can anyone dumb this down for me....

[ladybug]

Hi everyone,

OK, so I hear a lot about Obama wanting to "cover pre-existing conditions" but I'm curious what exactly that means?

My biggest issue with healthcare is that I want to be able to purchase my OWN private policy in any state we live in. NOT employer coverage, but calling BCBS (or other insurance companies) and literally setting up a policy with decent rates and them NOT being able to deny me coverage cause I have CF. AND, them not being able to skyrocket my premiums because I have CF.

So, that being said, are EITHER of the presidential candidates advocating for this? Are either of them saying that we should be able to purchase a cost-effective private policy from whomever we want wherever we live and they MUST cover CF or any other conditions people may have?

I'm just confused cause it seems to me there is talk about this, but no one has actually said outright what covering "pre-existing conditions" would mean and whether we could then have a choice in our own private policies as CFers (and they'd be AFFORDABLE and equal in premiums to those who don't have CF).

I'm also curious if this is just in regard to medical insurance OR if it is also in regard to things like indemnity hospital policies etc. that are being discussed on another thread... For example, Physician's Mutual now will not offer policies to people with CF and will not cover such illness, but under either candidates policy, would this have to change as well? So there would be NO discrimination for ANY sort of insurance policies?

Thanks!

 

[ladybug]

Hi everyone,

OK, so I hear a lot about Obama wanting to "cover pre-existing conditions" but I'm curious what exactly that means?

My biggest issue with healthcare is that I want to be able to purchase my OWN private policy in any state we live in. NOT employer coverage, but calling BCBS (or other insurance companies) and literally setting up a policy with decent rates and them NOT being able to deny me coverage cause I have CF. AND, them not being able to skyrocket my premiums because I have CF.

So, that being said, are EITHER of the presidential candidates advocating for this? Are either of them saying that we should be able to purchase a cost-effective private policy from whomever we want wherever we live and they MUST cover CF or any other conditions people may have?

I'm just confused cause it seems to me there is talk about this, but no one has actually said outright what covering "pre-existing conditions" would mean and whether we could then have a choice in our own private policies as CFers (and they'd be AFFORDABLE and equal in premiums to those who don't have CF).

I'm also curious if this is just in regard to medical insurance OR if it is also in regard to things like indemnity hospital policies etc. that are being discussed on another thread... For example, Physician's Mutual now will not offer policies to people with CF and will not cover such illness, but under either candidates policy, would this have to change as well? So there would be NO discrimination for ANY sort of insurance policies?

Thanks!

 

[ladybug]

Hi everyone,

OK, so I hear a lot about Obama wanting to "cover pre-existing conditions" but I'm curious what exactly that means?

My biggest issue with healthcare is that I want to be able to purchase my OWN private policy in any state we live in. NOT employer coverage, but calling BCBS (or other insurance companies) and literally setting up a policy with decent rates and them NOT being able to deny me coverage cause I have CF. AND, them not being able to skyrocket my premiums because I have CF.

So, that being said, are EITHER of the presidential candidates advocating for this? Are either of them saying that we should be able to purchase a cost-effective private policy from whomever we want wherever we live and they MUST cover CF or any other conditions people may have?

I'm just confused cause it seems to me there is talk about this, but no one has actually said outright what covering "pre-existing conditions" would mean and whether we could then have a choice in our own private policies as CFers (and they'd be AFFORDABLE and equal in premiums to those who don't have CF).

I'm also curious if this is just in regard to medical insurance OR if it is also in regard to things like indemnity hospital policies etc. that are being discussed on another thread... For example, Physician's Mutual now will not offer policies to people with CF and will not cover such illness, but under either candidates policy, would this have to change as well? So there would be NO discrimination for ANY sort of insurance policies?

Thanks!

 

[ladybug]

Hi everyone,

OK, so I hear a lot about Obama wanting to "cover pre-existing conditions" but I'm curious what exactly that means?

My biggest issue with healthcare is that I want to be able to purchase my OWN private policy in any state we live in. NOT employer coverage, but calling BCBS (or other insurance companies) and literally setting up a policy with decent rates and them NOT being able to deny me coverage cause I have CF. AND, them not being able to skyrocket my premiums because I have CF.

