HealingWell
Search Close Search
☰

Private Insurance

Support Forums
>
Ulcerative Colitis
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply
12
❬ ❬ Previous Thread |Next Thread ❭ ❭
Posted 2/14/2012 2:34 AM (GMT 0)
Has anyone had luck purchasing private individual insurance with UC?

Which companies approved you?

Posted 2/14/2012 5:04 AM (GMT 0)
I take that as a No?
Posted 2/14/2012 5:23 AM (GMT 0)
Several yrs back I was able to buy private long-term care insurance despite having UC. They seemed to be concerned mainly about the applicant's hospitalization history during the 5 prior yrs, and my record was clean. It was a teachers' group plan which transferred our coverage to MetLife later on. You might look into MetLife's offerings as they are huge and probably more able/willing to absorb risk. / Old Hat (31 yrs with left-sided UC; presently in remission taking brandname Colazal)
Posted 2/14/2012 12:21 PM (GMT 0)
I had to buy into my state's high risk pool (MCHA [www.mchamn.com] here in Minnesota).
Posted 2/14/2012 12:39 PM (GMT 0)
Put it this way, with a pre-exsiting condition no insurance company wants you. There is a reason why Obama has been going after insurance companies. They are all greedy and the last thing on their minds is the care of their patients. My friend was giving outrageous prices one time and when she inquired why they told her because she had a yeast infection 3 years ago ! LOL
Posted 2/14/2012 12:45 PM (GMT 0)
I have great insurance now but before we had to take out private insurance. Because I have Uc, I had a 3 month waiting period and my rates where very high. Personally, I don't understand what the waiting period is for. It's tough to find private insurance that will not cost you an arm and a leg!
Posted 2/14/2012 1:18 PM (GMT 0)
My husband added me to his plan last year, no questions asked. Humana-

Carlie
Posted 2/14/2012 1:27 PM (GMT 0)

Red_34 said...
I have great insurance now but before we had to take out private insurance. Because I have Uc, I had a 3 month waiting period and my rates where very high. Personally, I don't understand what the waiting period is for. It's tough to find private insurance that will not cost you an arm and a leg!

It takes 3 months because they go through your entire medical history and use every "infraction" to drive up your rates. The fact of the matter is you are a risk and you will likely be costing the insurance company more money than they can make off you so they will drive your rates so high and bank on you not being able to afford it and will go elsewhere. By doing this the insurance company can say they offered you insurance but YOU decided not to take it which clears them of discriminating for a pre-existing condition.
Posted 2/14/2012 2:02 PM (GMT 0)
Dsm, what a load of bull that they can do that to people! ggrrrrr
Posted 2/14/2012 2:08 PM (GMT 0)
I agree which is why I dispise insurance companies. I understand its a business but they shouldn't be able to make money off its customers by refusing to cover expense that should be covered.
Posted 2/14/2012 5:27 PM (GMT 0)
Heck I can't even get life insurance let alone health insurance. Thank goodness I'm on my husband's plan and I have a little life insurance through his work also but its not much and they won't let me get more because of the colitis. Soooos stupid.
Posted 2/14/2012 5:30 PM (GMT 0)
I called to ask about plans over the weekend and I was told I would be denied. I need to get the denial to be elligiable for the states high risk pool but I will most likely be getting into a new group plan. It's terrible that nothing has changed...

I think the government is going require insurance companies to offer insurance to people with preexisting conditions in 2014 but that doesn't mean they are going to offer it at a competitive rate. It seems like it will just make things more difficult and more unaffordable for people with preexisting conditions. Healthcare in this country is atrocious.

I could just see the states dropping the high risk pool insurance because of insurance companies providing for everyone and all of the preexisting condition people being unable to afford the insurance offered through the insurance companies. That's exactly the opposite of what the people want. We want healthcare for everyone, not for a monthly premium, paid for with our tax dollars where everyone can get the help they need without dealing with insurance companies. The younger generations are in trouble when they aare off their parent's insurance because a lot of jobs don't offer a group plan these days. Maybe there will be some pressure to change at some point but the direction things are going / have gone is not beneficial to us.

Posted 2/14/2012 6:05 PM (GMT 0)
The change in 2014 means that insurance companies must insure those with pre-existing conditions at the same rate. Only a few factors such as age, smoking .. can be used to set rates.

You will not be able to drop your insurance then go shopping for insurance after you get sick after 2014. Can't remember how they deal with it.

The high risk plans(in my state AZ anyway) are reasonable as far as cost but are high deductible and the RX coverage isn't great. The RX coverage is a major negative for UCers. To get on those plans (at least in AZ), you must be uninsured for 6 months and have been turned down due to a preexisting.

