Re:Only 6 people managed to enroll in an insurance plan on D...
by pmorici on Friday November 01, 2013 @01:05PM
(#6654919)
You're in IL right? For some reason the insurance situation in IL seems to be really crappy. They allow(ed) for looking back further in people's medical history than a lot of other states according to wikipedia. That doesn't explain why the new plans are so much more expensive though even in states that previously had restrictions on preexisting conditions and medical history use in underwriting.
Re:Only 6 people managed to enroll in an insurance plan on D...
by tptacek on Friday November 01, 2013 @01:36PM
(#6655065)
Let's again be clear about what I said. "They" (meaning every insurer in IL) did not "look at our medical history". They looked at visits to doctors and (in one case) the emergency room that did not result in diagnoses, and decided to hedge their bets by presuming a preexisting condition that was not indicated in the record.
Another thing that happens --- particularly in California, lest you think this is an IL problem --- is that comparatively minor medical conditions were used as proxies for rare but expensive conditions. For instance, if you were a woman with abnormal cramping, you might be default-denied based on a simple blacklist of uninsurable conditions because insurers were scared that might presage something expensive down the road.
The preexisting condition and recission policies of insurers prior to Obamacare were a national disgrace.
I've talked to dozens of people since then and come to the conclusion that "functioning human female reproductive system" is, in essence, a coverage-denying preexisting condition in many US states.