The President's manipulation of pre-existing conditions

PDOP ^ | 09/10/09 | J Brown

[Jabrown]

It is difficult to create credibility within a speech when you begin that speech by manipulating the facts surrounding a health insurance companies right to cancel coverage and the application of Pre-existing conditions. Last night, President Obama did both and within two minutes of the start of his speech he set the stage of a statistically inaccurate and misleading presentation of the facts surrounding health care.

The President and congressional leaders have continued to create the perception that evil health insurance companies will cancel your coverage if you have sizable claims or are suffering from ongoing health problems. Yet, the Health Insurance companies have no such right as there are federal and state laws that...

[Barb4Bush]

I have a preexisting condition (heart problems). I went from a job where the company offers health care to job where they do not. After my COBRA from the first job ran out I had to get heath care on my own. Because I was never out of the healthcare system I could not be turned down for a preexisting condition. I live in New Jersey and I would bet that most if not all other states have the same law in place.

[cajungirl]

yep, long as there is no gap, there is no refusal to insure.

Many won’t pay their cobra and then get subject to preexisting conditions.

Now the feds are paying cobra for people, part of recent bill, so they get it cheap.

I want car insurance that is required to pay for preexisitng conditions so I can just not pay it and when I have a wreck join up. That is what people want!

[CharlesWayneCT]

IN the examples given by the President (one of which was a lie — the “chemo guy” was never denied treatment, and the treatment wasn’t chemo it was stem cell transplant), the problem wasn’t “pre-existing conditions”, but that the pre-existing conditions were not revealed to the insurance company when the people bought their insurance.

In other words, the problem was insurance fraud.

However, I would think a good law change might be to say that if a non-disclosed condition has nothing to do with the treatment being sought, that it shouldn’t be grounds for cancelling the policy. Instead, there should be fines sufficient to pay the insurance companies for having to investigate and catch the lies.

It’s not a perfect plan — if a person lies about a pre-existing condition, they might lie about a bunch, and my plan requires the insurance company to catch each lie.

Maybe the insurance company would have to prove the person knew they were lying, and if they could they could throw them out.

[frogjerk]

You are one of the real 12 million Americans (not the bogus 47 million number used by the DIMS) that we should be helping. If you were able to obtain a policy from another state that doesn't have incredible unfunded state mandates you would be able to obtain a policy that is easier on your wallet. Unfortunately, asinine laws prevent you from do just that.

[Barb4Bush]

My health insurance premium is actually a little higher than my mortgage payment.

[litehaus]

“I want car insurance that is required to pay for preexisitng conditions so I can just not pay it and when I have a wreck join up. That is what OBAMBI’S supporters want!”

[luckystarmom]

My daughter has epilepsy, so I need to make sure she always has insurance and no gaps??

[Jabrown]

That’s the point of the article...Insurance companies are required by law to have proof that the insured had knowledge of a condition they did not disclose. The article points out...for instance the gall stone story...the only way the insurance company knew was because of medical records and the only way to diagnose is with testing. So there is no way the insured did not know of the condition unless his doctor did not tell him in which case the there’s another lawsuit. Every state has these laws in place.

[Barb4Bush]

At least in New Jersey that’s the case.

[Tunehead54]

Reference bump! ;-)