So, that being said, are EITHER of the presidential candidates advocating for this? Are either of them saying that we should be able to purchase a cost-effective private policy from whomever we want wherever we live and they MUST cover CF or any other conditions people may have?

I'm just confused cause it seems to me there is talk about this, but no one has actually said outright what covering "pre-existing conditions" would mean and whether we could then have a choice in our own private policies as CFers (and they'd be AFFORDABLE and equal in premiums to those who don't have CF).

I'm also curious if this is just in regard to medical insurance OR if it is also in regard to things like indemnity hospital policies etc. that are being discussed on another thread... For example, Physician's Mutual now will not offer policies to people with CF and will not cover such illness, but under either candidates policy, would this have to change as well? So there would be NO discrimination for ANY sort of insurance policies?

Thanks!

 

[ladybug]

Hi everyone,
<br />
<br />OK, so I hear a lot about Obama wanting to "cover pre-existing conditions" but I'm curious what exactly that means?
<br />
<br />My biggest issue with healthcare is that I want to be able to purchase my OWN private policy in any state we live in. NOT employer coverage, but calling BCBS (or other insurance companies) and literally setting up a policy with decent rates and them NOT being able to deny me coverage cause I have CF. AND, them not being able to skyrocket my premiums because I have CF.
<br />
<br />So, that being said, are EITHER of the presidential candidates advocating for this? Are either of them saying that we should be able to purchase a cost-effective private policy from whomever we want wherever we live and they MUST cover CF or any other conditions people may have?
<br />
<br />I'm just confused cause it seems to me there is talk about this, but no one has actually said outright what covering "pre-existing conditions" would mean and whether we could then have a choice in our own private policies as CFers (and they'd be AFFORDABLE and equal in premiums to those who don't have CF).
<br />
<br />I'm also curious if this is just in regard to medical insurance OR if it is also in regard to things like indemnity hospital policies etc. that are being discussed on another thread... For example, Physician's Mutual now will not offer policies to people with CF and will not cover such illness, but under either candidates policy, would this have to change as well? So there would be NO discrimination for ANY sort of insurance policies?
<br />
<br />Thanks!

 

[jdubbs]

Hi Ladybug -

This topic has been agitating me recently.

Personally, I think Obama's plan would be more likely to help CFer's. Here's why.

McCain wants to drive insurance out of the hands of employers and into the hands of private insurance, which will hurt CFers, or any chronically ill persons. In the world of private plans, no one wants to insure us. Private plans will drive us into the most expensive plans they have. Healthy people will pay little, sick people will pay a lot more.

At least getting insurance from employers forces more mixing of healthy people and sick people, balancing the pool. I have a number of healthy friends who would prefer McCain's plan because they could opt out, get their own cheap plan and spend the rest on iPhones. (Pardon my cynicism.)

Sure, private insurance companies will "cover us", but they'll find a way to drive us into the expensive plans. For instance, the cheap plan wouldn't cover meds.

Our best chance at getting the best care for the cheapest price is if we get into pools that have as many healthy people as possible. That can happen either with employer plans or potential goverment plans. Personally, I think the goverment is likely to muck things up, so I prefer an employer based insurance scheme.

In a private health care market, such as ours, we will always see discrimination. That said, we're still better off than if the goverment took over the whole system. Then everyone would just get bad care. That doesn't help anyone.

Anyway, these are my opinions. I could easily be wrong about any one of them. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">

 

[jdubbs]

Hi Ladybug -

This topic has been agitating me recently.

Personally, I think Obama's plan would be more likely to help CFer's. Here's why.

McCain wants to drive insurance out of the hands of employers and into the hands of private insurance, which will hurt CFers, or any chronically ill persons. In the world of private plans, no one wants to insure us. Private plans will drive us into the most expensive plans they have. Healthy people will pay little, sick people will pay a lot more.

At least getting insurance from employers forces more mixing of healthy people and sick people, balancing the pool. I have a number of healthy friends who would prefer McCain's plan because they could opt out, get their own cheap plan and spend the rest on iPhones. (Pardon my cynicism.)

