That said: If you have a startup paying you regularly, I believe there are non-exclusionary laws preventing the insurance company from excluding employees which makes it a good avenue to pursue. I know folks that structured buyouts so that they would continued to be employed (and paid) by a shell company simply to maintain insurance.
Not so fast. If she never goes "bare", she can't be denied for pre-existing conditions.
Is it really that hard for people who know that they have chronic conditions to act as if they have chronic conditions?
I'm not going to get into the severity of the "chronic conditions" we're talking about because they're none of your business, but based on prevalence in the population, it's crazy that they're auto-decline conditions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Insurance_Portability_an...
> based on prevalence in the population, it's crazy that they're auto-decline conditions.
Are they "auto-decline" or "they can't charge expected costs"?
> I'm not going to get into the severity of the "chronic conditions" we're talking about because they're none of your business
No one asked you to, so why the attitude?
You can also expect that any woman with any reproductive health issue, no matter how common, will be automatically declined for private health insurance, and will at best be able to obtain outrageously expensive last-resort insurance with a rider excluding huge swaths of her physiology.
But these sound like simple gripes about how broken our insurance system is. That's not my point. My point is that the rates you get on a website like this have no bearing on the rates you'll actually be contractually promised, unless you are a healthy male in your 20s.
I wonder if advertised rates like this are somehow based on average group coverage rates. It's completely whack, but, none of this stuff applies in group coverage. In group, you tell your provider "here's how many families, couples, and singles we have", and I think maybe the ages, and then you get a simple number for each category.