Barack Obama had the most successful presidency in decades

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Barack Obama had the most successful presidency in decades

«‹›12 »

BI NOW GAY LATER: Jan 17, 2008; So people stop asking, the "Bi" in my username is a reference to my love for the two greatest collegiate sports programs in the world, the Virginia Tech Hokies and the Marshall Thundering Herd.

TheImmigrant posted:

Have you seen some of the Bronze Plans being offered on the exchanges? A lot of them might as well be No Insurance, for the coverage and deductibles they offer. $200/month for coverage that is unavailable until you spend $5000, which means sweet gently caress all to someone surviving paycheck to paycheck. Worse, the ACA is definitely not a step toward a single-payer system. There is zero political capital toward any substantive health-care reform now, and the ACA was no substantive reform in the first place. Insurance companies and Boomers are the only real beneficiaries of Obamacare.

Most bronze plans aren't $200 a month (even less with subsidies) and they're far better coverage for someone who didn't have any insurance whatsoever.

# ? Jul 31, 2015 18:29

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 16, 2024 16:12

TheImmigrant: Jan 18, 2011

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

Most bronze plans aren't $200 a month (even less with subsidies) and they're far better coverage for someone who didn't have any insurance whatsoever.

The notoriously right-wing Republican Harper's did a good analysis of ACA. I subscribe, so will copy some excerpts below (not sure if it's available otherwise):

Congressional Budget Office estimates that even under the A.C.A. there will be some 35 million Americans without health insurance, down from about 52 million when the law was passed. [ ... ] Whatever the slogans suggested, the A.C.A. was never meant to include everyone.

It�s bad enough that the A.C.A. is fattening up the health-care industry and hollowing out coverage for the middle class. Even worse, the law is accelerating what I call the Great Cost Shift, which transfers the growing price of medical care to patients themselves through high deductibles, coinsurance (the patient�s share of the cost for a specific service, calculated as a percentage), copayments (a set fee paid for a specific service), and limited provider networks (which sometimes offer so little choice that patients end up seeking out-of-network care and paying on their own). What was once good, comprehensive insurance for a sizable number of Americans is being reduced to coverage for only the most serious, and most expensive, of illnesses.

According to HealthPocket, a technology company that tracks insurance costs and has plans to sell policies of its own, the average deductible this year for bronze policies, the cheapest on the exchanges, is $5,181 for individuals and $10,545 for families. Even the more expensive silver plans offer average deductibles of about $3,000 for individuals and $6,000 for families � hardly sums to sneeze at. At least some buyers of silver plans can receive additional subsidies to help with cost-sharing.3 For Americans with bronze plans, there is no such extra boost. The perversity of selling cheap government-subsidized policies to the poor, then sticking them with gigantic out-of-pocket costs, can hardly be lost on the 2.6 million people who opted for bronze plans on exchanges this year.

The biggest winners, of course, are the insurance companies themselves � especially those that grew and consolidated over the past few decades. The law has handed them millions of new customers. Competition is unlikely to drive down costs; five big insurers now dominate the market, making it extremely difficult for newcomers to gain a toehold.

As I�ve suggested, the shortcomings are numerous. Too many Americans are still excluded; the process of buying insurance remains incredibly complicated; there is little regulation throughout much of the country; and millions of people are saddled with huge out-of-pocket expenses and lack the coverage they truly need. Fixing these problems would be a huge step forward. But even if that can be done, we will be left with the system�s fundamental flaw: high costs and our inability to effectively control them. The only way to fix that is to attack the stranglehold that drug companies, insurers, hospitals, and doctors have on the machinery of health care in this country � a bold move that has so far frightened away almost all contenders.

http://harpers.org/archive/2015/07/wrong-prescription/

# ? Jul 31, 2015 18:47

Amused to Death: Aug 10, 2009; google "The Night Witches", and prepare for

TheImmigrant posted:

Have you seen some of the Bronze Plans being offered on the exchanges? A lot of them might as well be No Insurance, for the coverage and deductibles they offer. $200/month for coverage that is unavailable until you spend $5000, which means sweet gently caress all to someone surviving paycheck to paycheck. Worse, the ACA is definitely not a step toward a single-payer system. There is zero political capital toward any substantive health-care reform now, and the ACA was no substantive reform in the first place. Insurance companies and Boomers are the only real beneficiaries of Obamacare.

