First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Post Reply Having Acne or being Transexual will get you denied health coverage under Trumps new healthcare
30705 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 5/8/17 , edited 6/28/17
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/what-counts-pre-existing-condition-ahca-trump-obamacare-2017-5?r=US&IR=T

Seriously...how the fuck does that make any sense?
I'm really questioning how fucking stupid this man is.

If this is false and i have seen so many articles and sources to claim this as true and show enough evidence that it is please prove to me it's false because

Faith in humanity declining...
Most of the things in the list of banned things if not all of them should be impacted by healthcare not rejected.
Banned
22807 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
53 / M / In
Offline
Posted 5/8/17 , edited 5/8/17

Trump health care the rich get richer and the poor just die
37807 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/8/17 , edited 5/8/17
There is no such thing as "Trump's new healthcare". Nothing has been passed yet. Make a note of anyone making outrageous claims about what "the new healthcare plan will do". They shouldn't be trusted because they are either playing with your emotions or they are fools.
30705 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 5/8/17 , edited 5/8/17

kinga750 wrote:

There is no such thing as "Trump's new healthcare". Nothing has been passed yet. Make a note of anyone making outrageous claims about what "the new healthcare plan will do". They shouldn't be trusted because they are either playing with your emotions or they are fools.


It hasn't passed but it may pass so yes it is "trumps new healthcare" it just isn't officially here yet.
The claims being made are based on what trump has said so far so either tons of people are lying or Trump is bad at wording stuff....knowing the amount of mistakes Trump has already made im likely to believe the latter.

I do hope i am wrong though he can't fuck up more then he already has >.<



"They are playing with your emotions or they are fools" <- Both your options insist Trumps ideas will be good (atleast thats how what your saying comes across)
37807 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/8/17

Ryulightorb wrote:


kinga750 wrote:

There is no such thing as "Trump's new healthcare". Nothing has been passed yet. Make a note of anyone making outrageous claims about what "the new healthcare plan will do". They shouldn't be trusted because they are either playing with your emotions or they are fools.


It hasn't passed but it may pass so yes it is "trumps new healthcare" it just isn't officially here yet.
The claims being made are based on what trump has said so far so either tons of people are lying or Trump is bad at wording stuff....knowing the amount of mistakes Trump has already made im likely to believe the latter.

I do hope i am wrong though he can't fuck up more then he already has >.<


Well it's a Republican plan, all Trump will do is sign it. My gut says they will sell out the poor, because that's their usual M.O. But will it completely ruin your healthcare? Did Obamacare give us death panels? No and no.
30705 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 5/8/17

kinga750 wrote:


Ryulightorb wrote:


kinga750 wrote:

There is no such thing as "Trump's new healthcare". Nothing has been passed yet. Make a note of anyone making outrageous claims about what "the new healthcare plan will do". They shouldn't be trusted because they are either playing with your emotions or they are fools.


It hasn't passed but it may pass so yes it is "trumps new healthcare" it just isn't officially here yet.
The claims being made are based on what trump has said so far so either tons of people are lying or Trump is bad at wording stuff....knowing the amount of mistakes Trump has already made im likely to believe the latter.

I do hope i am wrong though he can't fuck up more then he already has >.<


Well it's a Republican plan, all Trump will do is sign it. My gut says they will sell out the poor, because that's their usual M.O. But will it completely ruin your healthcare? Did Obamacare give us death panels? No and no.



That's true still its under his name which is bad for him and he is at fault if he signs it so here is to hoping he doesn't.

Of course it won't ruin peoples healthcare but it's certainly a step back and a shitty excuse to "Better healthcare".
Won't ruin my healthcare since im Australian my friends with some of the conditions it would impact but as you said it hasn't been signed yet it may not get through.

heres to hoping.
1503 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/8/17
The article linked doesn't even say that.
37807 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/8/17

Ryulightorb wrote:
That's true still its under his name which is bad for him and he is at fault if he signs it so here is to hoping he doesn't.

