<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>True. My D was diagnosed with one of these conditions in high school. At that point, she became uninsurable, according to my broker. That was before Obamacare. She can’t be turned away now, and I call that a good thing.</p>
<p>I didn’t mean kids can’t have preexisting conditions. I meant that preexisting conditions increase with age, generally speaking. But it’s correct that no one is safe from the preexisting condition trap, at any age.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is this true even if there is prior continuous coverage?</p>
<p>I think there is a difference between people who had insurance prior to acquiring a condition and those who did not have insurance and now want it because they have a condition.</p>
<p>We can’t stress enough to our adult kids to never, ever let insurance coverage lapse once they are outside the parental umbrella. My nephew aged out of his parent’s insurance and did not buy a relatively cheap Healthy NY plan (despite heavy parental nagging and research about affordable options) for himself. He went to the ER with a respiratory problem, incurred a $12,000 bill, and is now essentially uninsurable because of his “preexisting condition.”</p>
<p>Several problems happening here that I can see. As others here have pointed out, the student coverage offered is not anything like the more comprehensive coverage that Obama care is requiring. So as colleges have to step up their plans to provide that coverage, the cost is going to be high. As someone else said, this is not an apples to apples comparison. </p>
<p>My friend’s son has a congenital condition that required extensive surgery, Crouzon’s syndrome. Because of his surgeries, he is behind in school and was in college when he lost his health coverage. Due to other things happening, his parents paid for the student insurance. When he had an issue that needed extensive cranio facial surgery by a specialist–one of the few in this country that could do this surgery, not the local maxillo facial guy, the college insurance did not cover it, not by a long shot. Thankfully, they were able to put him back on family coverage due to Obama care, and he did get the treatment needed. Now that he is aging out again, the problem is that COBRA extension for him is extremely expensive. So those college policies are really not very good at all if any serious situation arises. I didn’t think they were that well priced either as they are. They seem awfully high priced for such bare bones coverage for young people. But that’s what they are. We are now seeing them for what they are/were. Lousy health insurance coverage that required fingers crossed that nothing expensive happens.</p>
<p>The other problem is that 2013 is still a transitional year that does not have all the pieces of the AHA in place, and yet some of the requirements. And you can bet your wallet that the insurance companies are going to take every advantage of this. I’m caught in this quagmire myself with a child who has aged out of family coverage but is not gainfully employed on his own. Can’t afford health coverage. I’m waiting for the Cobra quote and also looking at what my state has to offer a young man with no prexists in terms of decent health coverage.</p>
<p>When the system kicks in completely, we’ll see how much can be charged for health insurance. There are some pricing constraints, I believe. However, I am curious, as I do not know, how students are going to be affected by all of this as they are in a no man’s land between being adult and independent and being the parents’ responsibility during college years.</p>
<p>Barnard’s student plan is better than what I got when I was working at Blue Cross and it is cheaper too. </p>
<p>The piece that is missing until 2014 is the health exchange, where insurance companies will be competing for your business. That is the piece that should bring premiums down for the uninsured/underinsured. Those student plans will have to compete with plans available on the exchange as well as parents’ plans because there will be options available.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>D was, and still is, on DH’s individual policy. Several years ago, we were trying to find a way to reduce our insurance costs, and one option the broker suggested was splitting her off onto her own high-deductible policy. But when I told him about her history, he said, “Nope, she’s going to have to stay on his policy.”</p>
<p>Our kids’ health insurance from their U was pretty good and only cost a bit over $1K or so for 12 months. It had a $1M maximum, I believe the deductible was only about $250 or so, and it was pretty comprehensive. It did NOT exclude pre-existing conditions. My kids would have had problems with any policy that excluded pre-existing conditions, since we have all had asthma and other health issues from young ages in this household.</p>
<p>Their U’s premiums haven’t changed much since 2006, but I suppose most U students are pretty healthy and probably a good number of them are waived out of coverage because they have the same or better coverage under their family plan (as my kids do).</p>
