Rich_in_Tampa said:Really? I thought it was 18 months continuation of your policy from employment plus a few extra percent premium for administrative reasons. So what you get is basically what you had, on your nickel.
Was I misinformed?
No.
Rich_in_Tampa said:Really? I thought it was 18 months continuation of your policy from employment plus a few extra percent premium for administrative reasons. So what you get is basically what you had, on your nickel.
Was I misinformed?
Martha said:So if you are healthy, in a place where individual insurance isn't too pricey, and your state prohibits raising rates based on your health or claims, it might make sense to buy an individual policy sooner rather than later.
perinova said:Do you where I could find information about which states prohibit this practice?
Yes, you get basically what you had, on your nickel. But the company may be paying for a much more expensive policy than you would carry for yourself as an individual. For example - paying for pregnancy, dental, prescription, low co-pay, no deductible, etc. At the time my company provided a much more comprehensive plan than we needed. I guess things like this are changing now.Rich_in_Tampa said:Really? I thought it was 18 months continuation of your policy from employment plus a few extra percent premium for administrative reasons. So what you get is basically what you had, on your nickel.
Was I misinformed?
mark500 said:This subject is clearly complicated. No wonder some people end up unable to obtain health insurance.
I called one person at my insurance company and they were of little help.
Does anyone know anything about conversion contract clauses in your group health care insurance policy? Does your policy contract state you can convert to an individual policy without the need for "evidence of insurability?" What good is that?
youbet said:KB..... Didn't you mean that the difference between the negotiated rate/fee and the billed amount must be written off by the provider.......not by BC/BS?
By insuring the many young and healthy (most of us), the high cost of a few very elderly or sick is not a point of matter, it makes sense as a social point of view and insurance companies do not have to make profits on ALL policies.Shepherd said:Its quite clear, that any "free-market" solution will be to cover healthy young people, and then either drop or gouge elderly/sickly people as they start to need more care...Why would an insurance company aiming to make a profit voluntarily cover someone with a pre-existing and expensive condition unless their premiums covered their care? and if the premiums need to cover the care, are you really getting "insurance".
perinova said:FYI
I just read that generally it is not allowed by insurance companies to increase personal rates due to claims. If true, it remains a good idea always to get your insurance while healthy.
That's is what I thought too. But Paul Zane Pilzer in is recent book seems to think that it is not allowed. Maybe he generalized. I am going to have to check www.healthinsuranceinfo.net/ mentioned by ReWahoo! to see what I can find out.Martha said:Depends on which state you live in.
Here is an alternative...Martha said:There are a number of risks in going bare....