View Single Post
      03-29-2017, 08:48 AM   #6
Lieutenant Colonel

Drives: 2016 228iX
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Upstate NY

iTrader: (0)

That is an example of the spin job that they do to make you feel secure, when you really aren't. As we sit, I believe that pre-existing conditions have some protection, but not if you "let" your coverage lapse (including if they raise costs so far that you can't afford it), and they can still raise rates some because of them. There is also a big deal around the term "no EXCLUSION" for pre-existings - this means without rate limits, they can charge you whatever they want, but can't flat out deny you a policy (this is really not much protection, if they can charge you rates like $5-10k/month, a disabled sick person is unlikely to be able to pay, so they won't be covered). But don't worry, our fearless 1%'ers in Washington are busy working on that - the new versions are having no rate protection, raising rates beyond subsidies so that 'high risk' groups like anybody over 55 will start to have pretty significant gaps (extra they have to pay), and allowing massive penalties if you 'let it lapse' because you can't pay. I'm hoping that they start publicizing the congressional health coverage plan, because it is so much better than a typical insurance coverage (did you hear about Jesse Jackson Jr. getting lifetime disability of about $100k/year because he claims his bipolar was 'caused by stress of gov't service' - a disorder that is considered to be genetic? or Gabby Giffords getting years of individual residential rehab for her brain injury - on Blue Cross you'd be lucky to get 60 days, and not at that facility).

People really have little understanding of how complicated the healthcare business is, and how many loopholes exist to be exploited by insurance companies - remember that this is an area where their fiduciary duty to their stockholders creates a vested interest in reducing the costs or amounts of service used (i.e. healthcare for customers) - kind of a moral dilemma if you ask me. They have experts who pick over these details to find innocuous looking things to exclude, knowing it will create big 'savings' (i.e. they pay for an IV drug, but not for the nurse to administer it, or the special labs to ensure you are safe taking it, so rather than pay the $500 fee, you choose a cheaper and probably weaker drug that doesn't need an IV). This won't get fixed until we return control of the industry to true elected representatives of the customers, who can work with experts to provide a really good coverage; and a big part is universal coverage - finding ways to exclude sick people has become a huge part of the industry.