Asthma, acne, eczema, type 1 diabetes.. . All preexisting conditions. How would you like your kid to be denied insurance because he had one or more of those?
SevenFive -If the argument is that healthcare would be a better use of government money than other things then that would be a valid argument. Arguing that there is some sort of "right" to having the government pay for your care is asinine.
Because the government works so hard for their money, they shouldn't have to spend it on us
Bad Monkey -turducken -Flavorful -Actually agree with Trump on this one. You don't get car insurance after you get into an accident. Likewise for health insurance. People are waiting until they're sick and then expect insurance. Unfair to the rest ofm us.
We also need to change Reagan's bone-headed law that states hospitals have to treat you on the taxpayer's dime.
Time for individual responsibility.
You also have no perspective. What happens is that someone WITH insurance is diagnosed with a horrible illness. Towards the end of that year they get a letter from their insurance company saying their coverage will not be renewed and they are being dropped from the policy. They now have a "preexisting condition" and can't get covered again
This is not true.
This is true if the person if outside of Ocare, or Health Insurance through their employer. If someone is outisde of open enrollment or do not have a QLE(qualifying life event) then they have to get a Short Term Plan or a Hospital Idemnity Plan. The HIP plan pays a fixed benefit per occurence(100.00 per Dr visit) and so on. That is a continuous plan that would not be cancelled or have to be renewed. The benefts are minimal. A STM on the other hand is 90 day coverage, much like you would have with OCare without covering pre-existing conditions. The Obama admin initailly limited these plans to 90 days to force people to sign up for Ocare.
They rules have changed recently. Depending on the state and Insurance Co, you can sign up for anywhere from 1-4 90 day STM plans per year. Here is the answer to your question. If you have a 90 day STM plan, get injured or sick, then your coverage is pretty much going to be limited to those 90 days, because any condition carried over to the next 90 days would be considered pre-exisiting. With that being said, if you live in a state or go to an Insurance Co that allows you to sign up for more than just 90 days, then the condition from the first 90 days would be covered.
Hope this helps.
darkness66 -Asthma, acne, eczema, type 1 diabetes.. . All preexisting conditions. How would you like your kid to be denied insurance because he had one or more of those?
The only one of these that would not be covered is Type 1 diabetes.
darkness66 -Asthma, acne, eczema, type 1 diabetes.. . All preexisting conditions. How would you like your kid to be denied insurance because he had one or more of those?
The pre-existing condition stuff only came up with obamacare IIRC. I believe it mostly relates to serious diseases like cancer. I never heard of any cases where people get denied treatment for acne because they had acne before getting insurance.
Bad Monkey -camicom -I sell Health Insurance for a living.
Make almost no money selling Ocare.
Make a lot of money selling Short Term, Hospital Idemnity Plans, and Supplemental.
Open for questions...
Why is turducken such a bitch?
He doesn't understand that I get calls from 22 year old women who are pregnant with their third child and are angry that they can't get insurance to foot the bill outside of Ocare.
There are more than enough state and federal programs out there that would help cover someone with cancer or major illness.
Soup and Beer -darkness66 -Asthma, acne, eczema, type 1 diabetes.. . All preexisting conditions. How would you like your kid to be denied insurance because he had one or more of those?
The pre-existing condition stuff only came up with obamacare IIRC. I believe it mostly relates to serious diseases like cancer. I never heard of any cases where people get denied treatment for acne because they had acne before getting insurance.
Correct, and within the last 5 years.
darkness66 -SevenFive -If the argument is that healthcare would be a better use of government money than other things then that would be a valid argument. Arguing that there is some sort of "right" to having the government pay for your care is asinine.
Because the government works so hard for their money, they shouldn't have to spend it on us
You missed the point. If the government were to budget it in by not spending so much on other things then that would be great, but the government doesn't "owe" us nor do we have a "right" to free healthcare.
camicom -Bad Monkey -turducken -Flavorful -Actually agree with Trump on this one. You don't get car insurance after you get into an accident. Likewise for health insurance. People are waiting until they're sick and then expect insurance. Unfair to the rest ofm us.
We also need to change Reagan's bone-headed law that states hospitals have to treat you on the taxpayer's dime.
Time for individual responsibility.
You also have no perspective. What happens is that someone WITH insurance is diagnosed with a horrible illness. Towards the end of that year they get a letter from their insurance company saying their coverage will not be renewed and they are being dropped from the policy. They now have a "preexisting condition" and can't get covered again
This is not true.
This is true if the person if outside of Ocare, or Health Insurance through their employer. If someone is outisde of open enrollment or do not have a QLE(qualifying life event) then they have to get a Short Term Plan or a Hospital Idemnity Plan. The HIP plan pays a fixed benefit per occurence(100.00 per Dr visit) and so on. That is a continuous plan that would not be cancelled or have to be renewed. The benefts are minimal. A STM on the other hand is 90 day coverage, much like you would have with OCare without covering pre-existing conditions. The Obama admin initailly limited these plans to 90 days to force people to sign up for Ocare.