I never knew all those people who can no longer be denied insurance, or me and the ~10 million other new medicaid, and the under 26s on their parents insurance are all baby boomers

# ? Jul 31, 2015 18:58

Slow News Day: Jul 4, 2007

TheImmigrant posted:

Have you seen some of the Bronze Plans being offered on the exchanges? A lot of them might as well be No Insurance, for the coverage and deductibles they offer. $200/month for coverage that is unavailable until you spend $5000, which means sweet gently caress all to someone surviving paycheck to paycheck. Worse, the ACA is definitely not a step toward a single-payer system. There is zero political capital toward any substantive health-care reform now, and the ACA was no substantive reform in the first place. Insurance companies and Boomers are the only real beneficiaries of Obamacare.

The primary purpose of such plans is to insure you against bankruptcy. If you are uninsured and you have an emergency or get into an accident, you often have to dish out tens of thousands of dollars (sometimes up to several hundred thousand).

# ? Jul 31, 2015 19:25

Falstaff Infection: Oct 1, 2014

TheImmigrant posted:

The notoriously right-wing Republican Harper's did a good analysis of ACA. I subscribe, so will copy some excerpts below (not sure if it's available otherwise):

Congressional Budget Office estimates that even under the A.C.A. there will be some 35 million Americans without health insurance, down from about 52 million when the law was passed. [ ... ] Whatever the slogans suggested, the A.C.A. was never meant to include everyone.

It�s bad enough that the A.C.A. is fattening up the health-care industry and hollowing out coverage for the middle class. Even worse, the law is accelerating what I call the Great Cost Shift, which transfers the growing price of medical care to patients themselves through high deductibles, coinsurance (the patient�s share of the cost for a specific service, calculated as a percentage), copayments (a set fee paid for a specific service), and limited provider networks (which sometimes offer so little choice that patients end up seeking out-of-network care and paying on their own). What was once good, comprehensive insurance for a sizable number of Americans is being reduced to coverage for only the most serious, and most expensive, of illnesses.

According to HealthPocket, a technology company that tracks insurance costs and has plans to sell policies of its own, the average deductible this year for bronze policies, the cheapest on the exchanges, is $5,181 for individuals and $10,545 for families. Even the more expensive silver plans offer average deductibles of about $3,000 for individuals and $6,000 for families � hardly sums to sneeze at. At least some buyers of silver plans can receive additional subsidies to help with cost-sharing.3 For Americans with bronze plans, there is no such extra boost. The perversity of selling cheap government-subsidized policies to the poor, then sticking them with gigantic out-of-pocket costs, can hardly be lost on the 2.6 million people who opted for bronze plans on exchanges this year.

The biggest winners, of course, are the insurance companies themselves � especially those that grew and consolidated over the past few decades. The law has handed them millions of new customers. Competition is unlikely to drive down costs; five big insurers now dominate the market, making it extremely difficult for newcomers to gain a toehold.

As I�ve suggested, the shortcomings are numerous. Too many Americans are still excluded; the process of buying insurance remains incredibly complicated; there is little regulation throughout much of the country; and millions of people are saddled with huge out-of-pocket expenses and lack the coverage they truly need. Fixing these problems would be a huge step forward. But even if that can be done, we will be left with the system�s fundamental flaw: high costs and our inability to effectively control them. The only way to fix that is to attack the stranglehold that drug companies, insurers, hospitals, and doctors have on the machinery of health care in this country � a bold move that has so far frightened away almost all contenders.

http://harpers.org/archive/2015/07/wrong-prescription/

I've read this article and its some of the shoddiest loving journalism and analysis this side of Glenn Beck. "Leftier than thou" critiques of the ACA argue almost universally argue from a place of ignorance and bad faith. The article basically handwaves the medicaid expansion (possibly the must successful and progressive element of the bill, despite the Supreme Court and Red States' vicious opposition), dreadfully misunderstands causality, and, dumbest of all, resorts to that idiotic old saw that "the ACA was a boon for insurance companies because it expanded their customer base." The health insurance lobby in fact spent millions attempting to defeat the ACA, because they knew that most of the "new customers" they'd get would be entirely unprofitable.

The fact of the matter is this: Obama is the best president we've had since LBJ. He's lovely on a lot of issues (drones, whistleblowers, wall st. impunity), to be sure, but he got a lot of substantive progressive reforms passed in the face of hideously racist and intractable opposition.

