So she would have been covered before the ACA?

Post #413,778 by malraux 9/21/16 10:17:25 AM 9/21/16 10:17:25 AM Reply	So she would have been covered before the ACA? Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #413,786 by mmoffitt 9/21/16 1:34:38 PM 9/21/16 1:34:38 PM Reply	24 by law, but some plans it would have been 26. Both with no restrictions on pre-existing. This "you lose on your birthday" makes no damned sense at all. I PAID for her coverage through September ferchrissakes. Why TF was the law written to allow that? It should have been canceled on the next billing cycle after the 26th birthday. Being the corporate POS the ACA is however, the private insurer gets to REDUCE the risk associated with a plan and KEEP the money made from assuming that risk. It is bullshit plain and simple.
Post #413,789 by rcareaga 9/21/16 2:07:42 PM 9/21/16 2:07:42 PM Reply	OK, so you paid through the end of the month Get back to us a week from Saturday with a detailed account of the practical hardships you and your daughter have endured by then as a consequence of her coverage lapsing today rather than ten days from now. How will your lives have been different during this period* than they would have been had the private insurer kept her enrolled until the thirtieth? Because it sounds to me that you're screaming about having been nicked for the cost of a third of a month's coverage: a petty piece of bean-counterly greed, but scarcely the cosmic injustice and indictment of the PPACA you make it out to be. cordially, *Obviously, if your adult child should happen to be mowed down by a practicing Rastafarian Uber driver on Friday—unlikely, of course, but caution her to look both ways before stepping into the crosswalk—then the insurer makes out like a bandit, and your cries to heaven carry with them some extra moral force. But absent something like this or the sudden onset of a serious illness, it's hard to see how you've been significantly harmed outside of elevated blood pressure, which your continuing coverage can presumably address.
Post #413,790 by mmoffitt 9/21/16 2:12:19 PM 9/21/16 2:12:19 PM Reply	I'd expect that attitude from a Hillary supporter. "Paying corporations for nothing isn't really all that terrible." Have I got that right?
Post #413,794 by rcareaga 9/21/16 2:37:27 PM 9/21/16 2:37:27 PM Reply	FIFY "Paying corporations for nothing isn't really all that ~~terrible~~ unusual." It happens. So? Did I say that this was a good thing? I did not. I observed merely that your shrieks of righteous indignation were incommensurate with the novelty or, for that matter, the gravity of the offense. I paid CaesarCare half a grand last month. The household did not avail itself of any of CaesarCare's panoply of services: not an office visit, nor a phone call, nor an email, not so much as a prescription renewal. In tangible terms, I paid something for nothing. Intangibly, I suppose you may regard yourself out of having been swindled out of peace of mind for the next ten days. If that's the worst thing that happens to you this year, count yourself lucky. cordially,
Post #413,795 by mmoffitt 9/21/16 4:24:48 PM 9/21/16 4:28:21 PM Reply	But you DID get something. If you'd been severely injured on the 101 and had to be flown to hospital for treatment, it would have been vastly less expensive for you to get that care and at the same time the likelihood of you being refused admission for "lack of coverage" had been eliminated. While we may agree that half a grand is a pretty steep price to pay for that, it is at least something. The difference here is that I paid for that little something and I am not getting it. It would seem to me that the least I could expect would be to receive the "insurance" I paid for and I don't think it's unreasonable of me to expect it. (Aside: I at least got just shy of 3/4's of what I paid for with this daughter, but my other daughter was born on the third of the month. Is that equally "okay" as well? Paying for 30 days of coverage and getting two? And it gets worse. That year, I won't be able to switch from a "family" plan to an "Employee and Spouse" plan for six months because you can't switch plans until renewal time and so I'll be paying inflated profits to a private corporation above and beyond even what the ACA itself dictates!) But the ACA was written by and for profit driven corporations who have injected themselves (by federal law now) into our healthcare delivery system and this is the result. Because we are ruled by our corporate masters, even the most myopic of minds could have come up with an "Obama compromise" that didn't leave people in the ditch. The law could have been written to include a "Public Option Rider for Catastrophic Coverage." His corporate masters would have loved that for the simple reason that private health insurers would be off-the-hook for catastrophic claims and the consumer could have at least had the comfort of knowing that he could receive care for trauma at a substantially lower cost (through the government plan) than he could through a for profit scheme. As it is, the waitresses, bartenders, common laborers, grad students working part-time, etc. that I know cannot afford even the most inexpensive plans because of the built-in profit the ACA demands for private health insurers. Even with the diminishing influx of money from the taxpayers going into "supplements." So they go without. But, better they should die for lack of coverage than to reach into the pockets of the monied class for a few pennies, right? Edited by mmoffitt Sept. 21, 2016, 04:28:21 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #413,802 by rcareaga 9/21/16 7:27:26 PM 9/21/16 7:27:26 PM Reply	What part of "tangible terms" was unclear?
Post #413,806 by mmoffitt 9/22/16 8:41:35 AM 9/22/16 8:41:35 AM Reply	What part of "no tangible thing != nothing" is unclear? And it's only chance that you received to tangible thing. You had a path to receive a tangible thing that I also paid to receive on behalf of my daughter that I did not receive.
Post #413,812 by boxley 9/22/16 12:51:27 PM 9/22/16 12:51:27 PM Reply	you are betting hundreds of dollars every month that you will get a dread disease. You lose monthly always look out for number one and don't step in number two
Post #413,815 by mmoffitt 9/22/16 1:12:09 PM 9/22/16 1:12:56 PM Reply	I'm not so worried about myself. The top five leading causes of death among White 25 to 29 year old females: 1. Accidents (nearly 4 times number 2 on this list) 2. Suicide 3. Malignant neoplasm 4. Heart disease 5. Assault Edit: Source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/lcwk1_2014.pdf Edited by mmoffitt Sept. 22, 2016, 01:12:56 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #413,791 by malraux 9/21/16 2:16:12 PM 9/21/16 2:16:12 PM Reply	So.... You're bitching because she's now entitled to 2 more years coverage by law, but the law's authors messed up and allowed a loophole that screwed you out of 10 days of coverage. Must have been definite intent to Do Evil on part of a corporate tool, you're absolutely correct. Couldn't possibly have been an oversight. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #413,792 by mmoffitt 9/21/16 2:18:55 PM 9/21/16 2:18:55 PM Reply	This bad, it had to be intentional. The ACA allows for 3 separate entities to decide what the last day of coverage is; 1) The healthcare plan provider. 2) The state. 3) The employer. That has to be intentionally daft.
Post #413,793 by malraux 9/21/16 2:37:23 PM 9/21/16 2:37:23 PM Reply	Never ascribe to malice, etc. Deaf ears, I know. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #413,796 by mmoffitt 9/21/16 4:30:24 PM 9/21/16 4:30:37 PM Reply	Come on, nobody's that thick. ;0) Edited by mmoffitt Sept. 21, 2016, 04:30:37 PM EDT Expand All History

Welcome to IWETHEY!