Sure, private insurance companies will "cover us", but they'll find a way to drive us into the expensive plans. For instance, the cheap plan wouldn't cover meds.

Our best chance at getting the best care for the cheapest price is if we get into pools that have as many healthy people as possible. That can happen either with employer plans or potential goverment plans. Personally, I think the goverment is likely to muck things up, so I prefer an employer based insurance scheme.

In a private health care market, such as ours, we will always see discrimination. That said, we're still better off than if the goverment took over the whole system. Then everyone would just get bad care. That doesn't help anyone.

Anyway, these are my opinions. I could easily be wrong about any one of them. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">

 

[jdubbs]

Hi Ladybug -

This topic has been agitating me recently.

Personally, I think Obama's plan would be more likely to help CFer's. Here's why.

McCain wants to drive insurance out of the hands of employers and into the hands of private insurance, which will hurt CFers, or any chronically ill persons. In the world of private plans, no one wants to insure us. Private plans will drive us into the most expensive plans they have. Healthy people will pay little, sick people will pay a lot more.

At least getting insurance from employers forces more mixing of healthy people and sick people, balancing the pool. I have a number of healthy friends who would prefer McCain's plan because they could opt out, get their own cheap plan and spend the rest on iPhones. (Pardon my cynicism.)

Sure, private insurance companies will "cover us", but they'll find a way to drive us into the expensive plans. For instance, the cheap plan wouldn't cover meds.

Our best chance at getting the best care for the cheapest price is if we get into pools that have as many healthy people as possible. That can happen either with employer plans or potential goverment plans. Personally, I think the goverment is likely to muck things up, so I prefer an employer based insurance scheme.

In a private health care market, such as ours, we will always see discrimination. That said, we're still better off than if the goverment took over the whole system. Then everyone would just get bad care. That doesn't help anyone.

Anyway, these are my opinions. I could easily be wrong about any one of them. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">

 

[jdubbs]

Hi Ladybug -

This topic has been agitating me recently.

Personally, I think Obama's plan would be more likely to help CFer's. Here's why.

McCain wants to drive insurance out of the hands of employers and into the hands of private insurance, which will hurt CFers, or any chronically ill persons. In the world of private plans, no one wants to insure us. Private plans will drive us into the most expensive plans they have. Healthy people will pay little, sick people will pay a lot more.

At least getting insurance from employers forces more mixing of healthy people and sick people, balancing the pool. I have a number of healthy friends who would prefer McCain's plan because they could opt out, get their own cheap plan and spend the rest on iPhones. (Pardon my cynicism.)

Sure, private insurance companies will "cover us", but they'll find a way to drive us into the expensive plans. For instance, the cheap plan wouldn't cover meds.

Our best chance at getting the best care for the cheapest price is if we get into pools that have as many healthy people as possible. That can happen either with employer plans or potential goverment plans. Personally, I think the goverment is likely to muck things up, so I prefer an employer based insurance scheme.

In a private health care market, such as ours, we will always see discrimination. That said, we're still better off than if the goverment took over the whole system. Then everyone would just get bad care. That doesn't help anyone.

Anyway, these are my opinions. I could easily be wrong about any one of them. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">

 

[jdubbs]

Hi Ladybug -
<br />
<br />This topic has been agitating me recently.
<br />
<br />Personally, I think Obama's plan would be more likely to help CFer's. Here's why.
<br />
<br />McCain wants to drive insurance out of the hands of employers and into the hands of private insurance, which will hurt CFers, or any chronically ill persons. In the world of private plans, no one wants to insure us. Private plans will drive us into the most expensive plans they have. Healthy people will pay little, sick people will pay a lot more.
<br />
<br />At least getting insurance from employers forces more mixing of healthy people and sick people, balancing the pool. I have a number of healthy friends who would prefer McCain's plan because they could opt out, get their own cheap plan and spend the rest on iPhones. (Pardon my cynicism.)
<br />
<br />Sure, private insurance companies will "cover us", but they'll find a way to drive us into the expensive plans. For instance, the cheap plan wouldn't cover meds.
<br />
<br />Our best chance at getting the best care for the cheapest price is if we get into pools that have as many healthy people as possible. That can happen either with employer plans or potential goverment plans. Personally, I think the goverment is likely to muck things up, so I prefer an employer based insurance scheme.
<br />
<br />In a private health care market, such as ours, we will always see discrimination. That said, we're still better off than if the goverment took over the whole system. Then everyone would just get bad care. That doesn't help anyone.
<br />
<br />Anyway, these are my opinions. I could easily be wrong about any one of them. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />

 

[ladybug]

Thanks for your thoughts, James! I do appreciate it!

