National Health Insurance Now, Not Later

[Kathryn41 3,205]

With my pre-existing condition I had to prove continuous, uninterrupted existing medical insurance coverage immediately prior to being enrolled in my husband's plan. Fortunately, I received proof of insurance from my Canadian insurer and so was exempt from the pre-existing condition exclusion clause.

[kitkat1 5]

Do you have any plans you could recommend

Plans differ by state so you would have to see what your state offers. I would look around quite a bit and talk to a health insurance broker as well for recommendations. Mine was Blue Cross - don't know if they offer it where you are.

BTW, coverage CAN be found for pre-existing conditions, and definitely if you provide proof of uninterrupted previous coverage like Kathryn41 said.

[Heracles 417]

There should be basic / emergency coverage for US citizens and "legal" residents. It is a fundamental building block of most successful nations.

[DelcoCouple 1]

Totally against national health care...yes, it's 'FREE' but quality will suffer. Look at the UK....D's been on a list for over a year to get a hernia operation. He finally broke down and bought private coverage.

Which will have done him no good at all as pre existing conditions are not covered by a private insurance policy

I don't remember the details but he found a policy that covered him and the pre-existing. Your response was the same as mine when I heard about it until he explained it, lol

The private medical insurers in the UK apply moratorium underwriting and the surgical procedure codes input at time of claim will automatically check with the inception date to ensure there is no pre existing condition potential. If there is the claim will go into suspense for human review. An examination of the patients GP records will confirm it is indeed a pre existing condition as he was on a NHS waiting list, thereby causing the claim to be rejected. The exception to this is a group policy where the employer in effect funds the costs on a claims paid basis but this would not result in him buying coverage at commercial rates. It would be the employer picking up the tab as a benefit in kind. There is a significant body of political opinion that wishes to have this taxed as such. Good luck to anyone in such a scheme who has major heart surgery or cancer treatment if the chancellor ever decides to cash in

[GaryC 7]

I don't know where some of you are getting your insurance but I have never had a policy that even asked about pre-existing conditions. I had a wrist operation on one employers insurance and then 2 years later I had to have a repeat surgery on a different company insurance. (I changed jobs) My ex-wife had several ongoing medical problems and in the 21 years we were married I changed jobs and insurance 5 times. Not once were we refused because of a pre-existing condition. There was one job I didn't have insurance (self employed) and I bought a catastrophic policy that was about $300 for the family. It sounds like some of you are not looking hard enough for the right job and/or insurance. It's easy to get a job that offers insurance. If your really down and out there is always medicaid. There is no excuse for going without medical care in America.

[kitkat1 5]

Gary, that's because pre-existing rules and health status come into play with individual insurance - not group policies offered by employers. The benefit of a group plan through an employer is the risk is spread among a large group so the insurance company can afford to take their chances. With an individual plan, depending on the state, it's up to the insurance company to decide if they want to take the risk. For example, no private health insurance company will insure me - I'm too big of a risk based on my health history. I might end up costing them too much money. If I don't have group health coverage through my employer, my only other option is the state run high risk health plan which cannot refuse me and which costs about $500 A MONTH.

[Scott & Lai 12]

We are so great.

We can force employers to pay their workers a living wage- 2 to 3 times the current minimum wage- PLUS institute a national healthcare system, and none of this will affect the economy one bit. In fact it will better it.

Not only that, but we can keep all foreigners out of this country so that our wages don't go down, and the additional costs of goods we have to pay because of higher wages, will not affect our ability to pay the extra taxes to insure everyone has healthcare.

We can force other countries to raise the wages they pay their employees AND buy OUR exported goods so that we in America can continue to live the good life

But, our abilities to create a great society don't end there. We can also do all of this while shutting down all factories and vehicles that emit fossil fuels, and pay for more expensive clean energy burning vehicles and power plants. We can do this without nuclear energy! Universal healthcare is but a solar panel and a wind mill away.

We Americans rock.

Yep, all it takes is an ample supply of fairy dust to make the laws of economics go away.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

My initial insurance claim through my husband's employer's Blue Cross was denied due to a pre-existing condition - they had a year's exclusion policy unless you had proof of previous insurance. I obtained the proof and was no longer subject to the exclusion. When his company switched insurers to CIGNA they accepted me without requiring the one year exclusion for pre-existing condition since I had been under the company's ongoing group insurance. The clause still exists and is pretty standard. You probably didn't have a problem since you had no lapses in your insurance - it was transferred from one insurer to another.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Gary, that's because pre-existing rules and health status come into play with individual insurance - not group policies offered by employers. The benefit of a group plan through an employer is the risk is spread among a large group so the insurance company can afford to take their chances. With an individual plan, depending on the state, it's up to the insurance company to decide if they want to take the risk. For example, no private health insurance company will insure me - I'm too big of a risk based on my health history. I might end up costing them too much money. If I don't have group health coverage through my employer, my only other option is the state run high risk health plan which cannot refuse me and which costs about $500 A MONTH.

