Skip to main content

My right wing acquaintances are all now spewing a new piece of misinformation.   They are claiming that people with pre-existing conditions could obtain health insurance prior to PPACA being passed.   That pre-existing conditions have always been covered, and those with pre-existing conditions don't need Obamacare to get insurance.

This is an issue near and dear to my heart.   You see, in September 2011 I was diagnosed with an invasive form of breast cancer.    I've had surgery and and treatment, and, thank the lord, I've seem to be free and clear of the cancer.

But last month my husband was told that he will be terminated from employment as of November 1, 2012.    His company has fewer than 20 employees, and, because it's located in Washington state, COBRA is not available.    

Because I just completed cancer treatments back in December 2011, we have since found out that we can not obtain insurance coverage on the individual market here in CT.   That is, until 2014 when the PPACA provisions disallowing insurers to deny coverage based on PECs kicks in.

I am in the thick of trying to figure out how my family will get health insurance and have been speaking with lawyers, insurance brokers and people in the government of the state of Connecticut to figure out exactly what our options will be was our employer-provided coverage ends.

Luckily, as part of his severance negotiations, my husband was able to keep our current insurance through May 1, 2013.    Our hope is that he is able to find a new job with insurance coverage prior to that, but with the current state of the economy, it's more likely that he'll be working freelance with no benefits.

This is not the first time we've been in this situation.     Eight years ago, we were in a similar situation.   Only then, we were told that no insurance company would give us a policy because our son is autistic.    

Our son is now 17, and thankfully, because of PPACA, insurance companies can no longer take my son's disability into account to deny us coverage.   The provision of the law requiring insurance companies not to consider PECs of children under age 19 was phased in back in 2010.

But the provisions requiring insurance companies to not consider PECS in adults won't be in place until January 1, 2014 and we lose are insurance coverage on May 1, 2013.

We've consulted several insurance brokers, and the message is always the same, we will not be able to get insurance in 2013 because of my cancer history.    

Luckily, another provision in PPACA may help us out.   Connecticut has set up a state run program for individuals with PECS to obtain health insurance.  It's not great, but it looks like we'll qualify and it's something to tide us by until PPACA phases in (or my husband gets a new job).

So you can imagine my distress at the new right wing talking point that those with pre-existing conditions don't need PPACA.   That we can get coverage anyway.

First of all, the thing that I notice is that they seem to be confusing the current legal provisions which require insurers to pay for medical expenses related to PECs if the person has continuous coverage.

As I tried to explain to someone, this means that if you move from one employer to another with different insurers, the new insurer cannot refuse to pay medical expenses related to your MS (yes, this person has MS).

If, however, her husband was to lose his job and their current medical coverage, it's likely her family would be able to obtain individual health care coverage because she has MS until 2014 and only if PPACA is not repealed.

You would think this is clear enough, but it doesn't seem to be.   The right wing is obviously deliberately misleading and confusing it's followers, and, being that most of them are in a bubble, the truth is refusing to sink in.

But, I know the truth, and it's our job to make sure that independent voters not sealed in the bubble fully understand what's at stake.

BTW, if anyone wants to read up on this to make sure they understand the issues, check out this:

and this:

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  There is a law that anyone with continuous (3+ / 0-)

    insurance has to be covered if they have a pre-existing condition. Narrowly defined, and since it suits their narrative they're obviously using that to pretend it's all-inclusive. So Romney's 'proposal' to cover the continuously insured who have preexisting conditions means he will do exactly nothing.

    •  Well You Would think (3+ / 0-)

      that me explaining that insurance companies are now denying me coverage because I just had cancer would sink in to these nitwits, but apparently not.   They just argue that I have my facts wrong, that I can get insurance.    

      Just amazing.

      •  The truth is, if your husband gets a new (0+ / 0-)

        job with insurance before he loses coverage under the old job, your pre-existing conditions are covered.

        If not, the only way to get insurance with pre-existing conditions is through Obamacare.

        It's like saying that insurance companies already cover your children up to 26. It does. If they're in college. If not, it doesn't. Their arguments have pre-existing conditions, as well.

        "Mitt Romney looks like the CEO who fires you, then goes to the Country Club and laughs about it with his friends." ~ Thomas Roberts MSNBC

        by second gen on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 01:25:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  We Understand this (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          second gen

          But at this point, everyone my husband is speaking with wants to offer him contract work, not a job with benefits (he's in publishing).    

          The really sick thing is that my husband can probably make more money as a consultant, but we can't consider that option and not worry because of the insurance issue.

          Romney and the GOP always hail entrepreneurs, but here's a situation where someone can't be an entrepreneur because we need health insurance.  

          So, we understand that our insurance issue will go away if he gets a job with benefits, the problem is that at this point that's unlikely to happen.

          •  I get it. I'm just trying to explain to you (0+ / 0-)

            how they've spun it to be exactly the same thing, when it clearly isn't.

            Romney did tell a bit of truth last night. He said [paraphrasing] "There are private insurance companies that already keep kids on their policies till age 26"

            This is true. There are. I have one. The clause allows any dependent, in school or not, who is unable to obtain insurance on their own, to be on my policy up to the age of 23. MOST policies do not offer this. So, does it happen? Yes. There are still policies out there with zero copay and deductible. But not very many. I worked for a huge corporation. Most people don't. I have used probably 20 different insurance policies in my adult life. This one is the only one that ever allowed such "liberal" coverages.

            "Mitt Romney looks like the CEO who fires you, then goes to the Country Club and laughs about it with his friends." ~ Thomas Roberts MSNBC

            by second gen on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 02:22:58 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Having been turned down in the past (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I will tell you that there was one point where I simply didn't even have an option of getting health insurance.  

    I was newly dx'd with epilepsy, and I had never had health insurance.  

    They just said, "no."

    Incarceration Nation has a Jail Jones to feed its Imprisonment Addiction

    by otto on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 12:46:48 PM PDT

  •  That's a straight up lie nt (0+ / 0-)

    The radical Republican party is the party of oppression, fear, loathing and above all more money and power for the people who robbed us.

    by a2nite on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 12:48:34 PM PDT

  •  Emergency rooms (0+ / 0-)

    For the right wing, "coverage" means that if you have an urgent-care situation, you can go to the Minute Clinic at CVS or the emergency room.  Insurance is just for wimps and people who get it as a fringe benefit from the magnificence of wonderful capitalist job creator employers who give it because some people are so worthy that employers compete for their services with fringe benefits.

    And the rest of you can go suck eggs.

    After all, Ayn Rand didn't say that sick people deserved help, and she's baby jeezus' nanny, isn't she?

  •  Partially true (0+ / 0-)

    1. Under the previous law, IF you have had continuous qualifying coverage, and then change plans, the new plan can't exclude preexisting conditions.

    2. Many group plans through employers had previously eliminated the preexisting condition exclusion, or just didn't bother with it. I think the theory is that people are unlikely to change jobs and pick up new insurance when they know they're sick.

    So some of the people insisting on this may have had the experience of getting coverage for a preexisting condition.

    But you are right that in the individual non-group market, none of this applies and those of us with something in our health history (which is most of us) are out of luck, or charged extremely high premiums.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site