To Date 6.5 million more Americans now have pre-existing conditions due to no fault of their own.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

They will drive up the cost of all of our health care without a real realignment of how we pay for treatment. Even then we are going to be stretched very thin.

The only way I see to move forward is with Elizebeth Warren leading the charge. Conservatives I know respect her and her plans. I hope she has a new one to tackle the epidemic of preexisting conditions and it's horrible price on us all.

Any suggestions on making this ignored catastrophe-in-waiting more public?

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

1. While this isn't reassuring in the short term,

I honestly believe that in the long run the outcome of this pandemic will result in things like genuine health care for all. It will probably start out at some kind of a base level, and not everything will be free, but we will down the road become something similar to the various European systems, in which basic health care for all is assured, and no matter what no one will have to declare bankruptcy to cover medical stuff.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

3. I like your optimism.

Deep down I fear the continued slide towards autocracy because the GOP cares more about aiding Putin steal the election than it does our health care. In fact for some reason they flat out oppose affordable healthcare. Survival of the richest, I guess.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

5. I am optimistic about the long term.

Think of it this way.

Pretend it's early 1939, and you and I are planning a trip to Europe next year. We've been saving, and have even taken on extra jobs for this. It's going to be a great trip! We will go to London, Paris, Rome, Venice, maybe the French Riviera. Our plans aren't finalized yet, but we are working on them.

Then September rolls around and WWII breaks out. Oh, crap. We won't be going to Europe next year, but we are hopeful that the war won't last very long and we can take our trip in 1941. Well, as you already know, you of the future, the war in Europe lasts on and on, and finally ends in May, 1945. Clearly the soonest we can take our trip will be 1946, maybe a year or two later. And when we finally take that long deferred trip, it will be to a Europe incomprehensively different from the one we'd have seen had we had the good sense to travel in 1939 in the first place.

That's what this is going to be like. This entire pandemic is going to last a lot longer than people think, and is going to change a lot of things far more than they expect. Think Europe 1939 compared to Europe 1946 and you'll be on the right track.

[Doodley]

7. I'm thinking of six million Jews who have been murdered and 65 plus million other deaths, and

devastation on a scale we had never seen before, and I find it hard to be optimistic if that is what we have to go through before things improve.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

8. While those things did happen,

they are not relevant to what's happening now. I am very aware of the horrors of the Holocaust, but my WWII comparison is only about the before and after, the profound changes that happened.

It's not likely that this pandemic will result in any kind of death toll remotely resembling what happened in WWII.

[FBaggins]

13. And it isn't just that many more people died

Traveling to Europe in the wake of WWII wasn't just "the guy who used to run the hotel we wanted to stay at has died"... it was "the hotel and everything around it is now rubble and all three bridges across the river are gone"

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

17. Right.

Vast, vast changes.

[malaise]

9. I am with you on this

Indeed WHO is calling for governments do do more for public health

[FBaggins]

2. ???

Having previously tested positive for a respiratory virus is in no sense a “pre-existing condition”

[SleeplessinSoCal]

4. having tested positive for covid makes one have a preexisting condition.

This 6.5 million is growing and will only be added to other conditions. People who survive covid will be unhealthy going forward. Many will not. But testing positive for Covid is the kind of record that can be abused and will be by the industry.

[FBaggins]

6. Sorry... Repeating an error does not make it less erroneous

Viruses are not preexisting conditions.

One might argue that if the ACAs requirements are overturned that there could be tens of thousands of people who survive COVID but develop conditions that would qualify (heart/lung damage)... but nothing approaching “everyone who tested positive”

And even in those few cases, the worst-hit are damaged because they already have something that would qualify (diabetes, obesity, whatever)

[Celerity]

10. Ermmmm

Viruses are not preexisting conditions.

Hep C
HIV
Herpes/Shingles viruses

[FBaggins]

11. The difference is pretty obvious

Chronic conditions initially caused by a virus could theoretically meet some definitions... but not viruses that you had at some time in the past and got over.