# ? Jul 31, 2015 19:39

ToxicSlurpee: Nov 5, 2003; -=SEND HELP=-; Pillbug

Plus the other side of it is even though those deductibles do kind of suck if you do have something catastrophic happen the insurance companies can no longer drop your coverage, shrug, and walk away while you die and accumulate six+ figures of debt. Yes medical costs are still going up but that's a kind of a separate issue. At least with Obamacare if you get cancer you don't need to worry about your insurance company dropping you and refusing to pay for any of it.

# ? Jul 31, 2015 19:41

Falstaff Infection: Oct 1, 2014

Also this is just an anecdote, of course, but I have an Uncle who'd most likely be dead right now if it weren't for the medicaid expansion. There are thousands of stories like that across the country, but I suppose we should just throw up our hands and say "gently caress it" because anything short of full universal healthcare and seizure of the means of production is sellout reformist garbage no matter how many people it helps.

# ? Jul 31, 2015 19:49

Farmer Crack-Ass: Jan 2, 2001; this is me posting irl

enraged_camel posted:

The primary purpose of such plans is to insure you against bankruptcy. If you are uninsured and you have an emergency or get into an accident, you often have to dish out tens of thousands of dollars (sometimes up to several hundred thousand).

I'm pretty sure plans like that are less about preventing bankruptcy (which has happened even to people with "good" insurance plans and whose insurers were unable to wiggle out of payment through some bullshit loophole) and more about assuring access to healthcare, i.e. not getting turned away from vitally necessary treatment because you weren't insured as could happen in the past.

EDIT: I should have read the thread more closely, ToxicSlurpee already said as much

# ? Jul 31, 2015 19:58

The Phlegmatist: Nov 24, 2003

Millenials are forced to buy plans with $5k deductibles and 20-25% co-insurance. So it's basically a choice between tax penalties and bankruptcy vs... no tax penalties and bankruptcy.

Good job Obama.

# ? Jul 31, 2015 21:43

Venom Snake: Feb 19, 2014; by Nyc_Tattoo

The Phlegmatist posted:

Millenials are forced to buy plans with $5k deductibles and 20-25% co-insurance. So it's basically a choice between tax penalties and bankruptcy vs... no tax penalties and bankruptcy.

Good job Obama.

Somebody debunked this like 3 posts ago. 99% of the complaints about the ACA are just hearsay bullshit. You might as well be on Fox News complaining about death panels.

# ? Jul 31, 2015 21:50

Abner Cadaver II: Apr 21, 2009; TONIGHT!

The Phlegmatist posted:

Millenials are forced to buy plans with $5k deductibles and 20-25% co-insurance. So it's basically a choice between tax penalties and bankruptcy vs... no tax penalties and bankruptcy.

Good job Obama.

Speaking as a millenial currently shopping for health insurance you are so, so full of poo poo.

# ? Jul 31, 2015 21:52

TheImmigrant: Jan 18, 2011

Venom Snake posted:

Somebody debunked this like 3 posts ago.

Not convincingly.

quote:

99% of the complaints about the ACA are just hearsay bullshit.

Source, please.

quote:

You might as well be on Fox News complaining about death panels.

You forgot to say "racist."

# ? Jul 31, 2015 21:55

thousandcranes: Sep 25, 2007

TheImmigrant posted:

You forgot to say "racist."

I'm genuinely curious what you think ideological differences in this country are about. What I'm getting out of your posts is that the entire thing is just old people wanting to gently caress young people because it's not like rich millenials/genXers benefit and poor boomers suffer in the current system or something

My perspective here is that the two parties are very similar. As you said yourself, the contentious ACA was a republican reform plan at the start. The main difference between parties is that one party sometimes treats blacks, latinos, GLBT, and women a tiny bit better. There is wide support for social safety nets, single payer, and all that until you suggest a black single mother might benefit from these programs. Monied interest groups use bigotry against the above groups as a tool to divide and conquer. It works because a huge number of Americans are completely willing to vote against their own interests in order to stop a single black mom from the possibility of escaping poverty.

What the hell do you call this if you don't call it homophobia, racism, misogyny, transphobia, or xenophobia?

