Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let's not forget how insurers gamed the system to their benefit in denying pre-existing conditions.
Even if you had an employer that offered a health insurance policy, you could still be denied.
Quote:
A lot of people only found out that the pre-Obamacare individual health insurance market was different when they got laid off from work and lost their group coverage. Not only did they almost always experience sticker shock (no employer subsidy meant they had to pay the entire premium themselves), many of them found out they couldn’t buy coverage at any price because of a pre-existing condition.
400 ways to be denied coverage
Insurance companies maintained a very long list of conditions that could trigger a coverage denial letter. Not only that, but they also had scores if not hundreds or thousands of underwriters who did nothing more than make decisions about applicants’ suitability for coverage. If underwriters felt applicants might be a bad risk – in other words, might need medical care – the insurer could and often did send them rejection letters.
A Congressional investigation into this practice during the health care reform debate uncovered more than 400 medical diagnoses or conditions that insurers used to justify a coverage denial. At the top of the list were these (although not necessarily in this order as they varied from insurer to insurer):
The Congressional investigation was limited to four insurers (Aetna, Humana, UnitedHealthcare and WellPoint/Anthem) and covered only a three-year period: 2007-2009. It found that just those four companies had denied coverage to 651,000 people – one of every seven who applied – because of pre-existing conditions. It also found the rate of denials was increasing at the companies every year.
Pre-existing condition denials were on the rise
The investigators wrote this in a memo about their findings:
A year-by-year analysis shows a significant increase in the number of coverage denials each year. The insurance companies denied coverage to 172,400 people in 2007 and 221,400 people in 2008. By 2009, the number of individuals denied coverage rose to 257,100. Between 2007 and 2009, the number of people denied coverage for pre-existing conditions increased 49 percent. During the same period, applications for insurance coverage at the four companies increased by only 16 percent.
That's where it was before ObamaCare.
Insurers found nice profit margins by denying coverage.
Past behavior being a good indicator of future behavior; it's not hard to guess where insurers will find their margins and drive a truck through it.
S/he doesn't understand it because it doesn't fit with his preconceived opinions.
If there are any lurkers here, I hope they are learning a very important lesson about knowing what your COBRA payment will be if you are laid off before it happens and ensuring that you have that money set aside in an emergency fund just as you do for your other living expenses.
On another note, this day has absolutely sucked for me. A man just rear-ended my car while I was completely stopped waiting to merge from my neighborhood onto to a busy cross road. He wasn't carrying his auto insurance information. Let's hope that he follows through on his promise to provide it by e-mail tonight, so I can get the claim filed and the repairs scheduled promptly. I did photograph his license plate, registration, and driver's license, so I will hunt him down if he flakes. Last time my car was in an accident, it was a hit and run, and I ended up paying the entire deductible.
To those who oppose the ACA how would you deal with people with pre-existing conditions with your health plan?
Add a law that prohibits ins companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. The law can add certain limitations.
It would eat into the ins co profits and raise premiums for all, but the ins cos would ALSO have the freedom to charge a higher premium to those with pre-existing conditions, which is fair.
It's that simple. The ACA was not required to get pre-existing conditions covered.
Add a law that prohibits ins companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. The law can add certain limitations.
It would eat into the ins co profits and raise premiums for all, but the ins cos would ALSO have the freedom to charge a higher premium to those with pre-existing conditions, which is fair.
It's that simple. The ACA was not required to get pre-existing conditions covered.
You pay your premiums for years in good faith, you're laid off, and then your next insurance company gets to charge you more, because it's only fair? How so? Again, de-couple insurance from employment for the good of all.
Illegal immigrants are not really stealing American manufacturing jobs. They didn't go to illegals in this country.. they were taken Outside the country. Most illegals do grunt work that many americans don't want to do
As for bringing HB1 visa workers in - many are working in fields in which there is not enough talent to draw from .. particularly in fields of engineering. We need to refocus our education on math and sciences .. and we also need to move to more vocational trade rather than just encouraging very expensive 4 year college degrees that, when you graduate, you can't find a job.
