Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

pnwmom

(110,261 posts)
33. You were right not to use it. Being nailed with a preexisting condition
Mon Oct 28, 2013, 04:22 PM
Oct 2013

was a huge problem.

I was telling my sister about my child's asthma diagnosis, and she told me that I should have (somehow) gotten the doctor not to do that. She said her friend the nurse said you should never let that get in a child's file, because then he could become uninsurable!

That's the wonderful system we had. You couldn't use your insurance for needed treatment for fear it would make you uninsurable.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Recommended. (nt) NYC_SKP Oct 2013 #1
They're not losing coverage, they're losing the illusion of coverage, I would say. geek tragedy Oct 2013 #2
Why do think so many people went bankrupt when a major illnes struck...their coverage sucked. nt kelliekat44 Oct 2013 #46
It reminds me of The Rainmaker. People pay premiums and hope it will help if they get really sick Pirate Smile Oct 2013 #51
k&r... spanone Oct 2013 #3
Years ago costs weren't so high leftstreet Oct 2013 #4
yes, it was unreasonable then, it was a bad thing then CreekDog Oct 2013 #6
You were right not to use it. Being nailed with a preexisting condition pnwmom Oct 2013 #33
A cousin of mine had to "find out" she was pregnant at 5 months, in order to get on her ScreamingMeemie Oct 2013 #44
A lot of people would be happier with actual insurance, rather than prepaid routine medical care FarCenter Oct 2013 #5
that's perverse, do you feed your kid or take them to the doctor? CreekDog Oct 2013 #7
Don't Know For sure, but this one geek tragedy Oct 2013 #9
in this thread they want men getting vasectomies to be charged less for insurance CreekDog Oct 2013 #32
That's a convincing mountain of proof of your assertion. The last one was particularly Squinch Oct 2013 #36
They said in this thread they don't want poor people getting regular health care geek tragedy Oct 2013 #37
We fed our kids and took them to the doctor. FarCenter Oct 2013 #10
you're saying that it worked for everyone? CreekDog Oct 2013 #16
Hello! Have you ever heard of a copay & deductible? NoOneMan Oct 2013 #13
Fuck Ron Paul. nt geek tragedy Oct 2013 #8
That's a fantastic way to make health care and insurance more expensive. jeff47 Oct 2013 #11
Who would have thought that someone with a history of racist comments, teleprompter geek tragedy Oct 2013 #12
If people want to buy a plan that includes pre-paid preventive care, they should have that option. FarCenter Oct 2013 #14
Not what you were just proposing. jeff47 Oct 2013 #17
If you have lump, go to the doctor. FarCenter Oct 2013 #23
No, if you have a lump and don't have a hefty income jeff47 Oct 2013 #24
Heh, doubling down on the Republican ideology with fat-bashing. geek tragedy Oct 2013 #18
Well, there's also the problem where those people with a 30 BMI are living longer jeff47 Oct 2013 #20
People who use the 'teleprompters' line against Obama geek tragedy Oct 2013 #21
It is part of preventive care in Medicare FarCenter Oct 2013 #26
Which is why we need to not have cancer screenings. jeff47 Oct 2013 #27
Right, because doing so would hurt corporate profit$!! AgingAmerican Oct 2013 #25
Making medical services prepaid, with less per usage cost to patients, increases corporate profits FarCenter Oct 2013 #29
Yes, you are afraid poor people will start receiving medical care like everyone else does. geek tragedy Oct 2013 #35
you make a false assertion and without data to back it up CreekDog Oct 2013 #39
That isn't what 'prepaid' is AgingAmerican Oct 2013 #49
Considering poor people can't afford paying in full for preventative care that doesn't seem smart. cui bono Oct 2013 #34
what? fizzgig Oct 2013 #47
By "actual insurance" I mean buying a policy that covers losses larger than what you can cover. FarCenter Oct 2013 #48
We'd be happier with Healthcare Puzzledtraveller Oct 2013 #52
what you describe sounds exactly like catastrophic coverage under Obamacare grantcart Oct 2013 #15
So you're saying Obamacare allows charging women more than men? CreekDog Oct 2013 #19
I think they're just saying that junk insurance is still geek tragedy Oct 2013 #22
They're actually the opposite ProSense Oct 2013 #31
there's a big difference between high deductible plans under Obamacare and what I had CreekDog Oct 2013 #41
Good points. I stand corrected. nt geek tragedy Oct 2013 #42
thanks for listening CreekDog Oct 2013 #43
lol let me edit for clairty: what you describe sounds similar to catastrophic coverage under grantcart Oct 2013 #30
the whole context is different CreekDog Oct 2013 #38
I was just watching CNBC CrawlingChaos Oct 2013 #28
My son, a completely healthy 15 year old, had a catastrophic temporary policy that was $500/quarter. ScreamingMeemie Oct 2013 #45
I don't see what the fuss is all about......... Swede Atlanta Oct 2013 #40
Boom! CFLDem Oct 2013 #50
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I had cheap health insura...»Reply #33