get health insurance coverage

by Guest » Mon Apr 09, 2012 01:23 pm
Guest

hi,

I got a per-existing condition? shall be eligible for a beneficial or less premium health insurance coverage? if so, what procedures am I am supposed to follow in this case. any assistance will be appreciative

Total Comments: 6

Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 12:32 pm Post Subject: Health insurance coverage

The conventional health insurance policies are generally not allowed for individuals with pre-existing conditions. Even if you get one, you’ll have to pay overpriced rates for the policy.

You can opt for the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan or PCIP program for necessary health coverage. You’ll need to show proof that you have been denied coverage by the conventional insurance providers. The rates will be comparatively lower, and your income is not considered to determine your eligibility.

Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 12:38 pm Post Subject:

thanks for the quick response. but i got a few more queries.hope you won't mind answering them.

you said, I need to pay overpriced rates for the policy.. how much can be difference from the conventional health insurance policy.. i mean any idea of it.

and any further light on PCIP. I seem to new to this.

thanks anyway,

Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2012 08:24 pm Post Subject:

You can opt for the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan or PCIP program for necessary health coverage. You’ll need to show proof that you have been denied coverage by the conventional insurance providers.


More importantly, you must have been uninsured for at least six months prior to applying for PCIP.

Chalk all the confusion up to Obamacare. Maybe the Supreme Court will kill the beast . . . but not likely.

Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 12:38 am Post Subject:

Chalk all the confusion up to Obamacare. Maybe the Supreme Court will kill the beast . . . but not likely.



Max- my little birdies in D.C. are telling me that they're hearing that the individual mandate is likely going to be ruled unconstitutional. One little issue that's recently come up is that the Court didn't really understand the information and it wasn't given ALL of the information necessary to make a decision. Little things, like the availability of the "bronze" level coverage, which is pretty darn cheap in terms of premium. It's catastrophic coverage.

This will be reallllllly interesting when all is said and done. The only question that remains is this- will I actually still be alive when that happens? :D

InsTeacher 8)

Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 06:25 am Post Subject: PCIP

Hello johndanis

You may refer to the following links, if you want to Know about PCIP.


  • http://www.healthcare.gov/law/features/choices/pre-existing-condition-insurance-plan/index.html

    https://www.pcip.gov/


Hope this helps !! :idea:

Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 06:38 pm Post Subject:

One little issue that's recently come up is that the Court didn't really understand the information and it wasn't given ALL of the information necessary to make a decision.


So what else is new in 2700 pages of legislation? But doesn't this argue in favor of the Supremes making a faulty decision?

Granted, J Kennedy will be the deciding vote in the matter, and he seemed to ask many of the hard questions during oral argument, it is likely that the individual mandate WILL be axed. The larger question is whether they will take the unusual step and slaughter the entire legislation or not?

Methinks they will not do that. All of the states have enacted certain amounts of legislation in order to be compliant with the legislation in time for it to be fully implemented. And as you and I both know, certain aspects of the federal law were already operating in the various states prior to Obamacare even passing Congress (such as MRMIP), and some of the nonsense in the legislation is just a redux of EMTALA (1986), when it comes to hospital emergency room care.

Now, here's what I think can happen. The insurance industry responded very quickly to the most onerous parts of the legislation, showing that they were essentially in agreement with the need to make those changes (those were likely related to some of the backroom agreements hammered out by AHIP before Congress stabbed them in the back in passing the final bill). Commissions were cut by up to 50%. OK, fine, we can learn to make do with a little less. But the Medical Loss Ratios need to be scaled back to more reasonable 70%-75% levels. Easy enough for the state legislatures to do without federal blackmail.

But all this did was allow the insurance companies to meet their loss ratios without actually raising payments to health care providers, which is what Obamacare was "supposed" to have done. Backfired completely. Physicians in CA are increasingly dropping participation in Anthem Blue Cross HMOs and PPOs due to the poor compensation. Hospitals not afraid of Anthem's blackmail threats to deny them access for at least two years when they fail to agree to a renewal contract are also taking themselves out of the network, and finding themselves more profitable as a result. So "screw Anthem" is the new battle cry!