Also I hate to break this to you, but a huge part of opposition to Hillary Clinton is really obviously rooted in sexism (What if 9/11 happened again and she cried? What if the red phone rings and she's on the rag???). A huge part of opposition to whatever democrat white guy is he doesn't gently caress over black people and women enough.

# ? Jul 31, 2015 22:36

Fojar38: Sep 2, 2011; Sorry I meant to say I hope that the police use maximum force and kill or maim a bunch of innocent people, thus paving a way for a proletarian uprising and socialist utopia

also here's a stupid take
---------------------------->

Contrary to Goon belief not all boomers are rich white CEOs and many of them are in fact decent people :wth:

# ? Jul 31, 2015 22:37

Harold Fjord: Jan 3, 2004

TheImmigrant posted:

Not convincingly.

Source, please.

You forgot to say "racist."

Burden of proof is currently on phlegmatist but you could feel free to find it for him.

# ? Jul 31, 2015 22:47

Venom Snake: Feb 19, 2014; by Nyc_Tattoo

thousandcranes posted:

I'm genuinely curious what you think ideological differences in this country are about. What I'm getting out of your posts is that the entire thing is just old people wanting to gently caress young people because it's not like rich millenials/genXers benefit and poor boomers suffer in the current system or something

My perspective here is that the two parties are very similar. As you said yourself, the contentious ACA was a republican reform plan at the start. The main difference between parties is that one party sometimes treats blacks, latinos, GLBT, and women a tiny bit better. There is wide support for social safety nets, single payer, and all that until you suggest a black single mother might benefit from these programs. Monied interest groups use bigotry against the above groups as a tool to divide and conquer. It works because a huge number of Americans are completely willing to vote against their own interests in order to stop a single black mom from the possibility of escaping poverty.

What the hell do you call this if you don't call it homophobia, racism, misogyny, transphobia, or xenophobia?

Also I hate to break this to you, but a huge part of opposition to Hillary Clinton is really obviously rooted in sexism (What if 9/11 happened again and she cried? What if the red phone rings and she's on the rag???). A huge part of opposition to whatever democrat white guy is he doesn't gently caress over black people and women enough.

When is this meme that the ACA came from Republicans going to die? There has never been a Republican health care plan that's been proposed with all the things the ACA has in it.

# ? Jul 31, 2015 22:53

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

Venom Snake posted:

When is this meme that the ACA came from Republicans going to die? There has never been a Republican health care plan that's been proposed with all the things the ACA has in it.

Never, it will continue to be a thing like "Hillary Clinton sat on the board of Walmart" still is a thing.

# ? Jul 31, 2015 22:54

Venom Snake: Feb 19, 2014; by Nyc_Tattoo

TheImmigrant posted:

You forgot to say "racist."

It is indeed very racist to appose a health care law which has brought massive amounts of coverage to minorities who otherwise would be totally without hope. A person who is against stuff that helps minorities is far more racist than a person who says racist things but does stuff to help minorities.

# ? Jul 31, 2015 23:03

thousandcranes: Sep 25, 2007

Venom Snake posted:

When is this meme that the ACA came from Republicans going to die? There has never been a Republican health care plan that's been proposed with all the things the ACA has in it.

White House used Mitt Romney health-care law as blueprint for federal law. Three advisers to GOP candidate met a dozen times with senior Obama officials, records show -- Just one article out of thousands

No one is saying that like Obama copied a republican plan verbatim.

# ? Jul 31, 2015 23:17

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

thousandcranes posted:

No one is saying that like Obama copied a republican plan verbatim.

People have said in the past that the ACA came directly from the Heritage Foundation.

# ? Jul 31, 2015 23:20

WhiskeyJuvenile: Feb 15, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo

thousandcranes posted:

White House used Mitt Romney health-care law as blueprint for federal law. Three advisers to GOP candidate met a dozen times with senior Obama officials, records show -- Just one article out of thousands

No one is saying that like Obama copied a republican plan verbatim.

The Mitt Romney plan, passed by a liberal Massachusetts legislature?

# ? Aug 1, 2015 00:25

Falstaff Infection: Oct 1, 2014

thousandcranes posted:

As you said yourself, the contentious ACA was a republican reform plan at the start.

Ah yes, the right-wing ACA. Nothing more conservative and pro-plutocrat than hugely expanding medicaid and imposing strict regulations on health insurance companies.