[Celerity]

15. Because the after effects of COVID-19 are so nebulous, I can so see the

private, for-profit insurance industry trying (and perhaps succeeding) to claim any exposure to COVID-19 qualifies as having a pre-existing condition and either increasing rates or denying coverage, if they are legally allowed to do so. If/when the pre-existing conditions protections are stripped away, nothing would surprise me. Let us all hope that day never comes.

[FBaggins]

16. Far too speculative for my taste... but let's speculate

As I said above, those who actually receive lasting heart/lung damage might fall into the "preexisting" bucket (if existing law is ever changed so that matters again)...

... but if you also assume (as most do) that COVID will be an ongoing issue for years (perhaps permanently) - the fact that you've already been infected/recovered almost certainly reduces your risk going forward (theoretically making it cheaper to insure you).

But that's all nit-picking around the edges. The vast majority of people who tested positive at one time recover completely and will likely see no lasting impact on their health. That doesn't mean that it isn't a serious threat, but it does mean that the OP's notion of millions of people being treated like lepers for decades to come is dramatically overblown.

[Ms. Toad]

21. It actually isn't clear.

In one study 46% of individuals with COVID 19 have heart dysfunction, after correcting for those with pre-existing heart damage.

Permanent lung damage

Potential increased risk for Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, and Guillain Barre syndrome

87% of people hospitalized are still struggling 2 months later.

Having been through the pre-existing condition mill (and being uninsurable for a conditrion that poses virtually no individual risk), I can assure you that these lingering conditions we have already documented (in the very short time studied) will cause insurers will to treat all COVID 19 patients as having pre-existing conditions. In the process of enrollment, insurers dont' differentiate between individualized risk and the overall risk associated with a condition. Like the other viruses mentioned - COVID 19 has proven, so far, to linger long after the initial infection.

[FBaggins]

23. It really is

It's the difference between actual damage that permanently impacts your health (and therefore likely future medical expenses) and a past infection that doesn't (and might even reduce your future risk since you're highly unlikely to ever catch COVID again).

In one study 46% of individuals with COVID 19 have heart dysfunction, after correcting for those with pre-existing heart damage.

That's a bad title bordering on false reporting. It was one study showing 46% of those who had been hospitalized (not of "individuals with COVID" ) showed some heart disfunction after correcting for those who had previously been diagnosed with heart damage. There are lots of issues with drawing conclusions from that:

* - Single study
* - Not particularly large
* - There's a difference between previously having been diagnosed with heart damage and those who actually have it. Lots of people first find out about their heart issues when they show up in the hospital for something else, so we can't say that the remaining 460 people developed heart damage because of COVID - particularly when the people who are most likely to end up in the hospital are also the people (age and health) who are most likely to have an undiagnosed heart issue.
* - Other respiratory viruses can do the same thing. People who end up hospitalized with the flu often experience heart damage... but insurance forms don't ask "have you ever had the flu?".
* - The same thing is true for your other examples. Viruses like the flu, in severe cases, produce lung damage and have been connected with Parkinsons, etc.
* - And even in the cases of lung or heart damage, it isn't a preexisting condition if it isn't permanent damage. Your "Permanent lung damage" is also a false title. Nowhere in the actual article does it say "permanent"... and recent news says just the opposite, that those with lung damage frequently got over it weeks later (also similar to other respiratory viruses)

"Got sick and was still sick two months later" isn't a preexisting condition either.

None of this changes my first reply. The OP is talking about 6.5 million (really more like 10-12 million IMO) being treated as though just having had the virus is enough. It isn't. There are no doubt tens of thousands of people who survive yet have serious long-lasting issues (yes, including those you mentioned)... but it is those issues that cause the problem. Not the fact that they once had a respiratory virus.

[Ms. Toad]

24. I know how insurance treats pre-existing conditions -

We have had that conversation with more insurance companies than I can count, over quite a few conditions from relatively mild to very severe.