They rules have changed recently. Depending on the state and Insurance Co, you can sign up for anywhere from 1-4 90 day STM plans per year. Here is the answer to your question. If you have a 90 day STM plan, get injured or sick, then your coverage is pretty much going to be limited to those 90 days, because any condition carried over to the next 90 days would be considered pre-exisiting. With that being said, if you live in a state or go to an Insurance Co that allows you to sign up for more than just 90 days, then the condition from the first 90 days would be covered.
Hope this helps.
Ok, I’ve only been covered through work. I have an indemnity plan privately that I never use. But the part I was calling out as untrue is that you would be notified of an impending cancellation, and have an opportunity to source a new insurance provider, this no gap in coverage . Whether or not it would be priced in a way one could reasonably be expected to afford it is another matter.
Bad Monkey -camicom -Bad Monkey -turducken -Flavorful -Actually agree with Trump on this one. You don't get car insurance after you get into an accident. Likewise for health insurance. People are waiting until they're sick and then expect insurance. Unfair to the rest ofm us.
We also need to change Reagan's bone-headed law that states hospitals have to treat you on the taxpayer's dime.
Time for individual responsibility.
You also have no perspective. What happens is that someone WITH insurance is diagnosed with a horrible illness. Towards the end of that year they get a letter from their insurance company saying their coverage will not be renewed and they are being dropped from the policy. They now have a "preexisting condition" and can't get covered again
This is not true.
This is true if the person if outside of Ocare, or Health Insurance through their employer. If someone is outisde of open enrollment or do not have a QLE(qualifying life event) then they have to get a Short Term Plan or a Hospital Idemnity Plan. The HIP plan pays a fixed benefit per occurence(100.00 per Dr visit) and so on. That is a continuous plan that would not be cancelled or have to be renewed. The benefts are minimal. A STM on the other hand is 90 day coverage, much like you would have with OCare without covering pre-existing conditions. The Obama admin initailly limited these plans to 90 days to force people to sign up for Ocare.
They rules have changed recently. Depending on the state and Insurance Co, you can sign up for anywhere from 1-4 90 day STM plans per year. Here is the answer to your question. If you have a 90 day STM plan, get injured or sick, then your coverage is pretty much going to be limited to those 90 days, because any condition carried over to the next 90 days would be considered pre-exisiting. With that being said, if you live in a state or go to an Insurance Co that allows you to sign up for more than just 90 days, then the condition from the first 90 days would be covered.
Hope this helps.
Ok, I’ve only been covered through work. I have an indemnity plan privately that I never use. But the part I was calling out as untrue is that you would be notified of an impending cancellation, and have an opportunity to source a new insurance provider, this no gap in coverage . Whether or not it would be priced in a way one could reasonably be expected to afford it is another matter.
Yes, if you were losing your coverage from your employer you would have a QLE and be able to start with OCARE or state equivalent.
Flavorful -UltimateKeyboardWarrior -ksacs revenge -"People are waiting until they're sick and then expect insurance. Unfair to the rest ofm us."
We could try mandating the purchase of health insurance.
.......and forcing the taxpayer to pay for the deadbeats.
Problem is the taxpayer is paying for the deadbeats either way. Reagan signed into law the mandate that hospitals must treat patients who walk in uninsured. Guess who pays for that?
It also doesnt help that hospitals get to make up what they charge.
Went to the ER for a rash that started on my chest and was moving downstairs so i got scared lol.
Waited about 2 hours in the waiting room only to be taken to a area only with a curtain. Showed a nurse the rash and she told me about some over the counter stuff that would get rid of it.
$1400 bill in the mail.
$1400 to show a nurse my chest and her take off in 2 minutes.
SevenFive -darkness66 -SevenFive -If the argument is that healthcare would be a better use of government money than other things then that would be a valid argument. Arguing that there is some sort of "right" to having the government pay for your care is asinine.
Because the government works so hard for their money, they shouldn't have to spend it on us
You missed the point. If the government were to budget it in by not spending so much on other things then that would be great, but the government doesn't "owe" us nor do we have a "right" to free healthcare.
Ok but then why does the government require hospitals to treat people with no insurance?
And why does it have soo many other programs that tax payers pay that people have no right to?
As someone who is likely going to die of cancer, I would never expect a company to insure me after my diagnosis. They're not in business to help me. They're in business to make money. Is this ideal for me? Fuck no. Is it the reality of the situation? Yes.
Altofsky -As someone who is likely going to die of cancer, I would never expect a company to insure me after my diagnosis. They're not in business to help me. They're in business to make money. Is this ideal for me? Fuck no. Is it the reality of the situation? Yes.
Well said. There are also critical illness plans that people can buy for peanuts if they want to cover themselves for a cancer diagnosis later on.
Sorry for your diagnosis man. Hope you beat it.
