View Single Post
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 06-10-2018, 02:44 PM
saltwn's Avatar
saltwn saltwn is offline
PW Enlightenment
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Esto perpetua
Posts: 80,340
Thanks: 55,151
Thanked 26,145 Times in 18,686 Posts
Send a message via AIM to saltwn Send a message via MSN to saltwn Send a message via Yahoo to saltwn
Default Re: Trumpís Justice Department Refuses To Defend Obamacare In Court

Originally Posted by GottaGo View Post
If the COBRA runs out on 8/19, that means she/they had 18 months to obtain coverage elsewhere, like maybe the husband's job? The condition would not be considered 'pre existing' as long as they have had continuous coverage.

While I am in favor of covering pre existing conditions, I also believe that they should pay higher premiums for that coverage, as they have not been contributing to the insurance pool previously to off set the known higher expense that condition will cost.
ever think that with one worker out of commission and the other possibly having to take days off to assist her, that leaves little for higher premiums?
looks like you are only interested in fairness to the insurance company, not the consumer.
I've been for single payer since before obama care. hopefully one day we will wake up and smell the coffee on that one.
btw I HAD insurance when I was operated on in 2007 and my insurance did not pay. Why? A preexisting condition. so slippery slope back to any excuse not to cover.
If they got rid of all health insurance companies tomorrow it would suit me fine.
Reply With Quote