# ? Aug 1, 2015 00:29

The Phlegmatist: Nov 24, 2003

Nevvy Z posted:

Burden of proof is currently on phlegmatist but you could feel free to find it for him.

When you work as a 1099 billing consultant for a major hospital chain and you continually see people in $100k+ of medical debt even when they have better insurance than you, it kinda sucks.

# ? Aug 1, 2015 02:04

thousandcranes: Sep 25, 2007

ACA is a plan that is further to the right than the one most Americans favor, and similar proposals have been proposed by both democrats and republicans. So I thought it was a reasonable example of how on many many many issues our two parties are fairly close politically. Where they differ tends to be "culture war" issues. I don't say this to minimize the difference between the parties, but to emphasize the importance of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc in our political landscape.

I am fully aware that ACA is preferable to the previous system. I called it contentious because half the god drat country is losing their minds over it.

# ? Aug 1, 2015 02:59

Falstaff Infection: Oct 1, 2014

thousandcranes posted:

[O]n many many many issues our two parties are fairly close politically.

This may have been true during, like, the Clinton era but it simply isn't the case anymore. Democrats have moved to the left, especially since the 2010 massacre of the Blue Dogs, while Republicans have taken a one-way bullet train to right-wing crazytown. I have no illusions about the Democratic party-- I know that they're beholden to big money and would be considered center to center-right on the political spectrum of most other Western countries. But the old Naderist line that "there's not a dime's worth of difference between the parties" is simply empirically incorrect. They differ on culture war issues, for sure. They also differ on taxes, the minimum wage, Iran, Cuba, immigration, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Climate Change, and unions. Compare Wisconsin to Minnesota and then tell me there's no real difference between the Republicans and the Democrats.

Also, while I think we should do everything possible to move towards single-payer, the idea that most Americans favor it is pretty silly. Americans don't know what they hell they favor, and if you phrase your push poll correctly you can produce pretty much any outcome you want.

# ? Aug 1, 2015 03:21

Wanderer: Nov 5, 2006; our every move is the new tradition

Yeah, I have a hard time with the old saw that the parties are the same, especially now. There may be individual Democrats like Webb who are right-wing, but the illustrative difference for at least the last seven years has been that at least the Democrats want to govern. The Republicans have been systematically attempting to dismantle most of the nation's social programs when they aren't deliberately standing in the way of getting any actual work done.

# ? Aug 1, 2015 03:32

WhiskeyJuvenile: Feb 15, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo

thousandcranes posted:

ACA is a plan that is further to the right than the one most Americans favor, and similar proposals have been proposed by both democrats and republicans. So I thought it was a reasonable example of how on many many many issues our two parties are fairly close politically. Where they differ tends to be "culture war" issues. I don't say this to minimize the difference between the parties, but to emphasize the importance of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc in our political landscape.

I am fully aware that ACA is preferable to the previous system. I called it contentious because half the god drat country is losing their minds over it.

The 111th Congress was further to the right than most Americans.

# ? Aug 1, 2015 04:21

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

Does anybody remember what a nightmare pre-existing conditions were before the ACA? It was a death sentence. Taking care of that alone makes Obama a great president.

# ? Aug 1, 2015 06:18

President Kucinich: Feb 21, 2003; Bitterly Clinging to my AK47 and Das Kapital

Venom Snake posted:

When is this meme that the ACA came from Republicans going to die? There has never been a Republican health care plan that's been proposed with all the things the ACA has in it.

The closest thing was Chafee's plan and it barely had a majority of republican support in the Senate even though it was a very watered down version of ACA. And that support was before questions regarding funding (or the severe lack thereof) for the legislation started chipping away republican support.

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

The Mitt Romney plan, passed by a liberal Massachusetts legislature?

Liberal is an understatement. 35 out of 40 seats in the senate and around 139 out of 160 seats in the house were democratic. And this is to say nothing about how soft or hard the republicans in this legislature were.

President Kucinich fucked around with this message at 07:29 on Aug 1, 2015

# ? Aug 1, 2015 06:51

Adar: Jul 27, 2001

SedanChair posted:

Does anybody remember what a nightmare pre-existing conditions were before the ACA? It was a death sentence. Taking care of that alone makes Obama a great president.

