officers and government employees, as well as paying for public services such as homeless shelters, medicaid, WIC, food stamps, and many more services that serve to protect our country's most vulnerable people. Adding more people that are eligible for assistance from the government, either in the form of medicare, medicaid, or the eventual subsidy for cost of health insurance premiums WILL raise taxes.  Maybe not for someone that is currently not paying taxes (like someone currently receiving EIC--which is paid for, not surprisingly, by the tax revenue from others), but for the rest of the tax-paying public, yes, any additional costs raise taxes.  

I have not read the Supreme Court decision, so I was unaware that it specifically stated that the GOV can not criminalize the failure to pay the tax/fine in the way they do for other failures to pay taxes.  If that is the case, that is wonderful, because in the bill it does state that IRS had the authority to enact their standard actions for a failure to pay taxes.  

Oh, and since you made the helpful suggestion of moving...gosh, I'd love to move, but unfortunately for me, the federal government is in Washington, DC so I'm pretty much stuck.  Bummer.  So, thanks, GhostMonkey for paying for my salary, retirement, and health insurance with your taxes since clearly you hate me.  I'll thank you personally with every penny of growth in my TSP.  And, while we are at it...you are welcome for my service in a war zone, three times, just protecting and defending those good ol' freedoms you enjoy every day.  Especially the freedom to spew out random insults to me all over this here interwebs.  What fun!  God bless the USA! 

OneHotMama89

Speaking as a Canadian that has socialized health care (but is also an American citizen due to being born in NY and living there for the first 18 years of my life), I fully support it. Obviously the states has a long way to go in that regard, and yes there are cons to socialized health care. However, everything has pros and cons. This isn't utopia. This is real life. If you want the coverage, you're going to have to accept that you're going to have to pay for it in some way. Nothing in this world is free.

As for maternity coverage, I agree with you. It should automatically be covered.

jovencita1224

Yes, premiums go down when the risk is spread among a greater pool of people.  However, insurance companies previously had the ability to deny coverage for a pre-existing condition that they felt would likely cost them more than they brought in.  So, while the adding of people with pre-existing conditions is a GOOD GOOD GOOD GREAT AMAZING WONDERFUL thing...it means that ultimately the premiums have to raise at some point because while they have more people to charge premiums...they have more expensive conditions to pay out for treatment. 

Let's just say ABC insurance was previously denying those who they estimated could cost them over $50,000 in claims based on their risk factors or existing medical conditions.  They had a risk pool that was small, but relatively low-risk based on existing conditions.  Now ABC medical has to allow all those people on their plan that they previously denied--even if they are in the middle of a pregnancy, or chemotherapy, or in need of a heart transplant, or currently getting dialysis.  Yes, they have more people to collect premiums from...but more to pay out as well, because they can't say no to anyone.  Now the fine/tax, whatever you call it for NOT having health insurance is relatively low in the grand scheme of costs...so for many people it will make financial sense to have no insurance and pay the fine to the IRS, but then be able to buy the insurance and have it cover them once they need it.  In order to have enough money to pay out on those costly treatments without even having the benefit of having that person pay into ABC insurance first...well, premiums have to raise on those that carry insurance at all times.  It is like being able to call up and get Geico to insure your car after you have a car accident...but you haven't paid any car insurance premiums until you needed it...it is unsustainable.  

I support health care reform.  I support health insurance reform.  I do not support this bill.  I think that in it's current state, it will only serve to inflate costs to the point of being unmanageable.  I'm not dumb, and I'm not misinformed, and I'm certainly not saying it our current system is good or even o.k.  I am saying THIS bill is not the answer to long-term sustainable reform.  

ETA:  What I am saying is that we can't have half-socialized medicine and expect it to work like socialized medicine.  Either it is 100% socialized and run like a government benefit...or it is 100% capitalist and run like a business.  Trying to do both is what sets the current plan up for failure.  

jovencita1224

I tried to add this to my previous post, but it doesn't seem to be there. I am good with analogies, so maybe this would help explain why I am certain that a significant increase in tax cost is inevitable, and with little benefit to ME personally.  Is it a good and noble thing to tithe what you have for those less fortunate?  Absolutely.  Is it annoying when the government dictates what YOU can afford and when you need help without taking into account your individual circumstances?  Sure is.  One can support reform without supporting THIS bill--take a look at Hillary Clinton's plan from the 2008 campaign.  That is something I find easier to swallow.  

