2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

I, too am concerned about how the change in rules covering pre-existing conditions will be handled.

I am 49, and I suffered a stroke over 1-1/2 years ago.  I have fully recovered (the medical term is that I 'show no neural deficit' -- although at the time the impact was profound).  My doctors and specialists have determined the cause, and are completely confident that it was a one-time event, and I am at no more risk of further complications than an average man my age, and in fact, because of my general health and other factors, I probably am at LESS risk of future similar related problems.

I am now unemployed, and am paying (subsidized) COBRA (and have never had a lapse in coverage in my life).  I would LIKE to start a company (as an entrepreneur), but have been assured by my doctors that 'til now I would not be able to get private insurance, owing to my situation and medical history.

In effect, this situation is forcing me to find employment at a company that offers reasonable medical coverage, as opposed to starting a new small business.  It is my understanding that it is generally acknowledged that small business growth is the engine that first fuels an economic recovery.

However, I believe there is no such thing as a free lunch -- Are we to believe that this change will come without other adverse impact or otherwise shifted expenses?

Also:

Thank You for referring to the bill that was passed as "Health Insurance reform" and not "Health Care reform" -- there is MUCH more to be done to reform Health Care, and with so much money at stake, we can be sure that the existing interests will be fighting mightily to make sure they (continue?) to get what they *each* see as 'their fair shares' of the considerable pie.

posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context