Trump, ironically, brings in workers to build his hotels.. and THAT kind of labor he could probably readily find here in the U.S. BUt he thinks Americans make too much money (he said so) and so he brings in foreign cheaper labor to work in his hotels maximizing his profit. I call that greed over country.
I think moving to a unverisal health care system will help job growth. Here in PA the average employer contribution to an employees premium for health care is approx $13K.
No that's bs companies want H1B workers because they pay them less. There's plenty of people getting into engineering into the US. Trump was talking about this issue this very week.
You pay your premiums for years in good faith, you're laid off, and then your next insurance company gets to charge you more, because it's only fair? How so? Again, de-couple insurance from employment for the good of all.
I totally agree it should not be tied to employment or a specific company at all. When you get hired it should just be another federal tax line on your paystub like Social Security and Medicare is. It should have nothing to do with the company you're working for whatsoever. If you get laid off or something, you go on Medicare while you're laid off. We've all been paying into Medicare since the day we started working just like SS.
Let's not forget how insurers gamed the system to their benefit in denying pre-existing conditions.
Even if you had an employer that offered a health insurance policy, you could still be denied.
That's where it was before ObamaCare.
Insurers found nice profit margins by denying coverage. Past behavior being a good indicator of future behavior; it's not hard to guess where insurers will find their margins and drive a truck through it.
I would suggest that part of the reason the ins. co. denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions 31% was because people in the country have been becoming increasingly unhealthy. Obese, metabolic syndrome resulting from obesity, diabetes type 2 resulting from lifestyle, eating more and more fast food, high blood pressure, high cholesterol....and scoffing at a President because he ate salads and his wife promoted eating healthy.
With the advent of Obamacare, the insurance and monetary reasons for many to get healthier ceased to be. They could continue their unhealthy lifestyles while others paid the high premiums for them. No accountability. No incentive to get healthier.
It's easy to require ins cos to insure those with pre-existing conditions. You simply pass a law that prohibits them from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. In fact, some companies before the ACA DID sell ins. in a high risk pool. The rates were outrageous, but that's because they were based on the outrageously high and continual claims those insureds turned in.
The ACA was not passed for the purpose of getting pre-existing condition people insured. The ACA wasn't necessary for that. It was passed to get coverage for the working class (with or w/o pre-existing conditions). Although a lot of lip service was given to pre-existing conditions at the time.
I'm sure if everyone puts their heads together, they can also address the unaffordable high premiums for those with pre-existing conditions. Charging someone ELSE a higher premium for YOUR high claims is flatly unfair and unacceptable. But maybe they could require the ins. cos. to spread a percentage of the high premiums to all insureds, while still maintaining most of the high premiums where they belong: with the person with the high claims.
Untrue! Have you ever had to use COBRA? If so, you know it is very expensive for everyone! Company provided insurance does not require people with certain health conditions to pay more.
As a caring and rich society with the resources and the means of production we can rise above, if we so desire.
I desire.
It is easy for me as I am rich.
It is also easy for me as I and my family are sick and dependent on good and expensive HC.
As for me and my family we have paid our way. Either through taxes or through expensive private individual HC insurance.
I cannot expect everyone to be able to pay their way like we have done. And of course I cannot expect everyone to agree to go this route.
This is why I prefer a public option and let free markets exist as they and some here want to chose.
Notice how liberals always say "our society is so rich that I will volunteer its resources"? They never say "I will volunteer my own resources." What a giving person you are, to generously volunteer $2 trillion of not your own money! If only there were some sort of award we could bestow upon you for your generosity. At least a gala or something?
Add a law that prohibits ins companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. The law can add certain limitations.
It would eat into the ins co profits and raise premiums for all, but the ins cos would ALSO have the freedom to charge a higher premium to those with pre-existing conditions, which is fair.
It's that simple. The ACA was not required to get pre-existing conditions covered.
That's where the easiest profits will be made.
Keep expanding the list of pre-existing conditions and up the premiums year on year.
They'll crack that wide open in no time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
