Covering pre-existing conditions without a mandate

[Arianrhod]

Yes. Why wouldn't they?
Preventing Chronic Disease | State-Based Medicaid Costs for Pediatric Asthma Emergency Department Visits - CDC

Thank you for the link. What it says is this:

Methods
We used a cross-sectional design across multiple data sets to produce state-based cost estimates for asthma-related ED visits among children younger than 18, where Medicaid/CHIP (Children’s Health Insurance Program) was the primary payer.

I assumed patients who were already on Medicaid would have coverage for diseases such as asthma.

My question was about the asthmatic child of the middle-class guy who's lost his job and can't find another one by the time COBRA runs out.

Conservative65 seemed to be saying that this child would be covered by Medicaid.

Any time I ask him a question, he sees it as an attack.

So I'm still not clear on whether a middle-class family would be covered by Medicaid for chronic conditions other than end-stage renal disease but, again, thank you for making the effort!

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Actually, I believe most realize it is part of the total package. Anyone assuming it is not part of their total compensation, is, well, just uneducated. What it does is help lower the overall cost of insurance when there are so many employees within a company.

Good article - well-researched, factual, devoid of sensationalism and/or bloviating. Lot of information there. Let's break it down one topic at a time:

One such theme is the ongoing policy damage caused by the longstanding tax preference for employer-sponsored health insurance. The problems created by this tax distortion are enormous. It has distorted labor markets in favor of employee compensation in the form of healthcare benefits over wages, thereby putting upward pressure on healthcare prices and costs. It has inhibited the development of a robust market serving individual health insurance customers. And as Bradley Herring points out, the tax preference is also regressive, preferentially subsidizing more highly compensated workers.

What about this? I'd argue that the majority of employees who have employer-provided coverage don't even realize that it's in lieu of salary increases. Many of those claiming "there was nothing wrong with health insurance before Obamacare" come from that pool. They'll cite "tort reform" as the way to reform health insurance. Or - and I'm 100% in agreement with this - they'll cite the inability to purchase insurance across state lines (and I wonder how much employer-provided coverage distorts that as well).

There's also no question that employer-provided coverage is regressive.

Yes, group plans help lower costs for those who have access to a group, either through an employee plan or a professional organization, etc. And the higher the salary, the better your plan, as was mentioned in the article.

For the millions who didn't have recourse to group plans, however, premiums could be double what a group plan offered, which is what made it unaffordable for many. Add exclusions for preexisting conditions, lifetime caps for costly illnesses, and this was the mess that was status quo from the time for-profit insurers entered the market until passage of the PPACA.

That's right at the heart of the problem. Employment is the key to accessing these 'group plans', and losing one's job can mean losing such access. It's no surprise such a system was welcomed by employers. It's a powerful way to maintain control of their employees. But it's been utterly toxic to the health care market and needs to end.

The dilemma we're facing is how to end it. The best way, in my view, is more painful in the short term. We need to end the tax and regulatory subsidies for a failed system and let the market sort it out. We can beef up the safety net in the meantime, but otherwise keep government out of it.

Of course, that's not the path we're taking. People want socialized medicine. But, in the US at least, "socialism" is a dirty word, so we're creating a delusional hybrid that combines the worst aspects of private greed and state control.

Consider that, in theory, we spend 8,700 per person on health care (2014). For a family of five that is 44,000 per year.

Now what are those premiums ?

I'd bet that would be a health add to anyone's paycheck.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Still looking for some help on that 8,700 per year number.

If that really is the case....insane.