Is the abolishment of the pre-existing condition clause still in the bill?

[LeftyFingerPop]

Thank you.

[Pirate Smile]

1. yes

[LeftyFingerPop]

2. Thanks Pirate. n/t

[riderinthestorm]

3. Better question is, have they capped THAT rate yet?

Or else those who (theoretically) now can "get" insurance, can't afford it.

[sendero]

4. Exactly..

.... what I expect is "we don't exclude pre-existing conditions! You have diabetes? Your premium is $3000 per month.

If you think this is far fetched you have not been paying attention.

[laughingliberal]

5. I don't think it's far fetched. I know people paying $2000 now without preexisting conditions nt

[Old Codger]

6. Most likely

They will come up with a way around it...We will get shafted in the end one way or the other

[Bonn1997]

7. Of course the pre-existing conditions clause is still in the bill. It's one of the most crucial

elements of the bill...crucial in the sense of helping the Congressional Democrats to sell the idea that they actually reached a groundbreaking positive achievement for humanity.

[clear eye]

8. What they will use instead is a high deductible for certain conditions

They are allowed to make out of pocket expenses as high as $5K/yr for a single & I forget what for a family. Nothing I've read prevents them from making it an upfront deductible for certain ailments or treatments.

Also unregulated is the definition of what constitutes an "experimental treatment" which they can deny. I don't know all their scams to deny treatments, but I'm told there are quite a few. The upshot is even if you're allowed to buy insurance, you may find your insurer won't cover the expensive treatment you need. On NOW on PBS, a woman told how she found out that her autistic child, who was nominally covered under her family policy, was not covered for expenses related to autism.

That's why in MA, which has a mandate similar to what's left of the proposed Congressional bills, there is still quite a lot of medical bankruptcy.

[lob1]

9. There's a yearly cap on payouts, tho. That sucks big time!

[provis99]

10. yes, but that doesn't mean much.

So instead of denying people payment for having a pre-existing condition, they will deny them payment for having a "latent" condition, rather than a "manifest" condition. Same difference.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

11. Anyone care to add some linkage to all the assertions being made in this thread? n/t