Reminder that insurance companies would routinely wait until after ten years of regular payments, then deny coverage for chemotherapy because the individual had concealed the three month Accutane prescription when he was sixteen on his initial application form

# ? Aug 1, 2015 10:09

Nonsense: Jan 26, 2007

I'm going to vote for Trump so that Canadians can't loving talk about our loving elections and polity.

# ? Aug 1, 2015 10:11

suck my woke dick: Oct 10, 2012; I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!

Put this cum-loving slave on ignore immediately!

Adar posted:

Reminder that insurance companies would routinely wait until after ten years of regular payments, then deny coverage for chemotherapy because the individual had concealed the three month Accutane prescription when he was sixteen on his initial application form

What, that poo poo counts as a preexisting condition? :psyduck:

I could kind of sort of understand insurance companies to want to avoid taking in someone who is chronically ill at the time of buying insurance (at which point the state should step in) but pretty much everyone has been ill enough to take medicine at some point during their lives.

# ? Aug 1, 2015 10:32

Rubies: Dec 30, 2005; Live Forever
Die Every Day

Rubies fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Aug 1, 2015

# ? Aug 1, 2015 11:39

Adar: Jul 27, 2001

blowfish posted:

What, that poo poo counts as a preexisting condition?

I could kind of sort of understand insurance companies to want to avoid taking in someone who is chronically ill at the time of buying insurance (at which point the state should step in) but pretty much everyone has been ill enough to take medicine at some point during their lives.

Over the previous decade there were an increasing number of insurance companies whose executives read Grisham's The Rainmaker and decided that signing up everyone they could find with the intention of siccing private detectives on anyone with an expensive enough claim to be worth tying up in court until they died was a sustainable business model. The tactic was literally to look at every big claim, find reasons to reject it for fraud / pre-existing conditions / black magic and see if the individual could do anything.

http://www.propublica.org/blog/item/insurers-denied-health-coverage-to-1-in-7-people-citing-pre-existing-condit

quote:

Individuals were denied coverage based on �an extensive list of medical conditions,� the memo noted. One company had a list of more than 400 medical diagnoses used to decline coverage to those seeking it, and common conditions such as pregnancy, diabetes, and heart disease were included on the list.

Good loving luck seeking insurance coverage or attempting to use it while unknowingly two months pregnant in 2009 America lol. But Obama didn't personally drone strike Joe Lieberman to give us single payer so he bad president

# ? Aug 1, 2015 13:11

Adar: Jul 27, 2001

Like, I know most goons have the attention span of a four month old housecat but the Internet is a bottomless well of terrible 2009 era healthcare stories:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/aug/18/pregnancy-pre-existing-condition/

quote:

You've probably heard of "pre-existing conditions," which provide an escape clause for health insurance companies. If you have a pre-existing condition, an insurance company typically won't pay for treatment.

J. James Rohack, president of the American Medical Association, cited them when he was asked on Fox News Sunday on Aug. 16, 2009, whether the Democratic health plan would lead to rationing for older patients.

"Well, there's a myth that rationing doesn't occur right now," Rohack said. "In the United States, if a woman's pregnant and on the individual market (and) tries to get health insurance, that's called a pre-existing condition and it's not paid for. That's why this bill's important. It gets rid of some of the rationing that's occurring right now." The AMA endorsed the House version of health care reform legislation in July.

First, we should emphasize that he's only talking about the relatively small number of women who buy their coverage through what insurers call the individual market. About two-thirds of women have health insurance through their employer or their spouse's employer, and about 13 percent have public coverage such as Medicaid or military health care.

So the people affected by these limitations include the 19 percent now uninsured and the 6 percent who have coverage purchased on the individual market. These policies are sold directly to an individual by a private insurer, and the purchaser doesn't get the same consumer protections routinely given to those who have coverage through an employer. For example, people in employer-based health plans have benefited from requirements for maternity coverage that date back to the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978. But individual plans are not included under that umbrella and are regulated state by state.

In 39 states, listed here , insurers can turn down anyone for virtually any reason. It can be because you have a pre-existing condition, like cancer or diabetes. And pregnancy almost always counts too, according to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, which represents the state government officials who regulate insurance sold within their borders. So if you're pregnant and living in one of these 39 states, you're very likely out of luck in securing individual health coverage. You'll have to pay for your care out of your own pocket or seek out charitable assistance.

