Still a Democrat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-18-11 10:12 PM
Original message |
HIIPA prevents insurers from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions - Roe |
|
Edited on Tue Jan-18-11 10:13 PM by Still a Democrat
Congressman Roe just claimed that on Lawrence O'Donnell. Kucinich didn't challege him.
???
|
LisaL
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-18-11 10:13 PM
Response to Original message |
1. How is that supposed to work, exactly? |
Still a Democrat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-18-11 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. I thought HIIPA was about patient privacy |
LisaL
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-18-11 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
3. Yes, it is. So how is it supposed to prevent insurer |
Still a Democrat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-18-11 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
6. Makes no sense to me either |
|
Thought someone could shed light.
|
BzaDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-18-11 10:17 PM
Response to Original message |
4. Not exactly. HIIPA says any pre-existing condition that came up before 6 months prior to employment |
|
Edited on Tue Jan-18-11 10:17 PM by BzaDem
must be covered, and any pre-existing conditions that came up within the previous 6 months can only be excluded for 12 months.
However, this is only for the employer market. Anyone who doesn't have insurance through their job is screwed if they have a pre-existing condition, and the bill fixes that. No more exclusion periods, no more higher premiums due to conditions, no more (for anyone).
|
Still a Democrat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-18-11 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
jaxx
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-18-11 10:17 PM
Response to Original message |
Statistical
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-18-11 10:18 PM
Response to Original message |
7. It is true but only for employer based coverage and only after 6 months. |
|
Edited on Tue Jan-18-11 10:19 PM by Statistical
So not exactly a lie but certainly a "lie by omission".
HIPPA provides no protection for individual policies.
|
Still a Democrat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-18-11 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
9. He did relate it to employer coverage, in all fairness |
|
So if employer coverage and government programs don't deny for pre-existing conditions, the dilemma remains for those trying to buy their own, I suppose.
|
Statistical
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-18-11 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
10. Exactly. It creates a two tier system. |
|
Some people have very good (or at least decent) coverage and are protected from pre-existing coverage issues.
Others have horrible coverage, no PE protection, and tend to pay 200%, 300%, sometimes 500% higher rates.
Personally I think employer based coverage needs to go. It is a roadblock for universal coverage. For most people there is no health care crisis. They won't realize it till they get chronically sick, they have PE protection, employer hides the true cost of care.
|
Still Blue in PDX
(633 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-18-11 11:34 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Edited on Tue Jan-18-11 11:38 PM by Still Blue in PDX
On edit:
Never mind. It's been years since I read the whole thing and the only things that stuck were those that related to health information management and confidentiality.
:hide:
|
frazzled
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-18-11 11:59 PM
Response to Original message |
12. Only if you are going off COBRA from a group plan |
|
Then, the same insurance company can't turn you down for private, individual insurance based on pre-existing condition. The trick is: you have to re-apply with a special HIPAA form. And you can't apply to just any insurance company.
But if you are just out their on your own, HIPAA can't prevent an insurance company from turning you down.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Wed Apr 24th 2024, 05:13 PM
Response to Original message |