<p>Insurers try to charge what they can, especially if they feel there will be limitations on what they can charge in the future, I believe. Our in-state insurers have also raised premiums this year, blaming increased claims, etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Barnard students are, as a group, likely to be healthier and lower cost than Blue Cross employees, since Blue Cross employees are older (i.e. more time to acquire expensive health problems).</p>
<p>Note that one very expensive condition, pregnancy and childbirth, is somewhat elective (i.e. use of birth control (including abstention) versus trying to get pregnant, although it is not perfectly deterministic). Barnard students are probably trying to avoid that while in college, while some Blue Cross employees are trying to have babies.</p>
<p>I do worry how this is going to work. What if health insurance companies DO NOT compete for business? They certainly are not right now when looking for very good coverage, from what I can see. If too much is being asked in terms of coverage, it may not happen.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Was it because she would be denied or because it would be too expensive? Two different things.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>They need to bring in a lot of customers in order to provide the CEO of United Healthcare with his $35 million compensation package.</p>
<p>The whole underpinning of the ACA is flawed. It is based on a supposition that people will buy health insurance rather than paying the fine. But for many people the fine will be cheaper than the insurance and people will always act in their best financial interests. </p>
<p>My friends 26 year old son is a part time employee, no health insurance. At 26 with no pre-existing conditions, insurance should have been fairly cheap but he chose to spend his money in other ways. Then he got a strange lump. Fortunately for him, his parents are wealthy enough to pay for the biopsy cash. And also fortunately for all of them, it was benign. </p>
<p>But unless the fine is more than insurance premiums the whole system will not work.</p>
<p>^^^^^
The system might work if the law differentiates between people who paid for insurance prior to acquiring health condition and those who choose to pay the fine instead of buying insurance.</p>
<p>TatinG – In NY, insurance for healthy 26YOs is not cheap, as their is community rating, which means your 26YO pays the same as the 59 YO parent.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But it (purposely, and by design) does no such thing.</p>
<p>I wish people understood what a low margin industry health insurance actually is.</p>
<p>As for the ACA, it will most benefit the Big 8 consulting firms and a great many earnest bureaucrats who will find employment as busy bees implementing, evaluating, modifying, auditing, etc.</p>
<p>A few more will get health insurance that isn’t really particularly good but might be a bit better than the trusty ER.</p>
<p>Oh, and taxes will go up, especially for those who can afford to pay more, or at least are told that they should.</p>
<p>The deficit will explode even more, too, btw.</p>
<p>:)</p>
<p>Sewhappy, it may be a low margin industry, but it apparently eats up 15% of health care money. BTW, its big 4, not big 8 anymore. I love my company’s plan, but it is not the right answer. At a mimumum, we should allow people to buy into medicare/medicaid, but I could live with single payor.</p>
<p>Signed, Republican mom (not 1%, but close).</p>
<p>I’m finding myself in agreement with Kayf. I’m trying to find decent insurance. More interested in high deductible, catastrophic type of coverage. Nope.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>His exact words were “automatic decline.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’ve probably had insurance all your life, as I have. There are tens of millions of Americans who have no idea what that feels like. Can you imagine having to decide whether you could afford to take your very sick child to the doctor? Can you imagine being bankrupted by medical bills? For families to whom these scenarios are all too real, the ability to finally get insurance is no small thing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is exactly what was said before Massachusetts enacted the prototype of the ACA. Today, only 2% of Massachusetts residents have chosen to remain uninsured and pay the fine. The other 98% have made the rational choice to protect themselves against financial ruin in the case of a devastating medical event.</p>
<p>[Zero</a> Hedge | On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone drops to zero](<a href=“404 | ZeroHedge”>http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-13/guest-post-real-danger-“obamacare”-insurance-company-takeover-health-care)</p>
<p>“The medical cost ratio limitation the PPACA instills; that 80% of premiums must be used for medical care in the case of individuals and small groups, and 85% in the case of large groups) to supposedly ensure companies operate on a more efficient premium in vs. premium out basis, is a joke. Its punch line is accounting manipulation.* Call everything a medical cost; even buying another company, and the ratio is meaningless.”</p>