The problem for me (and many CFers) is that we don't work full time or even part time (in my case) and so do not have the opportunity to get employer benefits.

I am going to be elligible for Medicare in the next couple of years because of disability. However, I have to be honest, the fact that I'm covered under yet another federally-run HMO is not appealing to me.

I am already covered under Tricare and have a private policy that was set up for me years ago with BCBS (I pay out of pocket for my premiums, etc.). I know from experience that my private policy with BCBS gives me FAR more flexibility and far less hurdles to jump through than federally-run Tricare. I worry that adding more govt. control and yet another govt. run health insurance plan (i.e. HMO) will just be more of the same (similar to medicare and tricare).

I LOVE the flexibility I have with BCBS and am willing to pay out of pocket to receive such care, even when I am covered 100% by Tricare (and soon to be Medicare). I wish all CFers had such access to care and such freedom of choice. I know things like I.V. meds are covered with home health with BCBS, while Medicare requires the entire time that you're sitting in the hospital. This to me is not choice and does not take into account what your doctor thinks is right for the patient. It is just a federally run program saying what everyone, regardless of situation, is required to do.

That is kinda where I was going with my question...

Will Obama's plan give this flexibility to the consumer with CF (even those who don't work) or simply pigeonhole us into yet another federally run insurance policy? Its wonderful that he is willing to cover pre-existing conditions. But, in the same respect, Medicare does that too and there are many people with Medicare that I believe would love to be able to go on a more flexible plan.

I do see your point though and I guess that was another reason I was asking. If in fact private policies would be required to cover us with CF, would they jack up the price so high so none of us could afford it? Thereby meaning we'd have to go into the federally run insurance program anyway? It seems there should be safeguards in place that would keep insurance companies from "raping" the consumers who wish to purchase policies from them. Just covering a pre existing condition does nothing to help us if our premiums are 10X the price they are for someone in our age bracket without a pre existing condition.

Maybe I'm wrong in all of this. I just don't really see how covering pre-existing conditions is a benefit if we're still paying far more because of it OR if we're just herded into a federally-run program like Medicare or other HMOs.

I don't like McCain's plan either and his I seem to understand a bit more. However, I just wonder how wonderful this "I will cover pre existing conditions." thing really is???

Hmmmm......

Am I wrong in my assessment? It wouldn't be the firs time. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif" border="0">

I'm not trying to debate here, just trying to clear up how I understand it. I would be tickled if someone were to clear it all up for me. And would be even more tickled if someone could link me to exact wording that shows how this pre existing stuff would benefit us CFers.... though I think James was very efficient in helping me get my mind around it. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">

 

[ladybug]

Thanks for your thoughts, James! I do appreciate it!

The problem for me (and many CFers) is that we don't work full time or even part time (in my case) and so do not have the opportunity to get employer benefits.

I am going to be elligible for Medicare in the next couple of years because of disability. However, I have to be honest, the fact that I'm covered under yet another federally-run HMO is not appealing to me.

I am already covered under Tricare and have a private policy that was set up for me years ago with BCBS (I pay out of pocket for my premiums, etc.). I know from experience that my private policy with BCBS gives me FAR more flexibility and far less hurdles to jump through than federally-run Tricare. I worry that adding more govt. control and yet another govt. run health insurance plan (i.e. HMO) will just be more of the same (similar to medicare and tricare).