Of course it won't ruin peoples healthcare but it's certainly a step back and a shitty excuse to "Better healthcare".
Won't ruin my healthcare since im Australian my friends with some of the conditions it would impact but as you said it hasn't been signed yet it may not get through.

heres to hoping.


I agree it's probably going to be a step back. And that's really unfortunate, because healthcare reform costs, and Obama already paid the price. Now the Republicans are going to sacrifice themselves to undo what Obama did? Seems mad.

Realistically, they need some tweaks and reforms to the ACA. Politically, they need to "repeal and replace Obamacare". I'm hoping what they passed in the house will satisfy the hardliners, and now the senate will deliver some moderate tweaks, or nothing at all.
30705 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 5/8/17 , edited 5/8/17

kinga750 wrote:


Ryulightorb wrote:
That's true still its under his name which is bad for him and he is at fault if he signs it so here is to hoping he doesn't.

Of course it won't ruin peoples healthcare but it's certainly a step back and a shitty excuse to "Better healthcare".
Won't ruin my healthcare since im Australian my friends with some of the conditions it would impact but as you said it hasn't been signed yet it may not get through.

heres to hoping.


I agree it's probably going to be a step back. And that's really unfortunate, because healthcare reform costs, and Obama already paid the price. Now the Republicans are going to sacrifice themselves to undo what Obama did? Seems mad.

Realistically, they need some tweaks and reforms to the ACA. Politically, they need to "repeal and replace Obamacare". I'm hoping what they passed in the house will satisfy the hardliners, and now the senate will deliver some moderate tweaks, or nothing at all.



It does seem mad but i have seen madder things happen sadly.
They just as you said need some tweaks and reforms but sadly the question is are they smart enough to think that.


foraslan wrote:

The article linked doesn't even say that.


it does though otherwise we are reading different thinks.

it says if you have acne for example your healthcare won't cover it which is stupid.

30705 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 5/8/17

AppleFart wrote:


Ryulightorb wrote:


AppleFart wrote:

Good. I don't care as long as my premiums go down. Don't make the 99.5% suffer for the .5%.

Those who die from no insurance can be used as fertilizer to make our forests healthy and strong.



those who have no insurance should still get healthcare that kind of attitude you have is very disgusting.
you should all pitch in to help eachother but it is your country if the majority wanna be stingy and let people who don't have money die then that is what it is.

only those who live there have the power to fight for a better system.
the fact America still uses insurance imo opinion is laughable but to each their own there.


I think your attitude is very disgusting. Taking from people who work all their lives to pay for the uneducated, unmotivated and/or lazy. Is not right. Read the fable of the grasshopper and the ants. Nobody owes anyone anything.


Not everyone can work some people are disabled.
Some people work their asses off and still can't afford healthcare.

Just letting the "uneducated, unmotivated and/or lazy." is wrong by itself anyhow.

Nobody owes you anything that's true for Americans i guess luckily for me where i live healthcare is a human right and i pity those who live in a state where they can work there asses off and die just because healthcare isn't given to them through taxes which everyone contributes to but as i said your country do what you like there is a reason our average lifespan is higher then yours
1503 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/8/17 , edited 5/8/17

Ryulightorb wrote:
thats how i understood it seems i was wrong its just you won't get help FOR it but if that is the case then some of the other things on that list are even more questionable.

organ failure for example...


Ryu, I don't know how your healthcare system works in Australia, but I think there might be a major difference between yours and ours that is making it hard for you to get what the article is talking about, based on your comments.

The article is not about healthcare in general, but rather about insurance. In the United States, insurance is a major component of our healthcare system, but it is not equivalent to 'healthcare.' People pay insurance companies regular fees (quarterly, annual, or every six months, or sometimes monthly) while they are in good health, in case they should ever become sick and need help paying in return. Essentially, the insurance company is making a bet: are the odds good, based on your condition when you first come to us, you will pay more in fees than you will need in return? What kind of fees would you have to pay to make the odds good? They base the answers to these questions on the presence of preexisting conditions that you might have.

