Here’s a hypothetical, which is not really a hypothetical. This situation exists within my extended family:
A baby was born two years ago with a birth defect that will require lifelong care. The defect/condition itself is not life threatening at this point, but he’ll never be free of regular medical support and has at least one more surgery (scheduled for next week) to address the condition.
As I understand it, that’s a “preexisting condition” for purposes of insurance.
Under the ACA, no insurer may deny him coverage based upon that preexisting condition. Under the Republican plan(s), an insurer may deny him coverage based upon that preexisting condition.
So here’s the question:
Under the Republican plan(s), where’s the bottom for this kid? What happens to him vis-a-vis health coverage?
Under the Republican plan(s), where’s the bottom for this kid? What happens to him vis-a-vis health coverage? //
He doesn’t survive his first year, so no problem there. Seriously though, I have 3 friends that would have died from cancer without the ACA, just a statistical death under the pub plan. But cancer is entirely survivable now in many, many cases, but you need a doctor and support system, not an emergency room…
What happened to people with birth defects before Obamacare?
Pretty sure we left them out in the wilderness to die of exposure, but I can’t quite remember . . . .
This is the typical response. However, I’m sure he means how will someone be able to afford lifelong medical treatment, especially if an insurance company will not cover any costs. Just like before ACA, and I’m sure after, people go bankrupt.
You can’t be pre-ex’d if you don’t have a gap in your coverage.
Exactly. The Republicans way around the individual mandate was: if you had a 90 day gap in coverage the insurance companies would be allowed to offer you whatever they wanted including non-existing. So in a way instead of paying a ‘tax’/fine to the government you would be paying more in premiums or out of pocket.
That’s what I’m asking. How did things work pre-Obamacare? We didn’t leave infants to die of exposure *until *their parents had declared bankruptcy?
Someone refresh my memory.
Here’s what happened.
First the family runs up huge bills. They they run through any assets they have.
Eventually they go on Medicaid and we pay for it. And the family never regains any assets.
On the bills previous to going on Medicaid the hospital eventually writes them off at the inflated non-contract price giving the hospital corporation a nice large inflated tax write off. But only after the family’s credit rating was trashed, they were harassed with collections, and they burned through their assets. And we still pay for it as the costs are passed down to the consumers who actually pay.
So no matter which route you take, we pay for it (and by ‘we’ I mean the paying consumers).
But in the previous system the hospital also got a very nice write off at inflated prices and the family went through a very dark period of not knowing if they will be able to get care. They are never able to develop assets as that kicks them off Medicaid. Things only get written off after the fact. And non-emergency care is frequently denied.
The ACA was never something I thought was a good bill. The GOP and Blue Dog Democrats made sure that all provisions that would have contained costs were stripped out.
But I refuse to believe the haphazard way situations like this were handled pervasively is anything anyone would actually want.
the hospital eventually writes them off at the inflated non-contract price giving the hospital corporation a nice large inflated tax write off. …
But in the previous system the hospital also got a very nice write off at inflated prices
Only for profit hospitals can take a tax write-off on unpaid bills. Only 15% of hospitals in the US are for-profit. So this thing that sticks in your craw enough that you mentioned it twice can’t be done by 85% of the hospitals.
Here’s what happened.
First the family runs up huge bills. They they run through any assets they have.
Eventually they go on Medicaid and we pay for it. And the family never regains any assets.
First, I don’t think that’s universally true. I think there were often programs in place to assist the family and/or provide coverage for the child from the get go. Surely not every family who had a baby with a birth defect that required expensive medical care went bankrupt.
Second, even if that were true, I’m not sure it’s a less desirable situation than the one imposed on the populace under Obamacare.
Third, nobody is defending the system that existed prior to Obamacare. That doesn’t mean Obamacare isn’t worse.
Under the Republican plan(s), where’s the bottom for this kid? What happens to him vis-a-vis health coverage? //
He doesn’t survive his first year, so no problem there. Seriously though, I have 3 friends that would have died from cancer without the ACA, just a statistical death under the pub plan. But cancer is entirely survivable now in many, many cases, but you need a doctor and support system, not an emergency room…
why would they have died? Did they not carry insurance? If not why? It was far more affordable prior to ACA, unless they are poor and need to be subsidized or are on expanded Medicaid. Or was it because of pre-existing conditions? If so they likely could have gotten coverage through a state run program, programs which were outlawed under ACA.
And before you play your game. My wife has cancer. Has been living with it since 2009. Our insurance for her prior to Obama’s grand plan was excellent. Today? It sucks. We pay for her annual treatments with cash because ACA is a waste of time and more expensive then paying in cash. So again, tell me about your “friends”?
I don’t think many people here, none come to mind, are defending the ACA. They’re trashing the GOP plan.
Well, I don’t think that’s true. Plenty of people, here and elsewhere, are defending Obamacare as if it pulled us out of the depths of darkness or something.
Trashing the GOP plan is totally fair. Almost every card carrying member of the GOP, plus everyone else in the country is rightfully trashing the GOP “plan.”
the hospital eventually writes them off at the inflated non-contract price giving the hospital corporation a nice large inflated tax write off. …
But in the previous system the hospital also got a very nice write off at inflated prices
Only for profit hospitals can take a tax write-off on unpaid bills. Only 15% of hospitals in the US are for-profit. So this thing that sticks in your craw enough that you mentioned it twice can’t be done by 85% of the hospitals.
Sorry if my language wasn’t broad enough. Substitute health care industry everywhere you see hospital. Because do tors, phamacies, drug companies, medical device companies, etc. are not nonprofit and enjoy the same benefits.
the hospital eventually writes them off at the inflated non-contract price giving the hospital corporation a nice large inflated tax write off. …
But in the previous system the hospital also got a very nice write off at inflated prices
Only for profit hospitals can take a tax write-off on unpaid bills. Only 15% of hospitals in the US are for-profit. So this thing that sticks in your craw enough that you mentioned it twice can’t be done by 85% of the hospitals.
Sorry if my language wasn’t broad enough. Substitute health care industry everywhere you see hospital. Because do tors, phamacies, drug companies, medical device companies, etc. are not nonprofit and enjoy the same benefits.
I simply said hospital in the broadest of senses.
Nope. You’re just talking out of your ass about something you know nothing about. Doctors can’t get a tax deduction for unpaid bills either. They just have to eat it. And medical device companies and pharmacies work like grocery stores, you pay for it before you get it. On this particular point you’re just simply wrong, and won’t admit it.
the hospital eventually writes them off at the inflated non-contract price giving the hospital corporation a nice large inflated tax write off. …
But in the previous system the hospital also got a very nice write off at inflated prices
Only for profit hospitals can take a tax write-off on unpaid bills. Only 15% of hospitals in the US are for-profit. So this thing that sticks in your craw enough that you mentioned it twice can’t be done by 85% of the hospitals.
Sorry if my language wasn’t broad enough. Substitute health care industry everywhere you see hospital. Because do tors, phamacies, drug companies, medical device companies, etc. are not nonprofit and enjoy the same benefits.
I simply said hospital in the broadest of senses.
If writing off revenue that you never collect had any net benefit then we’d all have an easy way to get rich. Think about it.