I LOVE the flexibility I have with BCBS and am willing to pay out of pocket to receive such care, even when I am covered 100% by Tricare (and soon to be Medicare). I wish all CFers had such access to care and such freedom of choice. I know things like I.V. meds are covered with home health with BCBS, while Medicare requires the entire time that you're sitting in the hospital. This to me is not choice and does not take into account what your doctor thinks is right for the patient. It is just a federally run program saying what everyone, regardless of situation, is required to do.

That is kinda where I was going with my question...

Will Obama's plan give this flexibility to the consumer with CF (even those who don't work) or simply pigeonhole us into yet another federally run insurance policy? Its wonderful that he is willing to cover pre-existing conditions. But, in the same respect, Medicare does that too and there are many people with Medicare that I believe would love to be able to go on a more flexible plan.

I do see your point though and I guess that was another reason I was asking. If in fact private policies would be required to cover us with CF, would they jack up the price so high so none of us could afford it? Thereby meaning we'd have to go into the federally run insurance program anyway? It seems there should be safeguards in place that would keep insurance companies from "raping" the consumers who wish to purchase policies from them. Just covering a pre existing condition does nothing to help us if our premiums are 10X the price they are for someone in our age bracket without a pre existing condition.

Maybe I'm wrong in all of this. I just don't really see how covering pre-existing conditions is a benefit if we're still paying far more because of it OR if we're just herded into a federally-run program like Medicare or other HMOs.

I don't like McCain's plan either and his I seem to understand a bit more. However, I just wonder how wonderful this "I will cover pre existing conditions." thing really is???

Hmmmm......

Am I wrong in my assessment? It wouldn't be the firs time. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif" border="0">

I'm not trying to debate here, just trying to clear up how I understand it. I would be tickled if someone were to clear it all up for me. And would be even more tickled if someone could link me to exact wording that shows how this pre existing stuff would benefit us CFers.... though I think James was very efficient in helping me get my mind around it. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">

 

[ladybug]

Thanks for your thoughts, James! I do appreciate it!

The problem for me (and many CFers) is that we don't work full time or even part time (in my case) and so do not have the opportunity to get employer benefits.

I am going to be elligible for Medicare in the next couple of years because of disability. However, I have to be honest, the fact that I'm covered under yet another federally-run HMO is not appealing to me.

I am already covered under Tricare and have a private policy that was set up for me years ago with BCBS (I pay out of pocket for my premiums, etc.). I know from experience that my private policy with BCBS gives me FAR more flexibility and far less hurdles to jump through than federally-run Tricare. I worry that adding more govt. control and yet another govt. run health insurance plan (i.e. HMO) will just be more of the same (similar to medicare and tricare).

I LOVE the flexibility I have with BCBS and am willing to pay out of pocket to receive such care, even when I am covered 100% by Tricare (and soon to be Medicare). I wish all CFers had such access to care and such freedom of choice. I know things like I.V. meds are covered with home health with BCBS, while Medicare requires the entire time that you're sitting in the hospital. This to me is not choice and does not take into account what your doctor thinks is right for the patient. It is just a federally run program saying what everyone, regardless of situation, is required to do.

That is kinda where I was going with my question...

Will Obama's plan give this flexibility to the consumer with CF (even those who don't work) or simply pigeonhole us into yet another federally run insurance policy? Its wonderful that he is willing to cover pre-existing conditions. But, in the same respect, Medicare does that too and there are many people with Medicare that I believe would love to be able to go on a more flexible plan.

I do see your point though and I guess that was another reason I was asking. If in fact private policies would be required to cover us with CF, would they jack up the price so high so none of us could afford it? Thereby meaning we'd have to go into the federally run insurance program anyway? It seems there should be safeguards in place that would keep insurance companies from "raping" the consumers who wish to purchase policies from them. Just covering a pre existing condition does nothing to help us if our premiums are 10X the price they are for someone in our age bracket without a pre existing condition.

Maybe I'm wrong in all of this. I just don't really see how covering pre-existing conditions is a benefit if we're still paying far more because of it OR if we're just herded into a federally-run program like Medicare or other HMOs.

I don't like McCain's plan either and his I seem to understand a bit more. However, I just wonder how wonderful this "I will cover pre existing conditions." thing really is???

Hmmmm......