Altofsky -As someone who is likely going to die of cancer, I would never expect a company to insure me after my diagnosis. They're not in business to help me. They're in business to make money. Is this ideal for me? Fuck no. Is it the reality of the situation? Yes.
That's the problem and a perfect example of why private for profit companies are not the solution to every problem. We don't want police departments to only show up when they can seize assets or otherwise make a profit, why do we want that with health care? There should be a public option. If you have money and want to stick with privatized insurance and care then do so, if you don't then there should at least be a public option.
I have a child with a pre existing condition that is considered a terminal illness. Not every person applying for insurance is an irresponsible unhealthy slob, but nice way to generalize a whole group of people into the most negative light.
fade2007 -SevenFive -darkness66 -SevenFive -If the argument is that healthcare would be a better use of government money than other things then that would be a valid argument. Arguing that there is some sort of "right" to having the government pay for your care is asinine.
Because the government works so hard for their money, they shouldn't have to spend it on us
You missed the point. If the government were to budget it in by not spending so much on other things then that would be great, but the government doesn't "owe" us nor do we have a "right" to free healthcare.
Ok but then why does the government require hospitals to treat people with no insurance?
And why does it have soo many other programs that tax payers pay that people have no right to?
Because the government was out of line. By forcing hospitals to treat everyone they tied themselves to subsidizing the care through Medicare and Medicaid.
As far as your second question, the main reason is that they are either buying votes or buying campaign donations by spending the way they do.
fade2007 -Flavorful -UltimateKeyboardWarrior -ksacs revenge -"People are waiting until they're sick and then expect insurance. Unfair to the rest ofm us."
We could try mandating the purchase of health insurance.
.......and forcing the taxpayer to pay for the deadbeats.
Problem is the taxpayer is paying for the deadbeats either way. Reagan signed into law the mandate that hospitals must treat patients who walk in uninsured. Guess who pays for that?
It also doesnt help that hospitals get to make up what they charge.
Went to the ER for a rash that started on my chest and was moving downstairs so i got scared lol.
Waited about 2 hours in the waiting room only to be taken to a area only with a curtain. Showed a nurse the rash and she told me about some over the counter stuff that would get rid of it.
$1400 bill in the mail.
$1400 to show a nurse my chest and her take off in 2 minutes.
But if you had insurance, the insurance company would probably only pay between $140-300 for what you’re being charged $1400.
Somehow the insurance company gets to decide what they will pay, but we are fucked if it’s on us.
ABCTT_Ninpo Silva -I have a child with a pre existing condition that is considered a terminal illness. Not every person applying for insurance is an irresponsible unhealthy slob, but nice way to generalize a whole group of people into the most negative light.
Then you can cover your child with your work insurance policy, or you can get Ocare.
camicom -Bad Monkey -camicom -Bad Monkey -turducken -Flavorful -Actually agree with Trump on this one. You don't get car insurance after you get into an accident. Likewise for health insurance. People are waiting until they're sick and then expect insurance. Unfair to the rest ofm us.
We also need to change Reagan's bone-headed law that states hospitals have to treat you on the taxpayer's dime.
Time for individual responsibility.
You also have no perspective. What happens is that someone WITH insurance is diagnosed with a horrible illness. Towards the end of that year they get a letter from their insurance company saying their coverage will not be renewed and they are being dropped from the policy. They now have a "preexisting condition" and can't get covered again
This is not true.
This is true if the person if outside of Ocare, or Health Insurance through their employer. If someone is outisde of open enrollment or do not have a QLE(qualifying life event) then they have to get a Short Term Plan or a Hospital Idemnity Plan. The HIP plan pays a fixed benefit per occurence(100.00 per Dr visit) and so on. That is a continuous plan that would not be cancelled or have to be renewed. The benefts are minimal. A STM on the other hand is 90 day coverage, much like you would have with OCare without covering pre-existing conditions. The Obama admin initailly limited these plans to 90 days to force people to sign up for Ocare.
They rules have changed recently. Depending on the state and Insurance Co, you can sign up for anywhere from 1-4 90 day STM plans per year. Here is the answer to your question. If you have a 90 day STM plan, get injured or sick, then your coverage is pretty much going to be limited to those 90 days, because any condition carried over to the next 90 days would be considered pre-exisiting. With that being said, if you live in a state or go to an Insurance Co that allows you to sign up for more than just 90 days, then the condition from the first 90 days would be covered.
Hope this helps.
Ok, I’ve only been covered through work. I have an indemnity plan privately that I never use. But the part I was calling out as untrue is that you would be notified of an impending cancellation, and have an opportunity to source a new insurance provider, this no gap in coverage . Whether or not it would be priced in a way one could reasonably be expected to afford it is another matter.
Yes, if you were losing your coverage from your employer you would have a QLE and be able to start with OCARE or state equivalent.
Under what circumstances would you have your insurance dropped due to your deteriorating health occurring while insured and not have the opportunity to find new insurance, this eliminating the gap in coverage.