[REPANDPROUDOFIT]

When my husband was laid off/retired, we took out Cobra - expensive, but do-able. It was good for 18 months and we were very aware that we could not let it lapse. Going without coverage for a specific amount of time would nullify the requirement that our new policy had to cover our pre-existing conditions. If we let it lapse, the new policy could and would exclude coverage of anything that happened prior. By maintaining constant coverage, we were able to get a new policy that covered all of our conditions.

It isn't fair to simply say, insurance companies won't cover people with pre-existing conditions or that they won't cover those particular conditions. Many times, it is simply up to the individual to do the responsible thing and keep coverage current.

Why don't we hear the insurance companies defend these positions? Where have they been throughout this whole debate?

[ntmxx]

“…Why don’t we hear the insurance companies defend these positions…”

They’ve been demonized and are in a no win position; besides when/if this Marxist-care program goes into effect they will position themselves as a value-added system, cherry picking what the government does not cover. Which will not be too difficult, as I pointed out the government can only means test, restrict/deny while taxing arbitrarily in the name of fairness for the masses. Somehow I don’t really believe the government can manage or handle medical coverage, look how social security and medicare are run to start with, they make dictates and have the rest of the medical system cover the business.