Am I wrong in my assessment? It wouldn't be the firs time. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif" border="0">

I'm not trying to debate here, just trying to clear up how I understand it. I would be tickled if someone were to clear it all up for me. And would be even more tickled if someone could link me to exact wording that shows how this pre existing stuff would benefit us CFers.... though I think James was very efficient in helping me get my mind around it. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">

 

[ladybug]

Thanks for your thoughts, James! I do appreciate it!

The problem for me (and many CFers) is that we don't work full time or even part time (in my case) and so do not have the opportunity to get employer benefits.

I am going to be elligible for Medicare in the next couple of years because of disability. However, I have to be honest, the fact that I'm covered under yet another federally-run HMO is not appealing to me.

I am already covered under Tricare and have a private policy that was set up for me years ago with BCBS (I pay out of pocket for my premiums, etc.). I know from experience that my private policy with BCBS gives me FAR more flexibility and far less hurdles to jump through than federally-run Tricare. I worry that adding more govt. control and yet another govt. run health insurance plan (i.e. HMO) will just be more of the same (similar to medicare and tricare).

I LOVE the flexibility I have with BCBS and am willing to pay out of pocket to receive such care, even when I am covered 100% by Tricare (and soon to be Medicare). I wish all CFers had such access to care and such freedom of choice. I know things like I.V. meds are covered with home health with BCBS, while Medicare requires the entire time that you're sitting in the hospital. This to me is not choice and does not take into account what your doctor thinks is right for the patient. It is just a federally run program saying what everyone, regardless of situation, is required to do.

That is kinda where I was going with my question...

Will Obama's plan give this flexibility to the consumer with CF (even those who don't work) or simply pigeonhole us into yet another federally run insurance policy? Its wonderful that he is willing to cover pre-existing conditions. But, in the same respect, Medicare does that too and there are many people with Medicare that I believe would love to be able to go on a more flexible plan.

I do see your point though and I guess that was another reason I was asking. If in fact private policies would be required to cover us with CF, would they jack up the price so high so none of us could afford it? Thereby meaning we'd have to go into the federally run insurance program anyway? It seems there should be safeguards in place that would keep insurance companies from "raping" the consumers who wish to purchase policies from them. Just covering a pre existing condition does nothing to help us if our premiums are 10X the price they are for someone in our age bracket without a pre existing condition.

Maybe I'm wrong in all of this. I just don't really see how covering pre-existing conditions is a benefit if we're still paying far more because of it OR if we're just herded into a federally-run program like Medicare or other HMOs.

I don't like McCain's plan either and his I seem to understand a bit more. However, I just wonder how wonderful this "I will cover pre existing conditions." thing really is???

Hmmmm......

Am I wrong in my assessment? It wouldn't be the firs time. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif" border="0">

I'm not trying to debate here, just trying to clear up how I understand it. I would be tickled if someone were to clear it all up for me. And would be even more tickled if someone could link me to exact wording that shows how this pre existing stuff would benefit us CFers.... though I think James was very efficient in helping me get my mind around it. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">

 

[ladybug]