And the coverage isn't much better in the remaining 11 states. These states have "guaranteed issue" laws that say insurers cannot turn applicants down based on their health or risk status. But there's a caveat: Even if an insurer must offer you a plan, it can place exclusions on what the plan covers. Typically, the NAIC says, these exclusions last from six to 12 months, which rules out most or all maternity coverage. (After the exclusion expires, the insurer does have to cover those conditions, meaning that a subsequent pregnancy could be covered.)

One category of individual policyholders has it slightly better ? those who leave an employer's plan that had given them uninterrupted coverage for the pre-existing condition in question. Under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, people in this category can obtain a plan that covers their pre-existing condition once they have exhausted their old employer's coverage under the law known as COBRA. However, a state only has to provide a minimum of one "HIPAA plan" within its borders, rather than requiring that every insurer operating in the state offer one. Such plans may have unfavorable terms and high premiums.

So back to Rohack's claim. Health care reform legislation under consideration in Congress would, if enacted, improve the situation for pregnant women seeking health insurance by prohibiting restrictions based on pre-existing conditions. But for now, Rohack is correct that pregnancy is considered a pre-existing condition and prevents many women from getting coverage if they seek insurance on the individual market. We find his statement True.

http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/NWLCReport-NowhereToTurn-81309w.pdf

quote:

Rejection: Insurers Refusing to Sell Women Coverage
In most states, insurers are free to reject individuals applying for coverage in the individual market.
Many women face such rejection at this underwriting stage of purchasing insurance for a wide
range of reasons. For example, women have greater health needs than men and are more likely
than men to suffer from a chronic condition requiring ongoing treatment, like asthma or arthritis.19
These conditions can lead to rejection of coverage. In addition, if during the medical underwriting
process the insurer discovers that an applicant underwent a past C-section, the company may
charge her a higher premium, impose an exclusionary period during which it refuses to cover
another C-section or pregnancy, or even reject her for coverage altogether unless she has been
sterilized or is no longer of childbearing age. 20 Insurers in D.C. and the following nine states
are allowed to deny coverage to domestic violence survivors: Arkansas, Idaho, Mississippi, North
Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Wyoming.21 In addition,
recent news reports documented the practice of insurance companies obtaining prescription drug
histories as a basis to reject applicants for health coverage.22 Women are more likely than men to be
potentially affected by this practice�at any age they are more likely than men to take prescription
medications on a regular basis.23

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/09/17/60917/csection-preexisting/

quote:

Earlier this week, the Huffington Post�s Ryan Grim reported on the fact that in seven states plus the District of Columbia, �getting beaten up by your spouse is a pre-existing condition.� The insurance industry figures that if �you are in a marriage with someone who has beaten you in the past, you�re more likely to get beaten again than the average person and are therefore more expensive to insure,� but what it really does is punish these victims for something that wasn�t their fault.
But that isn�t the only policy that health insurers have that primarily discriminate against women. First of all, most individual health insurance markets don�t cover maternity care. In fact, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, only 14 states have a requirement for such coverage, and the number of plans without maternity coverage continues to rise dramatically. Why? Anthem Blue Cross � which has been actively fighting health care reform � considers pregnancy optional and therefore not necessary to insure:
�The point of insurance is to insure against catastrophic care costs. That�s what you�re trying to aggregate and pool for such things as heart attacks and cancer,� said an Anthem Blue Cross spokesman. �Having a child is a matter of choice. Dealing with an adult onset illness, such as diabetes, heart disease breast or prostate cancer, is not a matter of choice.�

In case you think these are horror stories that didn't actually happen:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/health/01insure.html?_r=0

quote:

When the Golden Rule Insurance Company rejected her application for health coverage last year, Peggy Robertson was mystified.

Elizabeth Bonet of Sunrise, Fla., with her daughters Mia, 6, and Eva, 2, was told she would pay more for insurance because of her Caesareans. �It made me feel very helpless,� she said.
�It made no sense,� said Ms. Robertson, 39, who lives in Centennial, Colo. �I�m in perfect health.�

She was turned down because she had given birth by Caesarean section. Having the operation once increases the odds that it will be performed again, and if she became pregnant and needed another Caesarean, Golden Rule did not want to pay for it. A letter from the company explained that if she had been sterilized after the Caesarean, or if she were over 40 and had given birth two or more years before applying, she might have qualified.

