LogFAQs > #930706109

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, Database 5 ( 01.01.2019-12.31.2019 ), DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	insurance rejects mans $35k bill due to pre-existing conditions
TheGleamEyes 11/25/19 10:51:48 PM #49:	Balrog0 posted... This is arguing that the individual mandate and it's penalty are sufficient incentives to prevent people from chaining together short term policies for long durations. Which meant that people could still sign up for STI ~5 years after ACA was signed into law. Not only did the TCJA get rid of the penalty, but the adminstration created rules expanding 'short term' coverage from 3 months to 364 days. So this is evidence of how the administration has undermined the aca, you just need to understand the policies to follow it No, you've just provided evidence of how the administration (via TCJA) changed STI. Folks can still select "Essential" coverage plans if they were willing to shell out more for those benefits. <cite>TheGleamEyes posted [p:930706109] in insurance ... [t:78197721]...</cite> <quote>Balrog0 posted...</cite> <quote> This is arguing that the individual mandate and it's penalty are sufficient incentives to prevent people from chaining together short term policies for long durations.</quote> Which meant that people could still sign up for STI ~5 years after ACA was signed into law. <quote>Not only did the TCJA get rid of the penalty, but the adminstration created rules expanding 'short term' coverage from 3 months to 364 days. So this is evidence of how the administration has undermined the aca, you just need to understand the policies to follow it</quote> No, you've just provided evidence of how the administration (via TCJA) changed STI. Folks can still select "Essential" coverage plans if they were willing to shell out more for those benefits.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1