 

The subsidy is only available to people that get their health insurance from the exchange, which is essentially the government's insurance plan.  Those using the exchange making less than 400% of the federal level only have to pay for their premium costs up to 9.5% of their salary, and the government makes up the difference in the costs through a tax credit.  The cost of the GOV insurance plan is the same no matter who has it...but the amount an individual pays vs. what is subsidized by the GOV changes based on income.  Those with employer-provided coverage, regardless of income, are NOT eligible for any subsidy.    

 

So, say the GOV ran a restaurant (like they will run their future health insurance plan.)  Let us say that, on the menu, a juicy steak is $20.  The GOV steaks cost $20 no matter what, but the price that YOU have to pay is on a sliding scale based on your income.  So the person that makes no money gets the steak for no cost to them-the GOV pays for full $20 cost of the steak.  This is like medicaid--where the person getting the service (or steak) does not pay for it themselves--it is wholly subsidized by the government.  Next, we have a person that makes a little money...she pays $5 towards the $20 steak and the GOV kicks in the rest of the cost of the steak.  We, the people, are helping her pay for her steak because she is working hard but is just a low-wage earner.  If she had to pay the full $20, it would be a significant portion of her income and ultimately put her further behind and make her more hungry in the long run...so helping her makes sense.  The person that makes a little more money pays $15 and the GOV kicks in the last $5.  Maybe they could afford the $20 steak, but it is kind-of nice to have that little bit of help--right?  Who would turn THAT down?  And finally we have someone that makes just TOO much for a steak discount, and while they may be eating at the GOV steakhouse, they get no discounts.  Oh well.   

 

Now, I don't eat my steak at the GOV-run restaurant, because I have coverage through my employer.  With my employer coverage, I am not eligible for steak discounts at the non-GOV steakhouse--regardless of my income.  Now steak costs $20 no matter where you are ordering it from--GOV or not...so my costs will be the full $20.  For the record, even if I would go to the GOV steak house, we make just slightly too much for any discounts over there, so I would most likely choose to stay at my non-GOV steakhouse and pay the $20 for my steak there, because I happen to think the service is a little better...and maybe an extra $5 and get me some mashed potatoes and coca-cola too--but to get more...I pay more.  I don't have a problem with that, and I don't expect a subsidy to allow me to pay for my fancy-pants extras.  If I have something more than the steak, then yeah, I AM paying more for it and I should pay more for it.  But why is it that no matter what my costs are, I am considered able to afford it...but someone making just a pinch less than me but using the GOV plan gets help--and it doesn't take into account our actual costs of living?  Yeah, the cost of steak might be the same, but there is a great difference in what everything BESIDES the steak costs across the country...like housing, gas, childcare, etc.  

A family of 4 making $50k in my home town would do o.k.--not wealthy, but not struggling either...therefore a family of 4 back home making $90k would certainly be affluent--but they get a discounted GOV steak.  Here in the DC area...a family of 4 making $50k actually qualifies for WIC and food stamps and possibly housing assistance (and obviously a discounted GOV steak)...and a family of 4 earning 95k would be financially afloat, but without a lot of money for extras...but no help with that GOV steak.  95K isn't that much more than 90K, but in DC, a family making 95K is not nearly as affluent as the family in my home town making 90k and getting help with GOV insurance costs...and their 95k isn't going as far in DC to cover other living expenses as it would in other places.  So it relieves a much greater % of burden for those in low COL areas than it does for high COL areas.    

