Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	So Dr. RHH
Date:	10/7/2016 5:55:41 AM

Tell me where you practice because I need medical care and since you are so willing to give away your services I need to come see you. I'm sure since you advocate for socialist medicine you MUST be working for free. If you think single payer is the answer you should move to some 3rd world sh!t hole and give your services to those in such dire need. How can you in good conscience charge anyone for your services if it really should be "free"? How do you sleep at night knowing those poor patients are going to have to PAY for you services with their hard earned money? Aren't you afraid they may not be able to buy groceries? Tell us some more about how the system is broken.  I agree that it is.  Difference is I know who broke it. They are called Democrats.

Name:	copperline -	Reply
Subject:	So Lifer
Date:	10/7/2016 9:46:33 AM

Lifer, to say you are uninformed about health insurance & health care would be to give you far too much credit.  I would suggest you stay away from commenting on things you don’t understand, or at least take the time to study up so you can make reasonable statements.

Just another angry white guy.  Angry at everything, and not sure why.

Name:	CRD -	Reply
Subject:	So Lifer
Date:	10/7/2016 10:17:47 AM

CL,

You don't give credit where credit is due to Lifer.  I would be interested in RHH's opinion on the exorbitant amount of student debt our young healthcare professionals emerge with and how a nationalized system of fees and rules and regs will ease their burden.  4 healthcare professionals in my family with a young one at UGA that we are all trying to disuade from persuing a career in medicine.  None of us share in RHH's opinion of the benefits of the ACA. Quite the opposite.  Many now have to raise fees just to pay for the 15 or so translators that we are now required to furnish free of charge to those who speak no English.  Is this your idea of seamless and affordable healthcare?  Walk a mile in our shoes........

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	So Lifer is right again
Date:	10/7/2016 10:19:56 AM

Yes we know.  Your Sainted daughter was saved by obammycare and without might be dead by now. Mainly because her father is a fool. I am not going to rehash pre-existing conditions with you. I challenge you to prove me wrong.  Find another person to back you up and tell me how wrong I am. I would like to to think I am special enough to have received such preferential treatment,  but sadly I am just an average Joe.

I have owned/managed several small businesses and worked for several large ones I  management.  I have been directly involved in negotiating and deciding on benefits.  I am a heavy consumer of health care.  Much more than the average person. Once again, with a certificate of creditable coverage pre-existing condition exclusion DID NOT APPLY. How dense are you? Are you really stupid enough to think I make this up just to irritate you? As much fun as that is I have better things to do,  like pick my nose or something productive.

We were told over and over again on the run up to obammycare that the 15% increases in premiums for coverage and costs were unconscionable. Now we have 35%+ increases in premiums with 300% increases in deductibles and its just a slight correction of no consequence. Do you ever tire of being so wrong on so many things? Obviously not so I will continue to berate you with facts,  not fantasy like obammycare saved the country.

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	A question for the real doctor.
Date:	10/7/2016 10:29:08 AM

As a Healthcare consumer over the years I was able to take advantage of the law/regulations regarding pre-existing conditions whereas in order to be covered under a group plan for those conditions all I had to do was provide a certificate of creditable coverage. Any condition previously covered under a group plan was automatically covered under the new plan. Are you familiar with this? I realize your perspective is on the other side but would like to know if you can settle an on going debate.  Copper says there was no such provision and that I just make up lies to post here to "stir the puddin'". Now I freely admit to being the puddin' stirrer in chief, but I don't make stuff up.

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	I forgot doc...
Date:	10/7/2016 10:59:17 AM

I'm sure you're busy and may not have heard,  but educational debt will become a thing of the past with shrillary because all college will be FREE!

/SARCASM [OFF]

Name:	copperline -	Reply
Subject:	So Lifer
Date:	10/7/2016 12:59:40 PM

No, Lifer, you couldn’t be more wrong.  As I explained to you some months ago, a “certificate of credible coverage” was not a statement from one insurance company to all others saying that they could not use pre-existing conditions to refuse you insurance.  You are completely mistaken. 

The Certificate was the same as the Proof of Insurance form you keep in your car, nothing more… it did not guarantee coverage across insurers and prevent pre-existing conditions from being used against you.  The new rules of the ACA did that for you.

You are probably confused by the complexity of insurance company plans & provisions…. If you had a BC/BS policy and transferred to another BC/BS policy…  then the company had the option not to enforce the ban on pre-existing conditions on you or your employees.  However, if you left BC/BS and signed up for United Healthcare, then the pre-existing condition clause would have prevented you from getting coverage.    Of course, the ACA stopped that practice.   Since we live in state with a 95% marketshare held by one insurer (BC/BS), many Alabamaians never had to experience refusals due to pre-existing conditions.   But then, we never experienced the benefits of a free-market competition between insurers, either.......

Educational debt for MD’s, Nurses, and a variety of healthcare professionals has gone up drastically.  It is highly doubtful that medical school debt would ever be free… and this is certainly not what has been proposed by Democrats.   You exaggerate.   