That was the exact situation with my wife's' parents, and the reason that my mother in law (who runs a small business with a family friend) was without insurance for at least 5 years.

My initial insurance claim through my husband's employer's Blue Cross was denied due to a pre-existing condition - they had a year's exclusion policy unless you had proof of previous insurance. I obtained the proof and was no longer subject to the exclusion. When his company switched insurers to CIGNA they accepted me without requiring the one year exclusion for pre-existing condition since I had been under the company's ongoing group insurance. The clause still exists and is pretty standard. You probably didn't have a problem since you had no lapses in your insurance - it was transferred from one insurer to another.

Yep that also happened to me - on my wife's insurance, the company was, at one point, asking me to provide my UK medical history as I hadn't had prior insurance. Luckily for me, it turned out to be unneccessary as the surgery was diagnostic.

Edited February 5, 2007 by erekose

[kitkat1 5]

That was the exact situation with my wife's' parents, and the reason that my mother in law (who runs a small business with a family friend) was without insurance for at least 5 years.

Which is completely absurd, right, because people who cannot qualify for individual insurance due to health history are obviously the ones who need it the most! But I don't think a national plan is the answer - I'd be too scared that it would take a year to get a necesary medical test where now it takes no time and costs me nothing aside from my monthly premium. For me, no matter what the cost, I will never be without insurance. It's just too risky.

Edited February 5, 2007 by kitkat1

[GaryC 7]

Other than the exorbitant taxes that would be required to pay for a boondoggle like national health care my other huge problem with it is the quality would go down. I don't like the idea of the government telling me what I need and how long I have to wait for it. I like my health care just as it is.

[DelcoCouple 1]

Other than the exorbitant taxes that would be required to pay for a boondoggle like national health care my other huge problem with it is the quality would go down. I don't like the idea of the government telling me what I need and how long I have to wait for it. I like my health care just as it is.

Hint it is a lot less than the cost of the chimps folly in Iraq - Still why keep people alive and healthy for less money than it costs to kill them

Quality does not go down that is a myth. There is no compulsion to use a nationalised health service you are free to carry on choosing a private provider.

[kitkat1 5]

Quality does not go down that is a myth. There is no compulsion to use a nationalised health service you are free to carry on choosing a private provider.

if you can get private insurance . . .

[GaryC 7]

Other than the exorbitant taxes that would be required to pay for a boondoggle like national health care my other huge problem with it is the quality would go down. I don't like the idea of the government telling me what I need and how long I have to wait for it. I like my health care just as it is.

Hint it is a lot less than the cost of the chimps folly in Iraq - Still why keep people alive and healthy for less money than it costs to kill them

Quality does not go down that is a myth. There is no compulsion to use a nationalised health service you are free to carry on choosing a private provider.

Thats the problem. If the joke of national freeloader health care ever happens then the employers will stop offering it.

I didn't know we were talking about Iraq. It seems that when you have nothing intelligent to offer you try to change the subject.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That was the exact situation with my wife's' parents, and the reason that my mother in law (who runs a small business with a family friend) was without insurance for at least 5 years.

Which is completely absurd, right, because people who cannot qualify for individual insurance due to health history are obviously the ones who need it the most! But I don't think a national plan is the answer - I'd be too scared that it would take a year to get a necesary medical test where now it takes no time and costs me nothing aside from my monthly premium. For me, no matter what the cost, I will never be without insurance. It's just too risky.

I guess the very real choice for some, especially low income households is whether to have insurance or whether to have a roof over their heads...

I'm not sure if a national plan would work in the US - the health insurance industry is so "entrenched" and will fight (with lobbyists) anything that threatens their control. The Federal government, regardles whoever is running the show, always seems to be more responsive to the demands of corporate interests than it is to the general public.

Part of the problem with the UK NHS is the Blair Govt's tendency to centralise control from Whitehall, rather than let local authorities get on with the business themselves and address their specific needs. Since they started that "name and shame" thing a few years ago, hospital managers have been more concerned with sticking to government targets (which are in some cases unfeasible) and keeping their jobs than with managing their respective hospitals.

The other alternative of course is public healthcare at a State level, but that certainly WOULD raise taxes.

At the very least, there needs to be some sort of reform of the private system as is - to prevent consumers being taken for a ride simply to preserve shareholder profits. Insurance agents should not be able to make medical decisions on behalf of patients, overriding the recommendations of doctors (for example, putting them on cheaper drugs, telling them to give lower resolution CT scans etc). Similarly there's the obscenely high cost of prescription drugs ($30 for you, $130 for you etc.) to consider. Whose interests were served when the government made it illegal for US citizens to purchase prescription drugs cheaply from Canada? It certainly wasn't mine...

I'm amazed at all the outrage about so-called "junk" lawsuits supposedly being the bane of an affordable system. I mean... when the system rides roughshod over you, and you almost have a heart attack as a result of insurance meddling, it seems (to me) your only defense is litigation....

Edited February 5, 2007 by erekose