Skip to main content

View Diary: My pre-existing conditions pricing me out of Obamacare in California (149 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  diarist is 57 yo. that is a preexisting condition (9+ / 0-)

    The ACA makes older people pay three times more for insurance. I understand that older people likely have more medical expenses but that doesn't mean that older people have more dispersible income to pay for more insurance. I believe that is the diarist's point. I have plenty of preexisting conditions that would make medical insurance expensive for me.  I see many Drs. on a regular basis and take a fist full of Prescriptions on a daily basis. If I didn't have health care through my wife's job, I'd be screwed just like the diarist. I'm 62. If that is the only basis for establishing cost of health care, then that is a preexisting condition that is specifically called out to be penalized in the ACA.

    "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength", George Orwell, "1984" -7.63 -5.95

    by dangoch on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 12:08:15 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  This is one of the key points of a single payer (5+ / 0-)

      approach. Its revenue could be based on a progressive scale and true ability to pay, rather than the current hybrid that includes age (which is clearly a burden for some).

      Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

      by Wee Mama on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 12:12:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Older people didn't just start paying more for (5+ / 0-)

      insurance under the ACA.  Insurance companies have always charged more for older enrollees.  So age isn't something specifically called out and which penalizes people under the ACA in a new way.  I guess I don't understand your point.  It seems that you are saying that even though you seem to use many more health care services than the average person you shouldn't be required to contribute more than a young person?  It sounds like your pay-out to pay-in ratio is already skewed in your favor.  It may be true that without your wife's policy you would have to pay more for a policy under the ACA than a young person.  But it also sounds true that you would be completely screwed without the ACA if you didn't have your wife's program.

      "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

      by stellaluna on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 01:55:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It used to be a factor of 5 (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wu ming

      if you were in the top age bracket. ACA made the spread lower (at the expense of the youngest people).

      Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!

      by elfling on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 02:25:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I just retired and it's not much better (3+ / 0-)

      on Medicare. Even there, full coverage is freaking astronomical -- Part A is free, Part B is a hundred and a few, but then there's all the stuff they don't cover.  My Medicare supplement runs 167 and includes co-pays and deductibles and exclusions and in-and-out-of-network rules, the drug coverage will cost $900 in premiums and deductibles before it returns a nickel, and there is no dental coverage available anywhere.  

      I thought Medicare was supposed to be the yardstick by which all other plans would be measured.  It's going to cost, basically, 25% of my annual combined pension and social security -- and I won't be torpedoed by that, but a lot of people would.

      Why insurance companies haven't inspired a new Sherman Antitrust Act (or street riots)is one of the great mysteries. . .

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site