for guys in the US, will obamacare make you rethink being poz or wanting to get poz?

[rawTOP]

On the same prevention note it can be argued that PReP is a treatment course potentially used for an intentional exposure, and anybody attempting homosexual relations is deliberate in such exposure. Thus not a subject to be covered, not a pre-existing condition; and any intentional action, or that can be labeled as intentional, by a subject of insurance business can be excluded from compensation by letter of a law argued by a lawer for either side.

Wrong again. Injuries that happen while insured are always covered no matter how they happen. This is how things work now and that's not going to change. Have you ever heard of someone being denied medical care because they got an injury while rock climbing, or their diabetes wasn't covered because they ate too much and let themselves get fat, or lung cancer not covered because they got it by smoking? The answer to all of those is 'no' unless it was a pre-existing condition at the time they signed up for the plan - and the ACA takes that option off the table.

I have not seen any competitiveness (to my current employer rate) in rates provided through few exchanges online though.

The ACA doesn't really address employer plans except to make sure they meet certain minimum qualifications. It also gives small businesses the option to get their insurance through the state exchange. So, for example, I'm insured through my husband's plan at work. He's in a union and works for the City of New York - so the plan is negotiated by the City and the union - there are tens of thousands of people in their risk pool - there is no reason for those rates to change.

It's not about strikes, RT, unless you want it to be.

Yes, it is about strikes. I don't tolerate people talking nonsense on this site. If you continually argue points that have no basis in fact you will be banned. Consider this your warning.

And BTW, the NY State exchange is working really well. A lot of this problems are the result of the Republicans refusing to manage the exchanges for their states - they put the onus on the federal government hoping they'd fail. Unfortunately, the federal government did fail - with the website at least. But the success in states like New York shows that the concept is sound and the problems are just technical in nature and will go away in time.

[MexPigMaster]

I don't understand why these tea baggers don't want universal health care (except for themselves, of course). Skinster reminds me of the extremely obese woman riding a power chair to a tea party rally. When the reporter asked her who paid for the chair, she said Medicaid. And yes , she hated that SOCIALIST AFRICAN-BORN Obama!

Edited November 26, 2013 by MexPigMaster

[barefootbob]

This is why I started this thread. there is information, disinformation, uncertainty and complexity associated with ACA. I've been told that there are some provisions in ACA which states, if your current health care coverage doesn't provide for XXXXX, then you loose your benefits. for instance, something like prenatal care, if my health insurance doesn't provide for it then ACA steps in and makes us go to one which does.

[kinkygradstudent]

This is why I started this thread. there is information, disinformation, uncertainty and complexity associated with ACA. I've been told that there are some provisions in ACA which states, if your current health care coverage doesn't provide for XXXXX, then you loose your benefits. for instance, something like prenatal care, if my health insurance doesn't provide for it then ACA steps in and makes us go to one which does.

Given that I haven't been able to get health insurance for years because of pre-existing conditions - the ACA is a big improvement for me.

[kinkygradstudent]

Given my pre-existing conditions, I haven't been able to purchase insurance at any cost for many years. I had the option of going through a "major risk pool" but it was over $1000/month for coverage that way. By comparison, the prices offered through the insurance exchanges seem like a great improvement to me.

[kinkygradstudent]

I believe that Medicaid covers PrEP, at least the last time I asked about it.

In general, most people I know have gotten PrEP covered by their insurance - they just needed a doctor's prescription.

The San Bernardino public health official you spoke with is incompetent. The ACA plans being offered in California were drawn up months ago. Full plan terms have been posted on Covered California, our state's insurance exchange Web site, since October. It is simply a question of reading the documents for each company's plan -- and calling the insurer if a plan includes a drug formulary (a list of specific drugs). Why so many people speculate about coverage instead of reading the documents, I don't understand. Barring a categorical exclusion written into a health plan, Truvada for PrEP, as an FDA-approved drug use, must be covered under the same terms that a plan uses for other prescription drugs (and in this case, for lab tests, a necessary part of the PrEP regimen).

Medicaid/Medi-Cal for very-low-income patients is a different matter, but there especially, there will be a regulation, manual or circular describing exactly what is covered.

One sad fact emerges: gay men in suburban and rural areas get bad medical advice and inferior care because their doctors lack experience treating large numbers of gay patients. I live in the East Bay -- 20 minutes away from San Francisco's City Clinic and Department of Public Health, pioneers in HIV prevention, testing and treatment -- and you should hear the terrible advice my uninsured friend got when he sought care on our side of the Bay after he had sero-converted. In medical matters, it pays to live in -- or receive care in -- a place where there is a concentration of gay men. Your life may depend on it!