If you want to look into the reasons for increases in premiums and deductibles, you should look at the following points, too:

-          Your premiums and deductibles are set by for-profit insurers, not the government.

-          Your premiums may be going up because your employer is shifting more of the cost of health insurance to its employees, essentially cutting back on an employment benefit you had.  Many people are not even aware that a portion of their monthly premium was paid by employers, and thought what was deducted from their paycheck was the entire premium.  Not true at all.

-          Up to now, the US insurance system has been employment based, meaning that insurance has provided thru employers.   This set several things in play, first and foremost, it allowed insurance companies a way to eliminate people who needed insurance most (those with chronic conditions).  When they were able to eliminate those people, they were able to tell employers that they could keep their costs down in that way.     A system that does not tie health insurance coverage to employment status covers more people, more effectively… and has the added advantage of portability (that is, you are free to change jobs without fear of losing your family insurance).

-          Ultimately the goal of national healthcare policy is to keep the maximum number of people insured, to maintain & increase the health of the workforce, to prevent healthcare costs from being the leading cause of bankruptcy in the US, and to slow the growth of healthcare costs nationally.       

-          While it is true that premiums & deductibles are going up, this is most likely attributable to pent up demand for healthcare among people who have been uninsured or underinsured for years.   It also points to the need for the ACA to continue to be developed and improved instead of opposed by people who have no idea what they will replace it with.  

BY THE WAY, mocking a father's concern & dismissing his daughter's medical condition in that way is a new low... even for you.

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	So wrong again.. Doesn't it get old.
Date:	10/7/2016 1:43:38 PM

My experience with pre-existing coverage dates back to the 90's. A little before obammy care.  Just because I live in Alabama now doesn't mean I always have either.  But I  fact I was living here at the time. I used the provision once between BC/BS of TENNESSEE and United Healthcare and then back from United to BC/BS of ALABAMA. So what story are you going to spin now to try to make my REALITY fit your Fantasy . just because insurance couldn't be sold across state lines doesn't mean they can't cover across state lines.  You see those of us in the real world understand these things. The insurance is purchased by corporations I  their home state but covers all employees,  no matter where they reside. Do you really think Walmart has different insurance in every state?  Obviously you do because you are an ignorant fool.

I don't know what the last 2/3's of that diatribe says cuz I lost interest after the first half dozen delusional statements. Now tell everybody again how special I am to get such preferential treatment from those mean nasty only care about bottom dollar and never patients. Just for the record,  one of the waivers involved an extensive surgery where I was told to expect 10 days inpatient after surgery,  no small financial obligation to them. They approved and paid tens of thousands of dollars just because I'm so special. You are still an ignorant fool.

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Hey Coop
Date:	10/7/2016 2:15:56 PM

Cooper, in this instance you are wrong. The Certificate of Credible Coverage was designed to enable an Insured who was covered under their employers plan and lost coverage when they left their company to obtain coverage at their new employer without a waiting period for pre existing conditions. It is not needed under ACA.

You maybe confusing it with Evidence of Coverage which is basically the effective date of coverage.

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	Hey Goofy
Date:	10/7/2016 2:24:00 PM

I am so glad you finally chimed in on this issue.  Maybe he will realize what a fool he looks like now.  I didn't want to drag you into this previously because I guess I am the only member who knows who you are and that you retired from the insurance industry.

So what say you now you ignorant buffoon? Let me guess,  GF is wrong too. Round here we call that a smack down. I await your apologies.

Name:	RHH -	Reply
Subject:	Hey Goofy
Date:	10/7/2016 3:23:35 PM

I would suggest that everyone slowly and calmly re-read Copper's above remarks as they summarize the situation very well. I am not sure about the pre- existing condition debate. Prior to the ACA insurance companies could refuse to cover for pre-existing conditions. Usually this just meant no coverage for the first year. It is possible that if you switched insurance plans when you went to work for a large company with their own negotiated agreement that your prior condition could have been covered. Big companies (Att, Utilities etc...) can negotiate all sorts of deals that the average small business couldn't obtain.

Name:	copperline -	Reply
Subject:	Hey Coop
Date:	10/7/2016 3:32:29 PM

I don't think I am wrong here, but I will re-examine it.

If I understand what you are saying, the Certificate would be issued by Insurance company A and used to tell Insurance company B that they could not enforce policies related to pre-existing conditions by which they could deny coverage.   I cannot think of any other examples of a corporation issuing a legally binding document that controlled what a competitor could sell, or to limit which of the competitor's exclusions could be enforced on new subscribers.

I have to assume that you also mean that a Certificate of this type was legally enforceable, effectively binding the competing insurance company to do as instructed.   I have not seen a law or state insurance regulation like this before.     Under what legal framework did this Certificate do as you describe?

I can only imagine that there could have been circumstances whereby employer groups agreed to change coverages with the proviso that none of their covered employees would be subject to rejection by the new insurer.   The Certificate of Credible Coverage may have been more useful to negate waiting periods because they would show the time frame of coverage lapses between insurance groups... but did they really negate the threat of pre-existing conditions?

