• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democrats' Plan to Help 'Uninsurables' Requires 6-Month Wait

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
96,063
Reaction score
33,379
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Link

AP - November 05, 2009
In addition to a six-month wait to qualify for the health insurance program, there's a more fundamental issue -- whether $5 billion set aside for the three-year program is enough.

WASHINGTON - You're afraid your cancer is back, and a health insurance company just turned you down.
Under the health care bills in Congress, you could apply for coverage through a new high-risk pool that President Barack Obama promises would immediately start serving patients with pre-existing medical problems.
Wait a second. Read the fine print. You may have to be uninsured for six months to qualify.
"If you are a cancer patient and have cancer now, you can't wait six months to go into a plan because your condition can go from bad to death," said Stephen Finan, a policy expert with the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network. He called the waiting period in the Senate bill "unacceptable."
Advocates for people with serious health problems, as well as some insurance experts, are raising questions about one of the most important upfront benefits in the Democratic health care legislation: a high-risk pool for the medically uninsurable.
If you can keep from dying or letting your disease worsen for six months, you're home free.
 
Link


If you can keep from dying or letting your disease worsen for six months, you're home free.

You mean that, if a 90 year old lady has cancer, she has a chance to live if she can get through the first six months? :mrgreen:
 
You mean that, if a 90 year old lady has cancer, she has a chance to live if she can get through the first six months? :mrgreen:
Who knows, but it won't be thanks to the govt. Well I guess with a provision like this, we don't need death panels.
 
Link


If you can keep from dying or letting your disease worsen for six months, you're home free.

I'm pretty sure that if you divest yourself of your assets you then qualify for medicaid. But you need to sell off your stuff first.

If you had assets you wanted to protect, then it's important to get insurance before you get sick. There is still a safety net for those who value their lives above their possessions.
 
Speaking of which, I think it's time for me to up my insurance policy, my heart murmur is getting louder. I have assets I want to protect.
 
Link


If you can keep from dying or letting your disease worsen for six months, you're home free.

hey it is still much better than the GOP plan or as it is starting to get known as "the status quo with further give away's to the healthcare industry" plan.
 
You mean that, if a 90 year old lady has cancer, she has a chance to live if she can get through the first six months? :mrgreen:

cancer treatment for a 90 year old would never happen.. any treatment would most likely kill the person faster than the cancer...
 
cancer treatment for a 90 year old would never happen.. any treatment would most likely kill the person faster than the cancer...

Not necessarily. My 84 year old great-aunt is getting cancer treatment right now. If the 90 year old is in exceptional health otherwise, it could happen.
 
Not necessarily. My 84 year old great-aunt is getting cancer treatment right now. If the 90 year old is in exceptional health otherwise, it could happen.

No no, waste of resources on a 90 year, she should just die and let that money/treatment go to a younger person... she had her shot at life.
 
I'm pretty sure that if you divest yourself of your assets you then qualify for medicaid. But you need to sell off your stuff first.

If I'm not mistaken, you still have to wait two years after divesting yourself of your assets before Medicaid kicks in (at least in this state). If you never had any assets to begin with, I think it's different.
 
No no, waste of resources on a 90 year, she should just die and let that money/treatment go to a younger person... she had her shot at life.

That's what my aunt's insurance company said. She's paying out of pocket for her treatment.
 
hey it is still much better than the GOP plan or as it is starting to get known as "the status quo with further give away's to the healthcare industry" plan.

This sounds like the status quo to me. Wasn't one of the left's big gripes about insurance companies the waiting period for pre-existing conditions??

How is this different????

There are going to be a lot of surprises coming out of this bill as people have time to read it.
 
hey it is still much better than the GOP plan or as it is starting to get known as "the status quo with further give away's to the healthcare industry" plan.

And you know this how? You have read the GOP plan? You have read the 1990 page House plan? You have any idea what you are talking about whatsoever?

Didn't think so.

From what I have been reading and hearing from the GOP Health Care - GOP Solutions for America - GOP.gov, their plan includes things like Tort reform, policy portability allowing competition across state lines, allowing small businesses to purchase insurance in a pool to allow rates similar to very large business rates, increased use of Health Savings accounts and other common sense methods to increase competition and decrease costs. Every one of those issues have been shot down by Democrats in their House and Senate bills.

Come back and talk when you have some real information to discuss rather than just throwing out DNC talking points.
 
hey it is still much better than the GOP plan or as it is starting to get known as "the status quo with further give away's to the healthcare industry" plan.
Oh well in that case the Dem plan is good. NOT.
 
No no, waste of resources on a 90 year, she should just die and let that money/treatment go to a younger person... she had her shot at life.
Well that's probably what the six month waiting period is for.
 
BTW, old people will suffer with Obamacare, because Medicare payments to doctors will be reduced, meaning less doctors treating them. AARP endorsement of Obamacare is self-serving since they sell health insurance.
 
I don't like the 6 month waiting period either. One of the great groups that subsidized health insurance can help are the workers between jobs. Get laid off, make much less money through unemployment insurance until you find a new job, and have your health insurance premiums sky rocket (not really, they were the same before, you just didn't know it because the employer paid it.)

In addition to being a group in need, it's a group with short-term need. These people would only need the insurance for a few months until they can obtain new employment with health benefits.
 
Back
Top Bottom