What the article says is that prior to the ACA, these companies were allowed to use that information about whether or not covering you was a good bet, and decide whether or not they would take you on as a customer to begin with. The article is NOT about what things the insurance companies will or will not cover, if you are a customer of theirs. That is based on the specific insurance policy you agree on with the company.

Now, the ACA (a.k.a. "Obamacare") made it illegal for companies to refuse to insure you based on any preexisting conditions you have. Some people were concerned that the bill the Republicans were working on would make that legal again. However, this is not the case, and the article does not say that it will. What it does say is that there is still concern about the possibility that, practically speaking (though not technically), people with certain conditions will not be able to get coverage. They are worried about sky high costs.

If these fears have any basis, we still can't use that list in the article for very much. It was relevant in the old system, but it isn't currently, and it might not be in the system that is currently being debated, either.

Now, emergency care is not denied anyone here, REGARDLESS of insurance. If someone is brought in with a heart attack, for example, he will be treated. Period.

Just to reiterate: The article is NOT about what things you can get in healthcare, but about your ability to get insurance.
Posted 5/8/17

AppleFart wrote:
I think your attitude is very disgusting. Taking from people who work all their lives to pay for the uneducated, unmotivated and/or lazy. Is not right. Read the fable of the grasshopper and the ants. Nobody owes anyone anything.


The reality is that no matter what you do - you're paying for the "uneducated, unmotivated and/or lazy". From my perspective, those who only work 40 hours a week are "lazy" (if I were to be condescending and focus on what I do versus others, I mean). I'm easily pulling 80-95 hour work weeks, not including when I'm having to travel to the head office or when I visit a customer's site. What I mean is - at the end of the day, there's always going to be someone who works more than you that can easily consider you to be "lazy" or "uneducated" (and vice versa).

As for health insurance, I think a single payer/universal healthcare system would be the best bet for America. It's worked in other countries but that's mostly because they're not needlessly spending an extortionate amount of their budget on their military like the United States. To worry about owing another person something just because they're using tax dollars to stay alive (which means that, in the end, they'll benefit the country more than being dead, financially speaking) just seems to be counter-productive. One could argue that they never drive vehicles and that to have to pay taxes that end up going to the state highway commission or that they'll never have children so why are the money they pay into taxes go to schools under the same explanation that you've given as to why you don't want a more unified healthcare system.
13304 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / AH / Helipad
Offline
Posted 5/8/17 , edited 5/8/17
Is it too much to ask for a functional health care plan?

Obamacare just changed who had healthcare and who didn't. Middle class people who could afford healthcare before Obamacare couldn't afford it afterwards. Obviously it needed to be changed.

But now we have this, which doesn't look too good either. Hopefully it's not as bad as it seems.
658 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F
Offline
Posted 5/8/17
To the OP:

If you're an Australian citizen how does American health insurance relate to you?

Why, in your status do you make a distinction between humanity and human beings?

“Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.” ~ Tolstoy
6067 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/8/17 , edited 5/8/17
going to the doctors for acne is wasting their time anyway.
24759 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Online
Posted 5/8/17

HateKillingCamels wrote:

going to the doctors for acne is wasting their time anyway.


Iunno, as long as they are getting paid. Breast implants, etc, the whole cosmetic appeal. With the amount of wealthy teenagers on the rise, dermatologist and such are sure to stay in business.
1503 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/8/17

Ryulightorb wrote:


foraslan wrote:

The article linked doesn't even say that.


it does though otherwise we are reading different thinks.

it says if you have acne for example your healthcare won't cover it which is stupid.


No, it doesn't. It says that prior to the ACA, acne might have "made it harder" (whatever that means) to find coverage. It also says that denial of coverage will not be allowed under the new setup- assuming it passes.