Unlimited lifetime expenses? Cost-free preventive care? Come on, those things are unrealistic from an actuarial perspective. Perhaps raising the lifetime expense limit to $10,000,000 to $15,000,000 (most group and individual coverage was already at $6,000,000) would be actuarially sound. Perhaps two or three wellness visits per year for adults (maybe five or six for those under age 19).

No preexisting condition exclusions? I think the insurance companies can live with that, as long as they can apply clear underwriting guidelines and do not rate persons substandard excessively -- maybe limit the substandard tiers to just three +25% tables. Again, actuarially sound.

Mostly, what needs to happen is an end to rejection for health insurance for those who want/need it. Like auto and homeowner's, there will be some who decide the cost-value ratio is not in their favor and will not obtain the coverage. We could, instead, rewrite the Medicaid eligibility rules to disqualify those applicants who had the financial resources to obtain the insurance prior to their disabling event. When people realize their healthcare will be on their own dime when they fail to buy insurance (as almost all states have done with tort reform and auto-related injury claims by uninsured drivers), people with the means will line up for the insurance. Not an individual mandate, but a pretty clear incentive.

The whole issue that Obamacare failed to address was the ONLY issue that needed to be addressed: the XX,000,000 American citizens and legal residents who, for whatever reason, do not have the financial means to provide themselves and their families with health insurance. For them, we need a national plan of healthcare coverage. The other 280,000,000 - 300,000,000+ individuals who were/are already insured just needed some minor tweaks (as described above).

Whoever believed that we should provide Medicaid and the plethora of government-sponsored services for illegal immigrants, when we won't provide the same for our own citizens? In CA, we give the children of illegal immigrants resident-tuition rates at the State Universities and UC campuses, but we charge non-resident tuition to the citizen-children of non-CA residents. Go figure.

Sure, there are some much more technical behind-the-scenes aspects of "reform" that need to be worked out between the insurers and the states, but they have less to do with what the public cares about their cost of health care.

Some of us knew, from the outset, because we are "insiders", that Obamacare had absolutely no chance of LOWERING premiums for anyone in America. That was the single biggest lie presented to the public. And for Obama to enter the birth control fray a couple of months ago by saying, "It will be free. The insurance companies will pay for it," was just more of the same appeal to irrational minds.

How do you explain to a socialist fool that "free" does not mean free in the real world of capitalism?

That, truly, was the core of Obamacare -- to nationalize, to socialize -- the entire healthcare system in America. The Democrats, even though they were in control and had the votes to do so, did not choose a direct path to a "single-payer" system. Instead, they set up conditions that would ultimately result in it happening de facto, as more and more insurers departed the playing field after 2014. That was the plan. It's probably not going to happen, thanks to the individual mandate provision.

I am amazed (but not surprised) that we spent trillions of dollars over more than 40 years following WWII to "defeat" communism (at least as far as Russia and the Soviet Union were concerned -- Cuba and China seem to have eluded our reach) as an unworkable solution for "the people." And here we (our politicians) are, mostly in the last three years, doing everything possible on local, state, and federal levels to turn America into a socialist state. Give everyone everything they want at no cost: money, jobs, education, healthcare, retirement pensions. Take away what they don't need: gasoline/oil for personal transportation, oil-fired electricity, nuclear-generated electricity, hydro-electric generated electricity, coal-fired electricity. Make all the "millionaires" pay for it (until they take their millions and move to somewhere else in the world).

Bicycles, not cars. Reusable shopping bags, not plastic or paper. Make everything around us green as our currency turns from s*** brown to black.

It pains me to say this, and I'm desperately trying not to be cynical, but if people don't wake up in November to the socialist perversion that surrounds them, and we suffer through another four years of this, it will take hundreds of additional years to recover from the effects, if ever. A do-nothing society is doomed to failure. Socialism, in the American construction, is intended to turn the country into a nation of people beholden to the government for everything they have -- Greece West, we could be called. No longer content to be mere couch potatoes, we will transform into a nation of "couch mashed potatoes".

I'm not signing up for that. And I'm not voting for it either.

Add your comment

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.