Declinable medical conditions
Lifted from Alternet:
Which ailments are on the list of preexisting conditions that can drive up prices for coverage? The Kaiser Family Foundation catalogs “so-called declinable medical conditions” before the ACA.
- Alcohol or drug abuse with recent treatment
- Cerebral palsy
- Congestive heart failure
- Coronary artery/heart disease, bypass surgery
- Crohn’s disease
More listed below the fold.
- Kidney disease, renal failure
- Mental disorders (including anxiety, bipolar disorder, depression, obsessive compulsive disorder, schizophrenia)
- Multiple sclerosis
- Muscular dystrophy
- Organ transplant
- Parkinson’s disease
- Pending surgery or hospitalization
- Pneumocystic pneumonia
- Pregnancy or expectant parent (includes men)
- Sleep apnea
- Being transgender (Listed as “Transsexualism”)
Time magazine spoke with Kaiser’s associate director Cynthia Cox, who suggested the list could be far more expansive. “There are plenty of other conditions, even acne or high blood pressure, that could have gotten people denied from some insurers but accepted and charged a higher premium by other insurers,” Cox told the outlet.
Here are more illnesses you should magically avoid, lest you run the risk of being monetarily punished for getting sick.
- Acid reflux
- Celiac disease
- High cholesterol
- Kidney stones
- Knee surgery
- Lyme disease
- Postpartum depression
- Seasonal affective disorder
- “Sexual deviation or disorder”
My little contribution:
Why don’t all the news outlets that report the 8 billion (with a “b”) dollars Republicans offered up to help states subsidize high risk pools EMPHASIZE that this is spread over 5 years and 16 trillion (with a “t”) dollar overall health bill: one — ONE TWO-THOUSANDTHS of the overall bill to pick up the tab for our highest risk patients?
Just a matter of good salesmanship.
Any legislation that does not have protections for those will prior conditions will fail. It will lever see the light of day. The question is how should the cost of those with priors be spread around.
1% of the population uses 23% of health costs. 5% of the population uses 50% of the cost.. What is the best way to spread the cost of the 5%?
Should it be charged off to the other 95%? Or should we, as a society, decide that taking care of sick people is what the government should do?
It is your opinion the Government does not subsidize healthcare for the healthy?
50% of the population makes up 97% of healthcare cost and the other 50% makes up 3%. What this tells me is you have a high probability of flip-flopping over to the high cost segment and also staying there forever.
The other 95% will one day be the 5%.
Not a whole lot of “live a fast life, die young and be a beautiful corpse” going around.
“50% of the population makes up 97% of healthcare cost and the other 50% makes up 3%. What this tells me is you have a high probability of flip-flopping over to the high cost segment and also staying there forever.”
Actually, look at those between the to 20% and the top 50%. That group — 30% of people — still take only 15% of the healthcare spending (97% – 82%).
Only the top 20% are actually spending above the average.
It’s insurance. What are the ratios for drivers or home owners or businesses? Sure, I’ll bet that sick people use more medical resources than well ones. What of it? The whole point is to spread the risk around.
Correct and the chance you may go back and forth in using more or less is true also.