# ? Aug 1, 2015 13:22

Adar: Jul 27, 2001

Let's also not forget the magic that is the insurance company taking your money and then simply refusing to pay claims for -no- reason, as personally happened to me five years ago:

Adar posted:

Hi thread! I'm a lawyer asking a legal question that has stumped 3 attorneys and counting! Nothing can go wrong with this amirite?

The background is that I'm self-employed and self-insured through Atlantis Health Plan, a regional company in NY. My wife gave birth to our child in July at a hospital that took Atlantis, we gave our insurance information, Atlantis covered the birth* and we were fine.

*the plot thickens here

Since that point, we have received several bills from the hospital for over $2,000. Each time, we duly called the hospital and failed to get a human being (heh), then called Atlantis, who told us everything was fine and the bill was paid. After the fourth letter - that said the debt was going to collections - I speed dialed the hospital for two hours and finally managed to get a response.

The short version is that when my wife gave birth, Atlantis was nearly insolvent (http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20100830/PULSE/100829807) and is still having trouble paying claims. Since then, they've gotten a cash infusion, but all claims prior to September are being treated under some settlement that Atlantis claims they've reached with the hospital - for $7,000. The hospital's version of this is that Atlantis made them a $7,000 offer on $185,000 of debt, they laughed at it and are now proceeding to send the individual patients to collections, at which point (the hospital says) Atlantis has said they'd pay up.

As far as the person answering the phones at Atlantis is concerned and told us, the hospital accepted the settlement, has written off the rest of the debt and everything is fine. Note that I believe this about as much as Iranian election results.

So, aside from "do I need a new insurance company?" (lol), my questions are:

1)Does the hospital actually have a claim against the patients? <--- nobody that I've talked to knows this one for sure argh
2)Assuming they don't, chances are no amount of yelling at them on the phone is going to keep them from following through. Do I have any legal recourse for what (in this case) amounts to a fraudulent debt collection? Against whom?
3)If I pay the bill and sue Atlantis for the money in small claims, can I get a judgment enforced before they inevitably go bankrupt? (I'm guessing no? What's a small claims docket look like in NY?)
4)Assuming this gets to collections and I dispute it, I would like my credit rating to not die. Can I take any preventative measures other than disputing the debt to do this?
5)gently caress the American health care system and everything it stands for

Thanks!

the kicker: this happened because I was using the cheapest possible self-insurance plan, which, in 2010 New York, was $1400 a month for a healthy family of three. It was a broken market that Obamacare specifically fixed so who knows, I might be able to come back to New York at some point. But again, Obama didn't personally give me single payer so gently caress that guy.

Adar fucked around with this message at 13:32 on Aug 1, 2015

# ? Aug 1, 2015 13:28

Falstaff Infection: Oct 1, 2014

SedanChair posted:

Does anybody remember what a nightmare pre-existing conditions were before the ACA? It was a death sentence. Taking care of that alone makes Obama a great president.

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic here, but this is 100% accurate.

# ? Aug 1, 2015 16:50

TheImmigrant: Jan 18, 2011

Right, the solution to insurance companies driving the US healthcare system is to force even more citizens to contribute to their finances and give them even more control over healthcare policy. This is slapping a Band-Aid on a malignant tumor and sending the patient away with a clean bill of health.

# ? Aug 1, 2015 16:59

Obdicut: May 15, 2012; "What election?"

TheImmigrant posted:

Right, the solution to insurance companies driving the US healthcare system is to force even more citizens to contribute to their finances and give them even more control over healthcare policy. This is slapping a Band-Aid on a malignant tumor and sending the patient away with a clean bill of health.

Nobody who supported the ACA or who supports it now claims that it fixed everything; it was made very clear that conservative obstructionism made it a much worse bill than it could have been.

# ? Aug 1, 2015 17:02

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 16, 2024 16:12

Venom Snake: Feb 19, 2014; by Nyc_Tattoo

TheImmigrant posted:

Right, the solution to insurance companies driving the US healthcare system is to force even more citizens to contribute to their finances and give them even more control over healthcare policy. This is slapping a Band-Aid on a malignant tumor and sending the patient away with a clean bill of health.

obviously the solution to let people die in the street till the revolution commences.

this is literally you:

quote:

But Obama didn't personally drone strike Joe Lieberman to give us single payer so he bad president

# ? Aug 1, 2015 17:05

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Barack Obama had the most successful presidency in decades

«‹›12 »