Also, I think you might be misunderstanding. It doesn't say anything about what the insurance you have will or will not cover. The article is about people without insurance, who have certain preexisting conditions. Why acne is on the list of preexisting conditions that might affect your ability to purchase insurance, I don't know. Presumably it's based on a set of statistical correlations with other diseases somewhere, but I honestly have no idea.
30705 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 5/8/17

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

Well, acne is not that bad. Just saying. Unless you are saying that acne will get you banned for healthcare that goes beyond treatment for that specific ailment, which I feel is troublesome and borders on some weird discrimination.


thats how i understood it seems i was wrong its just you won't get help FOR it but if that is the case then some of the other things on that list are even more questionable.

organ failure for example...
24759 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Online
Posted 5/8/17

AppleFart wrote:

WTF who is deleting my comments. What is this? Nazi Germany?


I do not see my comments either. Forum must be broken again. Damn, it is just Monday CR.
6916 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/8/17
if this version passes no one will have health insurance or be paying out the ass because we've all had acne at some point in our lives or currently, I have heard the senate plans to craft their own version of repeal/replace so this is bound to be a long fight or it's all gonna blow up in their faces, I think Trump will be a one term president regardless of who runs in 2020
658 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F
Offline
Posted 5/8/17 , edited 5/10/17

"By giving new options to the states, the House bill would make subsidizing pre-existing conditions a general obligation of the taxpayer as it always should have been.

Obama Care was unsustainable for many reasons, not least because it partly shifted to young customers the burden of subsidizing those who joined the pool already sick. ObamaCare went out of its way to be a bad deal for the young and healthy, who didn’t sign up."

That from the Wall Street Journal.

Threads such as this one are meant to do one thing. Mislead people into bashing Trump.
Posted 5/8/17
Acne come on just cleanse your skin better and don't dig into your face there are cleanse products out there on market.
and like any health care not every single thing going be covered right,

>example let's say i want to have lipo or cosmetic surgery my coverage not going to cover cosmetic

there is going be some give and takes I see your in Australia, so why you care so much about the states health coverage?
30705 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 5/8/17 , edited 5/8/17

foraslan wrote:


Ryulightorb wrote:


foraslan wrote:

The article linked doesn't even say that.


it does though otherwise we are reading different thinks.

it says if you have acne for example your healthcare won't cover it which is stupid.


No, it doesn't. It says that prior to the ACA, acne might have "made it harder" (whatever that means) to find coverage. It also says that denial of coverage will not be allowed under the new setup- assuming it passes.

Also, I think you might be misunderstanding. It doesn't say anything about what the insurance you have will or will not cover. The article is about people without insurance, who have certain preexisting conditions. Why acne is on the list of preexisting conditions that might affect your ability to purchase insurance, I don't know. Presumably it's based on a set of statistical correlations with other diseases somewhere, but I honestly have no idea.



Oh ok my bad then.


DengekiFugu wrote:

To the OP:

If you're an Australian citizen how does American health insurance relate to you?

Why, in your status do you make a distinction between humanity and human beings?

“Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.” ~ Tolstoy



It doesn't relate to me but its still people friends i have live there i'm not selfish enough to only think of myself i care about those who live in America so of course im going to care about them.

Also because eventually humanity is going to split off in a sense as we evolve via forced evolution of course this is in the vast future hundreds from now but its still something and people is a word that can be used for any humanoid if we come across another life form that is a humanoid it is not a form of humanity i still want to help them advance if it is my power to do so.


Also your quote is stupid i must say because everyone intelligent enough thinks of changing themselves even i do.

Anyhow back to the main point....i don't have to be American to get involved in discussions about American politics or understand it.
It may not impact my country directly but everything done in America in some way indirectly impacts the rest of the world we should care about other countries other then our own and the people in them.

Banned
416 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 5/8/17 , edited 5/10/17
Good. I don't care as long as my premiums go down. Don't make the 99.5% suffer for the .5%.