 

FINALLY we have to ask...where does the money come from to help the others that eat at the GOV steak house to pay for their steak?  Well, in order to get the money to help the poorer people pay for their GOV steaks...the revenue comes from taxing EVERYONE more than they were taxed before.  There is no way around it--if the GOV is going to provide more services, then they must acquire more money to use to fund these services.  The way the GOV acquires money is taxes. Period.  They can't do a Harry Potter charm and make it appear out of nowhere, and we can keep borrowing from China, but eventually we have to pay them back--and the only way to get the money to pay them will be...TAXES! Whooo! So, yes, this additional funding requirement WILL raise my taxes...yours too--and considering how much of my paycheck already goes to taxes, that is annoying to me.  If you like paying more and more taxes each year...that is awesome and I thank you because that is the only way that I, as a government employee, will ever get a raise!  As for me, at more than 1/4 of my income, I feel that I am tapped out.  YMMV.  

mcar001

Twinsy12:

mcar001:

 I have Crohn's Disease, and I was diagnosed with it at 22 while I was a full-time college student, so I was still on my dad's insurance. However, the disease made me unable to continue college full-time, so I was dropped from his insurance when he renewed the next year. My prescriptions are $600/month, and I was unable to continue refilling them. Without this preventative care, I had to had an emergency resection surgery about a year later, which cost both me, and the healthcare system, thousands of dollars. 
So from what I understand from ObamaCare, I think it will be a great thing for those of us who fell onto a hard diagnosis at the wrong time.

I have Crohn's disease too and was diagnosed in 2003, as was my twin sister. I hope you're doing better now since your resection! My sister had that done in college as well. It's been very stressful since college making sure that we find jobs with insurance that covers pre-existing conditions. 

Thanks! I'm so sorry you AND your sister have to deal with CD. How is your sister after her resection? I haven't had any major flare-ups since the surgery, and that about 2 1/2 years ago. In that respect, it's fantastic, but as you know, once you have the surgery, the odds you have to have it again increase. I have insurance through my job now, but I have to wait until May of next year for it to cover anything Crohn's related. So I hope I can hold out until then. If you don't mind, I'd like to PM you and keep in touch. It's always nice to have Crohn's friends )

mcar001

bbg676:

mcar001:

 I have Crohn's Disease, and I was diagnosed with it at 22 while I was a full-time college student, so I was still on my dad's insurance. However, the disease made me unable to continue college full-time, so I was dropped from his insurance when he renewed the next year. My prescriptions are $600/month, and I was unable to continue refilling them. Without this preventative care, I had to had an emergency resection surgery about a year later, which cost both me, and the healthcare system, thousands of dollars. 
So from what I understand from ObamaCare, I think it will be a great thing for those of us who fell onto a hard diagnosis at the wrong time.

I am SO sorry you had to go through this. 

I was diagnosed with an autoimmune disease when I was 22.  Obamacare hadn't passed yet, and I was about to complete my AA degree (my health has kept me from finishing my BA) so I was going to be dropped from my parent's insurance.  At that point I had just gotten engaged, but we had planned a long engagement. 

Then we found out that to keep me COBRA'd on my parent's insurance, because of my exsisting condition, it was going to be almost a grand a week.  We moved the wedding up to April, but my parents ended up paying more to keep me COBRA'd than my wedding cost.  If they wouldn't have COBRA'd me, my AI would have been considered 'pre-exsisting', and not ONE insurance company would take me.

Luckily for us, my DH's insurance is a group plan and covered pre-exsisting conditions, but you had to wait a year for coverage... unless you were covered under previous insurance within the last 3 months (or something like that).  In the end, I was covered the whole time, which is lucky because my meds and treatment are VERY expensive without insurance.  But my parents ended up paying a ridiculous amount of money, just to ensure I'd always have coverage.   

I'm so sorry! I looked into Cobra too, but I would have been better off just paying OOP for my prescription rather than the outrageous premium Cobra thought it needed from me. Insurance through my job is the same way, it'll cover Crohn's related visits and treatments after a year. Actually, I think it's 500-something days or some weird number like that. Good luck with your meds and stuff, I hope everything stays under control for you!

jovencita1224

Grace-I think I you.  I'd go back overseas in a heartbeat if I could read the bump in the desert!

I hate that this is such a political issue, because the answer to TRUE reform would come from the combination of determining what we really want and need from healthcare and, consequently, health insurance AND meshing that with what the true costs to achieve that will be. 

