Current Events > insurance rejects mans $35k bill due to pre-existing conditions

(+) Yeah! (+)

Loud_Pipes posted...

Calm the fuck down, I'm not married to any particular view. I'm just pointing out that you were wrong. Short term plans have never to my knowledge been affected by the pre-existing conditions law. I'm not saying that what happened here is good or should ever happen again.

And I'm gonna need a source that shows what you're talking about wrt short term plans that are just a day shorter than regular plans. The ones I've seen and purchased were for a handful of months, not for a year.

I'm perfectly calm and specifically not wedded to the ACA or anything else. There's just literally no reason not to put this on the current administration.

The expansion to a year and the ability to renew them annualy was a major news story and a big win for the administration this year. I'm not sure how you missed it, but this article notes it.

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2019-07-19/trump-s-short-term-health-insurance-rule-survives-lawsuit

---

Balrog0 posted...

The expansion to a year and the ability to renew them annualy was a major news story and a big win for the administration this year.

Notice the pattern of wins for Trump being losses for America?

Allowing insurance companies to refuse to render services paid for, because they determine the conditions were preexisting. All I can say is what do you expect, when you allow healthcare to become a for profit venture?

---

Balrog0 posted...

I'm perfectly calm and specifically not wedded to the ACA or anything else. There's just literally no reason not to put this on the current administration.

The expansion to a year and the ability to renew them annualy was a major news story and a big win for the administration this year. I'm not sure how you missed it, but this article notes it.

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2019-07-19/trump-s-short-term-health-insurance-rule-survives-lawsuit

I missed it and I concede that you are right

Balrog0 posted...

It's actually an example of how the administration and the legislature have changed the ACA overall to undermine the entire argument for why STI should be allowed by your own source. It is true if you try to isolate specific parts of what you shared you can minimize how meaningful that is.

My source was compiled and issued before Trump even took office. Published on 10/31/2016, and having been in review/discussion 2 months earlier, since June 10, 2016.

And feel free to post whatever sections you feel is relevant that I happened to omit, using the link I posted, to prove how STI were unavailable during the Obama administration.

I'll even use your own link; of the 2018 lawsuit attempting to stop expansions of STI offerings, meaning that the Trump administration used existing STI parameters as the foundation to create new guidelines off of (expanded date, etc.)

TheGleamEyes posted...

My source was compiled and issued before Trump even took office. Published on 10/31/2016, and having been in review/discussion 2 months earlier, since June 10, 2016.

Yeah, and the conditions they cite for why to allow STI no longer hold.

TheGleamEyes posted...

And feel free to post whatever sections you feel is relevant that I happened to omit, using the link I posted, to prove how STI were unavailable during the Obama administration.

You didn't omit anything, you just bolded around the parts where they cite the short term nature of the insurance and the existence of an individual mandate as reasons to allow it. You just bolded the parts saying it's allowed.

But if you actually read what you posted and then read what I posted, you can see that what you posted is a really strong indication of how the administration has specifically undermined the ACA. If you read your link, you can understand what the adminstration has done just by looking at what your link says about why STI should exist and reversing it.

TheGleamEyes posted...

I'll even use your own link; of the 2018 lawsuit attempting to stop expansions of STI offerings, meaning that the Trump administration used existing STI parameters as the foundation to create new guidelines off of (expanded date, etc.)

Right, so like I said, this situation only happened because of the trump adminstration. What part of this conversation or reality are confusing you?

---

What's with all the old accounts with very low karma always being Trump trolls/shills?

---

Balrog0 posted...

Yeah, and the conditions they cite for why to allow STI no longer hold.

In 2019.

They were perfectly valid when determined in 2016, and the previous 5 years between 2011-2016 where the guidelines that set the maximum restraints wasn't even a thing.

Balrog0 posted...

You didn't omit anything, you just bolded around the parts where they cite the short term nature of the insurance and the existence of an individual mandate as reasons to allow it. You just bolded the parts saying it's allowed.

Because you made the false claim that STI weren't much of a problem until the Trump Administration came in, when in reality, nothing affected how STI were to be regulated following the ACA's passage up until 2016, and even then were still available.

Balrog0 posted...

Short term insurance plans that are essentially only allowed (and definitely only widely available) due to administrative actions by president trump.

Balrog0 posted...

you can see that what you posted is a really strong indication of how the administration has specifically undermined the ACA.

Which has nothing to do with the fact that STI were available for purchase even under the Obama administration.

Balrog0 posted...

Right, so like I said, this situation only happened because of the trump adminstration.

No. Nothing indicated that he was kicked off an "essential coverage" insurance plan, and instead, most likely had chosen STI due to costs as a result of ACA mandating possession of insurance or facing a fine instead (as have hundreds of thousands who choose STI over more expensive coverages that provide protections afforded by the ACA, in order to comply with the law).