Those who die from no insurance can be used as fertilizer to make our forests healthy and strong.
30705 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 5/8/17 , edited 5/10/17

HateKillingCamels wrote:

going to the doctors for acne is wasting their time anyway.


true but some of the things like organ failure aren't,
30705 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 5/8/17

foraslan wrote:


Ryulightorb wrote:
thats how i understood it seems i was wrong its just you won't get help FOR it but if that is the case then some of the other things on that list are even more questionable.

organ failure for example...


Ryu, I don't know how your healthcare system works in Australia, but I think there might be a major difference between yours and ours that is making it hard for you to get what the article is talking about, based on your comments.

The article is not about healthcare in general, but rather about insurance. In the United States, insurance is a major component of our healthcare system, but it is not equivalent to 'healthcare.' People pay insurance companies regular fees (quarterly, annual, or every six months, or sometimes monthly) while they are in good health, in case they should ever become sick and need help paying in return. Essentially, the insurance company is making a bet: are the odds good, based on your condition when you first come to us, you will pay more in fees than you will need in return? What kind of fees would you have to pay to make the odds good? They base the answers to these questions on the presence of preexisting conditions that you might have.

What the article says is that prior to the ACA, these companies were allowed to use that information about whether or not covering you was a good bet, and decide whether or not they would take you on as a customer to begin with. The article is NOT about what things the insurance companies will or will not cover, if you are a customer of theirs. That is based on the specific insurance policy you agree on with the company.

Now, the ACA (a.k.a. "Obamacare") made it illegal for companies to refuse to insure you based on any preexisting conditions you have. Some people were concerned that the bill the Republicans were working on would make that legal again. However, this is not the case, and the article does not say that it will. What it does say is that there is still concern about the possibility that, practically speaking (though not technically), people with certain conditions will not be able to get coverage. They are worried about sky high costs.

If these fears have any basis, we still can't use that list in the article for very much. It was relevant in the old system, but it isn't currently, and it might not be in the system that is currently being debated, either.

Now, emergency care is not denied anyone here, REGARDLESS of insurance. If someone is brought in with a heart attack, for example, he will be treated. Period.

Just to reiterate: The article is NOT about what things you can get in healthcare, but about your ability to get insurance.



I understand that but you need your insurance to get healthcare in America (aside from upfront payment) am i wrong?
I still think its kinda fucked but my understanding as you said may be wrong.

But nice to see i was misunderstand the article doesn't really make it easy to understand it very well.
I know Emergency care is not denied but cost is given to those who get it (which is disgusting imo).

From my understanding of the insurance system over there from the shit ton of stuff i have read online it makes no sense to me that ones insurance shouldn't cover organ failure for example (pre-existing or not)

As you said i obviously don't understand but the way to learn these things is reading online and most of the material explaining it is very convoluted and insane and leaves alot to assumption so its hard to not have these misunderstandings like i have.

24759 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Online
Posted 5/8/17 , edited 5/8/17
Well, acne is not that bad. Just saying. Unless you are saying that acne will get you banned for healthcare that goes beyond treatment for that specific ailment, which I feel is troublesome and borders on some weird discrimination.
Banned
416 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 5/8/17 , edited 5/10/17
WTF who is deleting my comments. What is this? Nazi Germany?
30705 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 5/8/17

DengekiFugu wrote:


"By giving new options to the states, the House bill would make subsidizing pre-existing conditions a general obligation of the taxpayer as it always should have been.

Obama Care was unsustainable for many reasons, not least because it partly shifted to young customers the burden of subsidizing those who joined the pool already sick. ObamaCare went out of its way to be a bad deal for the young and healthy, who didn’t sign up."

That from the Wall Street Journal.

Threads such as this one are meant to do one thing. Mislead people into bashing Trump.



Well that's good to know and as i said in the post if it was false TELL ME i don't want to bash trump UNLESS he deserves to be bashed.
as people have explained it more it shows that he does not deserve hatred for this :)

Honestly the amount of articles online about this were all just very confusing and misleading so it's no surprise i posted this as someone who was questioning it i didn't fully believe it and thats why i asked for anyone who can prove otherwise to do so.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.