Did YOU look on the top of DU Home Page GOP Hellcare Chart? LOOK at it!!

[BigmanPigman]

If you HAVE EVER BEEN PREGNANT you could be charged $17,000+ as a pre existing condition under new GOP HellCare plan! I sure hope they also plan to stop the production of Viagra while they are at it!

Now I see what happens when older white men craft a bill for EVERYONE! Call Congress [phone]

[Eliot Rosewater]

1. Feh, half of America doesnt think it is important to even vote let alone

ONLY vote for ANY democratic candidate.

Therefore, why should I fucking care if the GOP kills them?







Wait, the THEM is me.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

12. Posting the image in question near top of the thread since OP didn't.

[BigmanPigman]

14. Thanks, I don't know how to do that...my android tablet

is a pain in my ass.

[ck4829]

2. Not Paying

[Corvo Bianco]

3. What if you're pregnant and *gasp* DePrEsSeD

Jeeeeezus.

[Stallion]

4. How Much Will a Severe Trump Depression Set Ya Back?

[yallerdawg]

6. Back to the good old days!

Back in '90, my wife "got pregnant," and the 'responsible' insurance I carried would treat it as a one-time 'illness' with a cap of $200/illness. I stopped sending them premiums.

Some years later, had an HMO. My wife had some "bleeding." They discovered a mass in her uterus the size of a baseball! They said this didn't meet their criteria of coverage which required the mass to be the size of a softball! I SHIT YOU NOT!

And this HMO? A self-funded HMO run by the hospital system which employed my wife as a nurse! I SHIT YOU NOT!

This is what they want us to go back to.

[Corvo Bianco]

15. Thank you for surviving.

I prefer nurses who aren't keeled over!

That is a nasty story.

[LiberalBrooke]

5. Unless they are aliens

A woman gave birth to every one of them. Prenatal care effects everyone. I do not understand how or why it is not in all of our interests to pay for healthy pregnancys.

[Orrex]

7. The stupid fuckers declare it to be solely an issue of women's heathcare

and the simultaneously declare that women are unfit to make decisions about their healthcare.

[ProudLib72]

8. That's the "Woman's Tax"

Yep, that's all that is. Sorry you were born female, but we must tax you for it.

[WillowTree]

9. Where does it say that if you have EVER been pregnant.......

.......it would be considered a pre-existing condition? Specific wording that says that, please.

Because that's not how pre-existing conditions are defined by insurance companies.

[BigmanPigman]

10. It says, "If you have (or ever had) any of these conditions".

Pregnancy is on the list with that amount.

[WillowTree]

11. No......where does it say anything like that in the bill?

Because, again, that is not how pre-existing conditions are defined by insurance companies.

[yallerdawg]

16. Insurance companies not mandated to cover pregnancy:

[WillowTree]

17. I didn't say that they were. Well.......

.......except in some states where they actually were required to cover pregnancy, as a matter of fact, even before ACA. Really. You can look it up.

But the OP says "If you HAVE EVER BEEN PREGNANT you could be charged $17,000+ as a pre existing condition......", and that is simply not the way it ever worked. That is not consistent with the way that insurers defined pre-existing conditions.

I've never been a fan of exaggeration or over-hyping things. I agree with the other items on the list for the most part, but it is patently untrue that "If you HAVE EVER BEEN PREGNANT......." was treated as a pre-existing condition in and of itself before ACA and almost certainly would not be just because ACA is repealed. It would just be nice if we dealt with facts instead of exaggerating as a scare tactic. Or don't you think things are potentially bad enough without doing so?

[yallerdawg]

18. Just reading what Table 1 says.

If states are allowed to opt out of ACA required coverage - able to charge more for what we would call pre-existing conditions - plus $17,000 would be the possible cost to a 40-year-old woman for pregnancy under these conditional plans.

If that scares you - it should!

Historically, insurers have all kinds of euphemisms and impossibly confusing use of words for charging more or denying coverage.

Let's see - Democrats opposed to these changes in policy should "play fair" and "hold ourselves to a higher standard?"

Please.

[WillowTree]

19. Pregnancy was only considered a "pre-existing" condition.......

......if the woman was actually pregnant when applying for insurance or, in some instances, residual complications of a prior pregnancy if that pregnancy was delivered within a defined period of time, usually somewhere between 6 months and 2 years, prior to the inception of a policy and the woman was still being treated for those complications when applying.

Most of the other things on the list are pretty serious chronic conditions that require ongoing treatment. With the exception of the colorectal or breast cancer diagnoses, those are not conditions that are often cured and in the past. Insurance companies were (still are, actually) not any more excited about taking a new health insurance customer who's already chronically ill than they would be about writing a new homeowners policy to cover a house that's already on fire. But if she had had a baby a year ago or 6 months ago and has resumed regular activities, she doesn't HAVE a condition to be pre-existing any more than the cut that I got on my knee when I was 7 and fell off a swing. (And yes, I was and still am just that co-ordinated.)

I don't know who wrote that list.......and, by the way, it doesn't say that "If you HAVE EVER BEEN PREGNANT you could be charged $17,000+ as a pre existing condition......". In fact, I don't see the word "ever" anywhere in that graphic. It just says that, theoretically, someone might be charged that much if she is, indeed, pregnant when her policy goes into effect and she's able to convince the insurance company to cover the pregnancy. Truthfully, though, if she was "pre-existingly" pregnant when she applies, the insurer would more than likely just exclude coverage for the pre-existing pregnancy or refuse to issue coverage until after delivery.

I know that many, if not most, people find insurance policies "impossibly confusing" to understand. I'm not one of those people. You can believe me or not.......your choice and, from this point on, I really don't care which way you go with that. But I've read and had to make sense of hundreds of insurance plans and policies over the last 40 years. It's my job and I do know what I'm talking about.

[SunSeeker]

13. K & R