TheGleamEyes posted...

Because you made the false claim that STI weren't much of a problem until the Trump Administration came in, when in reality, nothing affected how STI were to be regulated following the ACA's passage up until 2016, and even then were still available.

I made the claim that this had been fixed under the Obama administration and became a problem under Trump. The Obama adminstration addressed a perceived problem by instituting a cap. The trump adminstration removed it, and the obvious problem occurred. What did I say that was false?

TheGleamEyes posted...

Which has nothing to do with the fact that STI were available for purchase even under the Obama administration.

I never made the claim that STI didn't exist under Obama. I said that this specific situation that occurred, denying someone due to preexisting conditions, had been fixed. While STI existed, regulations prevented this situation. Those regulations were reversed.

TheGleamEyes posted...

No. Nothing indicated that he was kicked off an "essential coverage" insurance plan, and instead, most likely had chosen STI due to costs as a result of ACA mandating possession of insurance or facing a fine instead (as have hundreds of thousands who choose STI over more expensive coverages that provide protections afforded by the ACA, in order to comply with the law)

It directly talks about this in the article, so you're arguing without knowing the situation at all. And again, there is no longer an individual mandate penalty, and when there was STI didn't satisfy it. I think you are arguing in bad faith and also partially in ignorance

---

Balrog0 posted...

I made the claim that this had been fixed under the Obama administration and became a problem under Trump. The Obama adminstration addressed a perceived problem by instituting a cap. The trump adminstration removed it, and the obvious problem occurred. What did I say that was false?

How has it been fixed? People could still buy STI under the Obama administration, and recommendations for new rule implementation (to begin in 2017) didn't prevent people from continuing to renew their policy on the basis that they should know the limitations from staying on them.
What it did do was add a disclaimer and made it so that people who did purchase STI would have to find a new policy (or renew) every ~3 months. This was the argument that opponents of STI made and was determined by the Obama administration of not being significant enough to ban altogether.

Balrog0 posted...

I never made the claim that STI didn't exist under Obama. I said that this specific situation that occurred, denying someone due to preexisting conditions, had been fixed. While STI existed, regulations prevented this situation. Those regulations were reversed.

From your own link:
Unlike Obamacare plans, the short-term policies dont have to cover a standard set of essential benefits, and can be substantially cheaper. They also dont have to pay out a minimum of 80% of the premiums they collect on medical care, an ACA rule that applies to other health insurance. Companies offering the plans can refuse to insure people with pre-existing medical conditions.

Those practices were typical of the individual insurance market in many states before the ACA came along. Obamacare was intended to end them but permitted short-term plans to remain on the market.

So we're back to this preexisting shit again? Guess I better cancel my insurance then because it's not worth paying anymore if they're going to be pulling this again.
---

What the fuck is the point of insurance
---

From my link:
The Departments have become aware that short-term, limited-duration insurance is being sold in situations other than those that the exception from the definition of individual health insurance coverage was initially intended to address.[16] In some instances, individuals are purchasing this coverage as their primary form of health coverage and, contrary to the intent of the 12-month coverage limitation in the current definition of short-term, limited-duration insurance, some issuers are providing renewals of the coverage that extend the duration beyond 12 months. Because short-term, limited-duration insurance is exempt from certain consumer protections, the Departments are concerned that these policies may have significant limitations, such as lifetime and annual dollar limits on essential health benefits Start Printed Page 75318(EHB) and pre-existing condition exclusions, and therefore may not provide meaningful health coverage. Further, because these policies can be medically underwritten based on health status, healthier individuals may be targeted for this type of coverage, thus adversely impacting the risk pool for Affordable Care Act-compliant coverage.

To address the issue of short-term, limited-duration insurance being sold as a type of primary coverage, the Departments proposed regulations to revise the definition of short-term, limited-duration insurance so that the coverage must be less than three months in duration, including any period for which the policy may be renewed. The proposed regulations also included a requirement that a notice must be prominently displayed in the contract and in any application materials provided in connection with enrollment in such coverage with the following language: THIS IS NOT QUALIFYING HEALTH COVERAGE (MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE) THAT SATISFIES THE HEALTH COVERAGE REQUIREMENT OF THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT. IF YOU DON'T HAVE MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE, YOU MAY OWE AN ADDITIONAL PAYMENT WITH YOUR TAXES.

Balrog0 posted...

It directly talks about this in the article, so you're arguing without knowing the situation at all. And again, there is no longer an individual mandate penalty, and when there was STI didn't satisfy it. I think you are arguing in bad faith and also partially in ignorance

The individual mandate penalty didn't include STI until revisions in 2016 defined and excluded them. Before then,
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2013/08/30/2013-21157/shared-responsibility-payment-for-not-maintaining-minimum-essential-coverage