Health Insurance

ctravel12 · Post by **ctravel12** » Mon Oct 06, 2008 2:22 am

becat wrote:
I'd go if we could plan it far enough in advance. Carpools and Road trip anyone?

Lynne

Hey Lynne that sounds like a good plan. We should work on something for next year. Yeahhhhhh

Hos · Post by **Hos** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 3:40 am

I'm probably in the minority (what a shock) but I made it a priority to make sure my family had health insurance while I was unemployed or under-employed for over 2 years a while back. I drive a 98 Honda Civic, don't have cable, and we rarely eat out but we still have fun, go figger!

When I was unemployed, we used 2 individual plans, NASE and Unicare. It varies greatly by state but we had good success with both of them and paid around $450 per month.

Your mileage may very, but both worked fine by us and they paid for dr visits, generics, and such minus our co-pay. There are scams out there but these 2 worked ok for us. Thank God I work for a hospital now and it has excellent coverage.

From my professional experience, I would read all the fine print if you use the Medicare alternative, Secure Horizons. I know of so many anecdotal stories of them not paying for some things that Medicare is probably the better choice IMO. But then again, some feel it's great.

Thanks fer the links Ann.

Post by **ViewsAskew** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 5:31 am

Hos, you make a very important point - they vary by state and can vary tremendously. In my state, for example NASE would double my premium because I am over their "normal" weight limit. They also would not cover any preexisting conditions. This info is a few years old; I didn't use them but a friend did. Another friend was turned down by them - she was over their "overweight" limit, so they denied her completely. She had no preexisting conditions, I might add, was healthy, and had no obvious problems.

So, whatever anyone does...read all fine print. Get many opinions. Ask around and find out what other people used, etc.

Aiken · Post by **Aiken** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 6:36 am

This is of minimal use to most of you, but I gather that WA state requires insurers to continue coverage of pre-existing conditions when coverage is continuous between two companies. For instance, if I have a pre-existing condition that is covered by insurer A, and my term with insurer A ends December 31st, but the term with insurer B starts immediately on January 1st, then insurer B cannot deny coverage for that condition. If I have allowed my insurance to lapse, then I can be denied when I start it up again. (Thus, I will never allow my insurance to lapse.

)

I can't say for certain that I have the policy 100% correct, but that's what's been explained to me by others in the past.

Of course, WA state is also one of the most expensive places to be an insurer, and thus an insured, for laws/reasons just like this. Pre-existing conditions, alternative treatments, etc., cost money for the insurer, and thus premiums across the board must be higher in order to cover costs.

Post by **ViewsAskew** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 9:47 am

I admit to confusion on this...the federal law (I think) requires ALL states to do this when you are moving from one group to another. (You can't be turned down, they can't ask questions, omit preexisting conditions, etc.) But, it doesn't apply to individual coverage, if I understand the underwriters correctly. That is what the states can mandate. Illinois does not mandate this, so even though I've been continuous with a group for five years, if I left it and went to individual coverage, I'd be denied on several grounds, including RLS and opioid use (both separate issues, both grounds for denial or exclusion).

That is the one thing that I'd really want from reform: mandatory that any groups can combine or work together to form a large group or that individuals could join existing groups. There is a name for this, but I can't remember what they call it...

Aiken · Post by **Aiken** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 6:51 am

I'm pretty sure it applies to individuals as well, though now I'm questioning my memory. There are a lot of things WA state requires of insurance companies, and it's possible that I'm confusing one of the others with this. Hmm. Well, to anyone who's been reading and wondering, I suggest you go research it so you know for sure.

Post by **ViewsAskew** » Thu Dec 04, 2008 12:15 am

I have NOT read all of this and am not advocating it, simply passing it along. It is from a group that is trying to get healthcare reform. They are asking people to respond to the AHIplan that was just released that still exludes people and charges higher premiums for women, the sick, and the elderly (their words).

http://healthcareforamericanow.org/page ... t/ahipplan