by Quenlin » Mon Dec 17, 2007 03:22 am
Alright, it's hard to fit the question into the thread title.
What I mean is, if you do work that involves inspecting buildings for asbestos, and that jacks up a health insurance premium. Could you request that the policy doesn't cover asbestos-related illness to reduce the premium?
I know I ask really odd questions, but hey, anyone working in insurance has heard some crazy things I'm sure.
What I mean is, if you do work that involves inspecting buildings for asbestos, and that jacks up a health insurance premium. Could you request that the policy doesn't cover asbestos-related illness to reduce the premium?
I know I ask really odd questions, but hey, anyone working in insurance has heard some crazy things I'm sure.
Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 06:51 am Post Subject:
What I mean is, if you do work that involves inspecting buildings for asbestos, and that jacks up a health insurance premium. Could you request that the policy doesn't cover asbestos-related illness to reduce the premium?
Buddy, insurance policies are designed keeping in mind the needs of the mass and offer standard benefits. The premium rates and riders are also designed accordingly. Therefore, the policy benefits can't be curtailed/elaborated to suit the desires of an individual.
Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 06:54 am Post Subject:
Alright, thanks for the reply Jeremy. I know little about the finer points of insurance, it's why I ask some odd questions.
Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 07:01 am Post Subject:
Quenlin, I'm not sure about any special cases but its definitely not possible under normal circumstances.
If a person is exposed to health hazards caused by asbestos, he/she will seek coverage for that particular reason only. Denying coverage to lower the premium will actually void the basic need of the health coverage.
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 02:36 am Post Subject:
Therefore, the policy benefits can't be curtailed/elaborated to suit the desires of an individual.
Agreed...mostly.
Just about every state has rules that mandate that most health contracts, both group and individual, cannot differentiate as to benefits based on any particular illness. Insurers are normally not allowed to, say, treat coverage for HIV infection any differently than any other disease...asbestos included. So, if the policy was issued- coverage for asbestos poisoning (IMHO) would not be excludable and would be covered.
Certain states do allow exclusionary language through the application of pre-existing conditions exclusions...but that's a whole other thread.
InsTeacher 8)
Add your comment