As for the damage - surely you know it is not just single studies. There are numerous studies, all showing similar things. I picked a few representative studies to make a point. If you aren't aware, do some research. There is a growing body of evidence that this virus is closer to polio that to the flu in terms of lifetime impact - even when the case is mild.

The only organ that regenerates is the liver, so scarring in the lungs is permanent. The predictions related to the heart damage are that it will last for a lifetime.

Because of the plethora of long term consequences from COVID 19, insurance companies will treat having had it as a pre-exisitng condition because of the not-insignificant potential for long-term consequences - in the same way that some treated acne, fractures, or restless leg syndrome, or tonsilitis as a basis to decline coverage. If the ban on declining coverage based on pre-existing conditions is removed, they will not risk they potential for long-term consequences that have just not yet materialized.

[FBaggins]

25. "Persistent Lung Damage Improves Gradually After COVID-19"

The vast majority of hospitalized COVID-19 patients show lung damage 6 weeks after discharge, but this proportion drops significantly after 12 weeks, suggesting that the lungs have a self-repair mechanism, researchers report.

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/937263

We have had that conversation with more insurance companies than I can count,


Which isn't relevant to the conversation at all. It's evidence for how some insurance companies have treated preexisting conditions... it isn't evidence for what types of conditions qualify.

The predictions related to the heart damage are that it will last for a lifetime.

You failed to provide any such evidence. The reality is by far the largest proportion of such damage identified has been an enlarged heart... which absolutely can happen with other viruses and absolutely can resolve (happened to me fairly recently).

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/heart-and-lung-damage-from-covid19-can-improve-over-time

Heart and Lung Damage from COVID-19 Can Improve Over Time If Rehab Starts Early

Researchers reported that people with COVID-19 can experience long-term lung and heart damage, but for many of these patients, this condition tends to improve over time.

...snip...


He said the severity of lung damage improved by 50 percent, regardless of whether a person had been subjected to mechanical ventilation or not.

At both 6- and 12-week visits, he said, the study participants mainly had diastolic dysfunction of the heart.

“We currently don’t know the meaning of this finding,” Tancevski said. “What we can tell is that natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), a sensitive marker of heart damage, was found increased at the first visit, but markedly decreased over time until visit 2. Thus, we conclude that also the heart appears to recover well over time.”

in the same way that some treated acne, fractures, or restless leg syndrome, or tonsilitis as a basis to decline coverage.

That's a whole different animal. If the current protections disappear and we return to the bad old days... of course even the flu will count if you try to purchase insurance today so that you can enter the hospital tomorrow for treatment of something you currently have. But no insurance company is going to check if you got over a virus months/years ago and are likely immune to that virus.

[Demsrule86]

14. Pre-existing protection is in force right now...

[SleeplessinSoCal]

18. My thought now is that this ought to be discussed before the debates

The cost is going to be astronomical.
You can bet the cons have a plan. What's ours? All they need to do is let the ACA die. We will bicker among ourselves I fear.

And since Fauci still predicts a 2nd wave...

???

[Demsrule86]

19. There is no extra cost at the moment for pre-existing. The premiums have been increased

because Trump ET AL cut the subsidies...and they are still not that bad. I looked into it when hubs lost his job and yes people who lose their jobs can get the ACA or Medicaid coverage depending on income or if your state has expanded medicaid. The Cons do not have a plan and Joe has already detailed his plan. It is on the website.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

22. There is a tremendous extra cost. we lost our union health insurance

SAG/AFTRA had been our primary since 1994. It became our secondary after Medicare (which Mnuchin claims the siphoned $$$ millions went to fix its shortfall).

The cost of Covid is astronomical. Costs to treat it get spread out. As a result the most responsible health insurance from SAG is going broke. So they booted those off who are most vulnerable. We signed a petition. It's a nightmare for us

https://variety.com/2020/tv/news/sag-aftra-health-plan-cobra-premium-reduction-1234764681/

[Demsrule86]

12. Right now there is pre-existing protection in the ACA...when the ACA is improved

and a public option added...those protections will continue and prices will be lowered. There will not be MFA enacted but a public option will likely lead to universal coverage of one sort or another.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

20. the debate about preexisting conditions.