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	None so blind
Date:	10/7/2016 3:47:34 PM

As he who refuses to see. IT WAS FEDERAL LAW!  It wasn't negotiated between  organizes or any of the other garbage you spewed to try and buttress your ignorant argument.  You were,  are,  and always will be wrong.  The law applied to every person covered under any GROUP plan. Just admit you were/are wrong and love on.  You only make yourself out to be a bigger fool than you already look,  which is a YUUGE fool.

I won't bust goofy'identity but he spent his life in the insurance industry at corporate level,  not just an agent or such.  He was executive level with one of the largest insurance companies in the  country.  Just be a man and say OK Lifer you were right all along,  I was wrong and apologize for all the hateful things I said.

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	Hitched to loser
Date:	10/7/2016 4:03:37 PM

This argument has been ongoing for a long time. It was Federal law prior to obammycare. If the certificate was provided when going from one group plan to another there was no exclusion for prior conditions. PERIOD!

You admit you don't know but won't to support a fellow traveler of the liberal doctrine. I DO KNOW!  I used the provision several times through the years. It had nothing to do with company size or negotiating skills.  IT WAS FEDERAL LAW. Any group plan to any group plan qualified.  All one had to do upon denial was request the certificate and provide it to the new company.  It did not even have to be direct from one to another. If you had gaps of no coverage or personal policy it still applied. Any condition PREVIOUSLY COVERED (at any time) was automatically covered immediately under the new group plan. What is so hard to understand about this? Do you think like copper that I am just so special the companies did this just for me?  Copper will never admit this because he wasn't smart enough to use the provision,  or his daughter actually, when the situation arise in his life. I'm sure he feels horrible now finding out he let his poor adult daughter down due to ignorance and lack of research when she needed it. Don't be like him and just disregard what others are telling you. Thousands of people read this site daily and copper is the only one who argues the point.  If I was making it up I'm sure somebody would support him,  but no one has or can. So who you gonna believe,  an ignorant fool who spews talking points,  or someone who LIVED the experience? Plus a retired insurance Executive who backs me up.

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Hey Guys
Date:	10/7/2016 5:39:38 PM

It was required by the law Congress passed called HIPAA in 1996. It was MANDATORY. On this issue ONLY...Fact Checker says Lifer is right.

WHAT IS CREDITABLE COVERAGE?

The concept of creditable coverage is that individuals should be given credit for previous health coverage when moving from one employer group health plan to another, from an employer group health plan to an individual policy, or from certain kinds of individual coverage to an employer group health plan.

Name:	copperline -	Reply
Subject:	Hey Guys
Date:	10/7/2016 5:59:27 PM

OK, I was thinking prior to HIPPA I guess.  HIPPA did add to ease of portability in the case of movement between groups.  

But how is it that I got denied coverage by BC/BS because genetics test predicted I would eventually get cancer & die?   Turned me down flat.   And I had had BC/BS policies throughout my life... And the appeal clearly read that the pre-existing condition exclusion nixed me.    Who was I supposed to talk to about getting a Certificate of Credible coverage?

If folks want to believe that insurance corporations werent' cherry picking subscriber roles by use of pre-existing condition exclusions, life time maximums, etc ... then I probably cant'' convince them otherwise. 

BTW.... I think Lifer has me mixed up with someone else.... I don't have a daughter.

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	Thanks again GF
Date:	10/7/2016 6:19:38 PM

I was thinking it was part of COBRA but am certainly wise enough to listen to an expert.

Now what say you copper? Is goofy lying? Maybe he is just so I won't bust the anonymity he so enjoys on the forum, or at least you can use that excuse because you will never admit that you have been so wrong for so long. But that has never stopped you from showing your ignorance before. Did you really think I was just so special that those insurance companies paid tens of thousands in claims? I'm flattered that you think so highly of me,  but trust me,  you could have used the same provision to obtain the proper coverage for your daughter had you not been egotistical ignorant fool.  How do you feel now? Are you happy now that the taxpayers are subsidizing your daughters care?

I will patiently await your apology, on second thought you don't even have to apologize (like you ever would), just admit that you have been wrong all along.  And remember, goofy is a fellow traveler on your liberal utopia fantasy. Nice guy and I enjoyed the times we met.  Very interesting fellow with a stellar career in insurance and has passed along many great qualities to at least one offspring. I'm sure all his children are great but I only can speak to the one I read about in Vanity Fair (please correct me if that is the wrong periodical GF,  it's been a while).

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	Hey Guys
Date:	10/7/2016 6:22:43 PM (updated 10/7/2016 6:30:30 PM)

It was a tough process to get the certificate,  you had to request it with a phone call so I can see how it might have been above your capabilities.

You are right, it is archy who whines because his daughter couldn't get coverage. Point is,  YOU ARE BOTH WRONG!

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	COOP FYI
Date:	10/7/2016 7:47:20 PM

FYI