Thanks for your thoughts, James! I do appreciate it!
<br />
<br />The problem for me (and many CFers) is that we don't work full time or even part time (in my case) and so do not have the opportunity to get employer benefits.
<br />
<br />I am going to be elligible for Medicare in the next couple of years because of disability. However, I have to be honest, the fact that I'm covered under yet another federally-run HMO is not appealing to me.
<br />
<br />I am already covered under Tricare and have a private policy that was set up for me years ago with BCBS (I pay out of pocket for my premiums, etc.). I know from experience that my private policy with BCBS gives me FAR more flexibility and far less hurdles to jump through than federally-run Tricare. I worry that adding more govt. control and yet another govt. run health insurance plan (i.e. HMO) will just be more of the same (similar to medicare and tricare).
<br />
<br />I LOVE the flexibility I have with BCBS and am willing to pay out of pocket to receive such care, even when I am covered 100% by Tricare (and soon to be Medicare). I wish all CFers had such access to care and such freedom of choice. I know things like I.V. meds are covered with home health with BCBS, while Medicare requires the entire time that you're sitting in the hospital. This to me is not choice and does not take into account what your doctor thinks is right for the patient. It is just a federally run program saying what everyone, regardless of situation, is required to do.
<br />
<br />That is kinda where I was going with my question...
<br />
<br />Will Obama's plan give this flexibility to the consumer with CF (even those who don't work) or simply pigeonhole us into yet another federally run insurance policy? Its wonderful that he is willing to cover pre-existing conditions. But, in the same respect, Medicare does that too and there are many people with Medicare that I believe would love to be able to go on a more flexible plan.
<br />
<br />I do see your point though and I guess that was another reason I was asking. If in fact private policies would be required to cover us with CF, would they jack up the price so high so none of us could afford it? Thereby meaning we'd have to go into the federally run insurance program anyway? It seems there should be safeguards in place that would keep insurance companies from "raping" the consumers who wish to purchase policies from them. Just covering a pre existing condition does nothing to help us if our premiums are 10X the price they are for someone in our age bracket without a pre existing condition.
<br />
<br />Maybe I'm wrong in all of this. I just don't really see how covering pre-existing conditions is a benefit if we're still paying far more because of it OR if we're just herded into a federally-run program like Medicare or other HMOs.
<br />
<br />I don't like McCain's plan either and his I seem to understand a bit more. However, I just wonder how wonderful this "I will cover pre existing conditions." thing really is???
<br />
<br />Hmmmm......
<br />
<br />Am I wrong in my assessment? It wouldn't be the firs time. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif" border="0">
<br />
<br />I'm not trying to debate here, just trying to clear up how I understand it. I would be tickled if someone were to clear it all up for me. And would be even more tickled if someone could link me to exact wording that shows how this pre existing stuff would benefit us CFers.... though I think James was very efficient in helping me get my mind around it. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">

 

[NYCLawGirl]

Interesting discussion, but here's the thing: cost effective for you does not equal cost effective for the company. As long as the insurance business is completely or primarily private, it is difficult for the government to mandate that private companies cannot turn down CFers or people with other diseases. It is even more difficult for the government to say the companies cannot raise premiums for these indivudals. Why? Because we (meaning CFers) are simply a bad investment from an insurance point of view. We will almost certainly have costs that exceed our monthly premiums, meaning that we are a losing game from the company's perspective. Think about it: if you owned an insurance company and were planning on making money by earning more than you spend, would you like the government coming in and demanding that you make what essentially amounts to a charitable donation to someone with CF by covering them at a loss to yourself?

The only way for government to have this sort of control over private companies would be for the government to supplement the coverage of chronic conditions. E.g., the private insurance company would offer you coverage at the normal (non-CF) price and the government would cover the difference. And so far as I know, no candidate is advocating this type of plan.

I agree that Obama's plan is better. But I also see why people like private insurance, which leads to competition and other good market benefits. It sucks for people who don't work because government sponsored insurance in this country is not up to par. I think the best option for CFers and other chronically ill individuals would be to focus on getting enough public support behind governmental insurance to actually IMPROVE that system. Because we are never going to be attractive to private companies. Sad but true.

 

[NYCLawGirl]

Interesting discussion, but here's the thing: cost effective for you does not equal cost effective for the company. As long as the insurance business is completely or primarily private, it is difficult for the government to mandate that private companies cannot turn down CFers or people with other diseases. It is even more difficult for the government to say the companies cannot raise premiums for these indivudals. Why? Because we (meaning CFers) are simply a bad investment from an insurance point of view. We will almost certainly have costs that exceed our monthly premiums, meaning that we are a losing game from the company's perspective. Think about it: if you owned an insurance company and were planning on making money by earning more than you spend, would you like the government coming in and demanding that you make what essentially amounts to a charitable donation to someone with CF by covering them at a loss to yourself?

The only way for government to have this sort of control over private companies would be for the government to supplement the coverage of chronic conditions. E.g., the private insurance company would offer you coverage at the normal (non-CF) price and the government would cover the difference. And so far as I know, no candidate is advocating this type of plan.