Right now, BOTH political parties are manipulating the numbers to support their side, and that is unfair to the constituents because it doesn't give the true cost vs benefit picture. I don't want to pay more and more for less benefits to me, and as time goes on with no change to this plan, that is exactly what happens. It is unsustainable change. I don't think supporters of this bill are dumb, but I think they are focused on those awesome changes...while I am focused on a long-term financial cost to the taxpayers. We are both right in our beliefs-but that tells me that we have to find a better way to pay for these awesome changes than the payment plan this bill has in store. 

jovencita1224

Wow-you are totally right! Now I know that the 16 DoD civillians that have died in Afghanistan and Baghdad in this war are not to be thanked for their ultimate sacrifice.  And we certainly wouldn't want to thank those that made it back alive...who cares, right? 

Forget about those government employees that volunteer to serve, away from their families for months or years at a time, at the US Embassies in Iraq and Afghanistan...don't thank them either because they have employer-provided health insurance. 

I mean, none of them actually DO anything over there, in the war zones.  They are probabally just like those GSA folks that partied like crazy in Vegas. I mean, both places are deserts, right? Totally the same. 

There are plenty of others who do not support this bill.  Plenty of others who just don't get it, according to you. Yes, so many economists, medical professionals, political analysts that have seen how different scenarios play out in other countries and have impacted their economies long-term. Oh, and even the supreme court. Yes, they did their job deciding constitutionality, but Chief Justice Roberts sagely pointed out in the opinion "It is not our job to Protect the people from the consequences of their political choices." In SCOTUS speak, that translates to "this bill is a big fat fail, but we only can vote on if it is legal.  It is legal, but it doesn't make it suck any less."

Yup, none of us get it. We must all bow down to your superior understanding since you obviously observed some wisdom in he bill that SCOTUS did not. I see now that you alone should be consulted on any and all decisions impacting this country. 

jovencita1224

I know you don't read my whole posts, but the reason she thanked me was because I DID serve in the war zone. As a civillian.  And you told her not to thank me because you (accurately) pointed out, that I was not military.  You just assumed that meant i did not serve in a war zone, since your SIL is a GOV worker and does not have that kind of job.  Well, i DO have that kind of job, I served, vountarially, for this country. All of it, Even those in his country that are self-rightous pompus internet twerps.  People i knew personally, that I worked with there, and i cared about, didnt all come back like I did.  I dont care if you thank everyone that served BUT me, but to tell another poster not to-you are just being petty and small. Sorry your life is so lame that you have to try to insult me for funzies. But if that gives you a reason to wake up in the morning, go ahead. See, I am charitable after all. 

 I am no more or less rational in my assessment of why I don't lIke the bill than anyone else on here, but yet you hate my reasons.  Im the only moron, but you have put me in the company of all of my office colleagues, my DH, and the Republican party who also oppose the bill. Maybe some would be offended, but I'm just fine with that. 

Oh, and you were wrong about it not affecting me. My DH, a cop, is also a paramedic. The hospital where he did his Medic shifts has cut all of their ambulance medics right after he ruling, going down to the lesser-trained (and cheaper) EMT only ambulance staff. The reason they did this? Because Medicaid pays out $60 per ambulance ride regardless of treatment performed, and average actual cost of services is between $500 and $1000 per transport. The board of directors said they can barely afford to pay medics as it is, and the addition of more Medicaid-eligible patients will exacerbate the situation. They lost money with uninsured people, yes, but they apparently are able to collect on some of it and write off the losses for a lot of it. With Medicaid, they have to accept that payment and there is no additional collection and there is no write off. So, anyone riding an ambulance in that town will suffer inferior medical services (an emt can not do the same things as a medic) AND DH no longer has a part-time shift to work in our hometown to help us earn extra money. We used to go home regularly, and i would visit family while he worked, but now There is no point in such frequency when it would cost us so much without getting paid-and my mom, MIL, and FIL are certainly sad about that. Sorry, the bill DOES impact me, although admittedly not in a way I saw coming. I'm happy that more people have coverage, and I don't begrudge them that. But I am not going to be happy about a bill that HAS negatively impacted my financial situation, even if it makes you deliriously happy. You have coverage, yay for you.