- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Whatever you want to call it it's not "insurance" if preexisting conditions exist.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 11:16 am to dantes69
Posted on 4/28/17 at 11:16 am to dantes69
quote:
yep, and I would like to wait till I get into a car accident and then get ins. to cover it
Someone educate me on this:
With respect to PECs, the insurance doesn't retroactively cover the cause of the condition. It covers future expenses that may come about due to the PEC, no?
So the above example that I'm seeing everywhere would be a false equivalence.
1
Posted on 4/28/17 at 11:23 am to mahdragonz
quote:
Or some crazy arse wife with a pill problem?
Or some mentally ill shim that wants to cut shis dick off.
The old way you actually didn't have to pay for those things though. You could have chosen to pay with cash or get a plan that only covered catastrophic events/illnessnes.
Your boy Obama killed those choices and left you nothing but what you are bitching about except worse.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 11:28 am to TotesMcGotes
quote:
the insurance doesn't retroactively cover the cause of the condition.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say by cause but this may help.
You get into a bad accident. The brakes are broken and the fender is bashed. Then you decide to get insurance. The date of the claim is the only thing that matters in this instance. That isn't covered. However, you find out later that the same accident causes further damage. Your insurer, if they can determine that it was due to the old accident, isn't going to cover the new found issue.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 11:53 am to roadGator
Why can't that be evaluated by the insurer and built into the coverage?
Posted on 4/28/17 at 11:54 am to TotesMcGotes
quote:
Why can't that be evaluated by the insurer and built into the coverage?
Because of community rating.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 11:55 am to TotesMcGotes
quote:
Why can't that be evaluated by the insurer and built into the coverage?
It can. Anything can be insured. I can write you a policy that includes a "free" Porsche annually after your check up.
There's not much that can't be underwritten with enough data. You just have to be willing to pay for it.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 11:58 am to roadGator
Got it. Thanks for explaining.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 12:00 pm to BamaAtl
I thought community rating was age/gender.
I have a long way to go when it comes to insurance.
I have a long way to go when it comes to insurance.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 12:03 pm to TotesMcGotes
quote:
A rule that prevents health insurers from varying premiums within a geographic area based on age, gender, health status or other factors.
Age/sex banding allows for individuals inside a group to have different rates based on their, well, age and sex. That's different than community rating for which I provided a basic definition above.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 12:31 pm to Strannix
It's not a right. It's a business it's privatized business. Businesses should be able to turn anyone away for any reason. The problem is the govt wants to slowly take away power from the people and take it themselves to regulate what we do and when we do it. Its like saying oh I have to let this person in my house even though I know he is a serial killer. It's the same concept. Someone can be 100% healthy and still be turned away from insurance. It's not a right to have but it's a privilege
Posted on 4/28/17 at 1:26 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
In your perfect world, a child should suffer because his parents went without insurance for a few months?
Nah, I prefer the civilized alternative.
There were programs for children to get health insurance prior to Obamacare via Medicaid, or the Children's Insurance Health Program. The parents would have to be proactive though. The parents have to be proactive with Obamacare so that changes nothing. If there was a lapse in coverage a child (or adult) wouldn't be turned away in an emergency.
Your scare tactic with "But The Children!!" doesn't really work.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 1:30 pm to TotesMcGotes
quote:
I thought community rating was age/gender.
Community rating under the ACA is that you cannot charge someone in a community more than anyone else based off of their medical history - you can only use age. Before, you could use all sorts of criteria which is where pre-existing condition exclusions came into play.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 1:33 pm to Strannix
Chief Justice Roberts already settled this question. It's not insurance. "It's a TAX."
Page 6 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News