Diabetes is a preexisting condition. It does damage to the body and you die from reasons caused by diabetes.

Covid-19? We will never know because the Trump adm is already messing with the CDC stats. You can bet it's because of the overall cost in $$$ not lives that has them behaving like twisted burglars. They are intentionally putting our future in peril. (Unless you're a billionaire, of course.)

Covid is being used as a bludgeon to prevent any ability to rectify the inequality catastrophe. It suits their agenda perfectly.

[FBaggins]

26. This just highlights the original error

As far as we know, there is no cure for diabetes. It can be treatable/manageable, but it will have a medical impact on virtually everyone who has it for the remainder of their life (10-20 fewer years than others on average)

But there are millions upon millions of people who caught COVID and now don't have it and probably never will again. It is not a lifelong condition.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

27. Mayo Clinic says

"COVID-19 (coronavirus): Long-term effects

COVID-19 symptoms can sometimes persist for months. The virus can damage the lungs, heart and brain, which increases the risk of long-term health problems."

Again, the damage from the disease will become a pre-existing condition brought on by the virus. Once the 2nd wave hits we'll find out about reinfection and the total cost will likely take decades to pay back. But those conditions will live on.

[FBaggins]

28. Try reading it again

The vast majority have no lasting impact at all and some "can last for months"

Things that "last for months" aren't preexisting conditions once they go away (unlike diabetes). And most don’t have such conditions.

The virus can damage the lungs, heart and brain, which increases the risk of long-term health problems

For a very small number (as mentioned multiple times in the thread). NOT for everyone who ever tested positive. Also as mentioned in the thread (see #25 above)... that damage to heart/lungs/etc. also goes away for most of even the small percentage who get it. There has not been a single study indicating that the millions of people who caught it and got over it and never had to go to the hospital are unknowingly walking around with permanent heart/lung issues.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

29. you are hung up on diabetes. this is a novel virus.

We don't know what we don't know. An expert in the field died of it after 4 months with the disease. What do you think that cost? Who do we trust with the information we need? The CDC info is being altered to suit Trump.

It is possible to become reinfected. We don't know how many will. And now we cant trust the CDC stats until the trump gang is gone. And I fear the ungainly cost of this pandemic will be twisted, manipulated, bungled and eventualy looted by vultures.

There are unkown numbers of those walking around with covid caused pre-existing conditions. And the cost is rising in the millions by the hour. Capitalism won't stand idly by why you get your knickers in a twist over verbiage.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

30. Biden campaigning on my point

Link to tweet

?s=19

[FBaggins]

31. That is NOT Biden campaigning on your point.

You really can't tell the difference between Biden's point and your own, can you?

Biden is instead saying just what I said in #6 above

One might argue that if the ACAs requirements are overturned that there could be tens of thousands of people who survive COVID but develop conditions that would qualify (heart/lung damage)... but nothing approaching “everyone who tested positive”

There's a giant chasm of difference between that and your claim that all of the millions of people who caught the virus (including the majority that never had any symptoms at all) now all have pre-existing conditions.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

32. truly,

You are impossible. People will have existing conditions from getting this virus. Full stop.

[FBaggins]

33. Lol. See you in another month or two

When your extreme confirmation bias causes you to mistake something else as evidence for your position.

Which won’t put the OP any closer to the truth.

Hint... your claim wasn’t that some people would develop conditions that could be considered pre-existing (in a world where that matters again). It was that everyone who tested positive would...

... and that remains nonsense.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

34. that was the topic starter as drug companies could claim it so.

Your argument was that a virus wasn't a preexisting condition. My claim is that people with lasting damage to various organs from contracting Covid-19 will have a pre-existing condition. We don't yet know how many of the now over 8,000,000 Americans who carried the virus have lasting damage. That is Biden's point and mine as well.