[alice_in_bubbaland]

I am a small business woman in NJ, our company's health plan does not discriminate against anyone with a preexisting condition, it's the law.

One of my employee's husband has diabetes with a non healing wound. He has had numerous hyperbarric treatments. There is no threat of dropping his coverage.

[Vigilanteman]

Laws on coverage of people with pre-existing conditions vary from state to state but generally do not allow an insurance company to opt out of coverage if the pre-existing condition has been under successful treatment for a given amount of time (usually one year) prior to writing the policy.

Most employer provided plans do not even have the time requirement because the pool is big enough that they can spread their risk. However, government screwing around in the insurance market has raised costs for two key reasons, neither dealing with pre-existing conditions:

1. Mandates. Here in Pennsylvania, employers are required to cover substance abuse even for companies such as ours where drug testing is a condition to getting and keeping your job. Over in Delaware, the gay mafia has mandated full coverage for behavioral diseases such as AIDS even for people who can control their schlong. A few of these mandates may be worthwhile, but most are just a way to force a large pool of people to cover the politically connected, largely behavioral based ailments which people who avoid the behaviors will never use. My daughter, on the other hand, buys a $30 per month policy from Utah because she attends college in Idaho which has an insurance reciprocity agreement in place, for a fraction the cost because the state doesn't lard up their mandates with this type of useless coverage.

2. Overregulation-- in addition to the above, insurance companies are not free to sell policies across state lines. They deal with 50 different regulatory agencies, so 50 different markets. For example, the Utah company which my daughter uses will not even sell into the Pennsylvania or Delaware market because they do not wish to deal with behavioral based illnesses. It does, however, begin phasing in coverage of pre-existing conditions after one year, a benefit far more worthwhile for my daughter than coverage of substance abuse or AIDS.

Of course, the standard libtard rebuttal to the above is to equate diabetes, obesity or any of the other common ailments to AIDS or substance abuse by claiming they are behaviorally based as well.

[autumnraine]

Yes, pre-existing condition laws are different for group plans than individual. But say your company went belly up, I think the issue is what is that couple supposed to do then if they can’t find a job with group health insurance?

I am not for government run healthcare, but conservatives DO have to recognize it is an issue that effects a lot of people. Especially in this tricky economy.