I agree that Obama's plan is better. But I also see why people like private insurance, which leads to competition and other good market benefits. It sucks for people who don't work because government sponsored insurance in this country is not up to par. I think the best option for CFers and other chronically ill individuals would be to focus on getting enough public support behind governmental insurance to actually IMPROVE that system. Because we are never going to be attractive to private companies. Sad but true.

 

[NYCLawGirl]

Interesting discussion, but here's the thing: cost effective for you does not equal cost effective for the company. As long as the insurance business is completely or primarily private, it is difficult for the government to mandate that private companies cannot turn down CFers or people with other diseases. It is even more difficult for the government to say the companies cannot raise premiums for these indivudals. Why? Because we (meaning CFers) are simply a bad investment from an insurance point of view. We will almost certainly have costs that exceed our monthly premiums, meaning that we are a losing game from the company's perspective. Think about it: if you owned an insurance company and were planning on making money by earning more than you spend, would you like the government coming in and demanding that you make what essentially amounts to a charitable donation to someone with CF by covering them at a loss to yourself?

The only way for government to have this sort of control over private companies would be for the government to supplement the coverage of chronic conditions. E.g., the private insurance company would offer you coverage at the normal (non-CF) price and the government would cover the difference. And so far as I know, no candidate is advocating this type of plan.

I agree that Obama's plan is better. But I also see why people like private insurance, which leads to competition and other good market benefits. It sucks for people who don't work because government sponsored insurance in this country is not up to par. I think the best option for CFers and other chronically ill individuals would be to focus on getting enough public support behind governmental insurance to actually IMPROVE that system. Because we are never going to be attractive to private companies. Sad but true.

 

[NYCLawGirl]

Interesting discussion, but here's the thing: cost effective for you does not equal cost effective for the company. As long as the insurance business is completely or primarily private, it is difficult for the government to mandate that private companies cannot turn down CFers or people with other diseases. It is even more difficult for the government to say the companies cannot raise premiums for these indivudals. Why? Because we (meaning CFers) are simply a bad investment from an insurance point of view. We will almost certainly have costs that exceed our monthly premiums, meaning that we are a losing game from the company's perspective. Think about it: if you owned an insurance company and were planning on making money by earning more than you spend, would you like the government coming in and demanding that you make what essentially amounts to a charitable donation to someone with CF by covering them at a loss to yourself?

The only way for government to have this sort of control over private companies would be for the government to supplement the coverage of chronic conditions. E.g., the private insurance company would offer you coverage at the normal (non-CF) price and the government would cover the difference. And so far as I know, no candidate is advocating this type of plan.

I agree that Obama's plan is better. But I also see why people like private insurance, which leads to competition and other good market benefits. It sucks for people who don't work because government sponsored insurance in this country is not up to par. I think the best option for CFers and other chronically ill individuals would be to focus on getting enough public support behind governmental insurance to actually IMPROVE that system. Because we are never going to be attractive to private companies. Sad but true.

 

[NYCLawGirl]

Interesting discussion, but here's the thing: cost effective for you does not equal cost effective for the company. As long as the insurance business is completely or primarily private, it is difficult for the government to mandate that private companies cannot turn down CFers or people with other diseases. It is even more difficult for the government to say the companies cannot raise premiums for these indivudals. Why? Because we (meaning CFers) are simply a bad investment from an insurance point of view. We will almost certainly have costs that exceed our monthly premiums, meaning that we are a losing game from the company's perspective. Think about it: if you owned an insurance company and were planning on making money by earning more than you spend, would you like the government coming in and demanding that you make what essentially amounts to a charitable donation to someone with CF by covering them at a loss to yourself?
<br />
<br />The only way for government to have this sort of control over private companies would be for the government to supplement the coverage of chronic conditions. E.g., the private insurance company would offer you coverage at the normal (non-CF) price and the government would cover the difference. And so far as I know, no candidate is advocating this type of plan.
<br />
<br />I agree that Obama's plan is better. But I also see why people like private insurance, which leads to competition and other good market benefits. It sucks for people who don't work because government sponsored insurance in this country is not up to par. I think the best option for CFers and other chronically ill individuals would be to focus on getting enough public support behind governmental insurance to actually IMPROVE that system. Because we are never going to be attractive to private companies. Sad but true.