The healthcare law is very beneficial to people with expensive chronic medical conditions. Especially if the disease is making it hard to earn money. It bridges the gap between poverty(medicaid) and solid middle class income level. You won't be forced into a situation of choosing going bankrupt and going without medical care and drugs.
Posted 2/14/2012 6:28 PM (GMT 0)
I read a report several years ago that basically said the medical establishment in the US as well as the drug companies are not looking to "cure" diseases but aim at making diseases like cancer "chronic illnesses".
The point was that the doctors and drug companies would be able to keep making money because patients wouldn't die, just continue being sick. Cured patients would no longer need services.
Sounds diabolical? Sure, but look at what's happening today with the insurance companies. The Obama Healthcare plan is going to be under heavy attack in the next few years.
I think I read that "medical expenses" is the 1st or 2nd biggest reason for bankruptcies in the US.
It's a sad situation that we're in... the supposedly most advanced country in the world.
Posted 2/14/2012 6:36 PM (GMT 0)
Yes, we are the most advanced country but that also means having greedier people. I envy the people that get universal health care, without having to pay a single dime. Granted at the moment, I am covered under my husbands employer and we have a great insurance but I was not always so lucky. I remember when I was first diagnosed, we were very low income, couldn't afford insurance so I pretty much had to decide - do I buy my meds this month or feed my children??? The answer was obvious and it's also obvious that I did very poorly when I was first diagnosed.

The USA is in a sad state of affairs and it needs something drastic done to turn things around that is for sure.
Posted 2/14/2012 7:30 PM (GMT 0)
I will believe it when I see it, so far, I haven't seen any positive changes. To be honest, people who make low wages, can't really afford to spend hundreds a month on insurance, even if the rates are reasonable, with the high deductibles, co-insurance and the price of rx prescriptions, I don't see how people can possibly afford it and afford to feed themselves. Forget about ever getting together a downpayment to own a home or having money saved for retirement, we will work until the day we keel over.
Posted 2/14/2012 8:34 PM (GMT 0)
I favor some sort of universal care, but there would still have to be limits on extreme measures/costs to prolong life. Possibly there would also be a shift form management to cure if it was not fer for service. Hard to know how things would work out.

But, much as I get frustrated with insurance companies, there is a difference between "health care" and "health insurance". Insurance companies are not there to make us healthy, but to let us hedge against "unexpected" costs. In other words, when the expectation of your future costs is no greater than the average persons, you can pay a premium that is close to the average (break-even for insurance company) plus a bit (their profit). If your costs are "unexpectedly higher" - such as auto accident, or unforeseeable illness, then you win the bet. When the cost is not unexpected, and the future risk is more closely known, there is no rational reason for an insurance company to offer the same rates as a healthy person gets. At that point what you are betting is that your future expenses will be more than the average future expenses for a similar UC patient. They have every right and reason to charge you a premium close to what the average chronic UC patient costs, plus a bit. It is not a charity.

At the same time, they do seem to be making lots of profits, and there seems to be room for lower premiums for healthy and pre-existing illness policies both. I am not saying they are not greedy. But think about it. Nobody would expect to buy auto insurance the day after an accident, and still get to make a claim for the accident.
Posted 2/14/2012 9:17 PM (GMT 0)
Yes but if they are not going to provide me healthcare or I am not worth treating, what are we supposed to do? Maybe they should just ship me off to an island somewhere where I can poop myself all day and wait for death? If it all comes down to the mightly dollar and I am a losing proposition, I guess that's the alternative or maybe they can euthanize me, that would probably be cost effective.

There is always the option of going to prison. I could get shelter, a bed and 3 meals a day. Perhaps some healthcare, more than I'd get on the island, that's for sure... Maybe they will even let me rehabilitate a dog. I saw a show on TV where all the inmates had dogs...

teehee, if I am good, I bet I could moderate HW during my free hours :)

Posted 2/14/2012 9:33 PM (GMT 0)
I am in sympathy. That is why I favor the universal type of options, and why I am a critic of the large profit margins in health insurance. While our society might be willing to let someone suffer in isolated cases, it seems to be part of our basic nature to do something when another is hurt or dying. This is not perfect, and some individuals are colder, but it stems from traits like empathy, reciprocal expectations, perspective taking ... etc. These are part of human nature, and it is likely why we have laws that emergency rooms can't turn people away and so on.

So for me, if we are not going to tell everyone w/o insurance to suck-it-up, then we may as well provide universal coverage in a sensible way, instead of by emergency room (and prison) default.

I think the portion of your last post that bears close examination is the word "they" in "they are not going to provide" and "they should just ship me off". I think you really mean "we", as in our society. My point was that it is not the insurance company's role to provide you or anyone healthcare - only to hedge the costs of unexpected healthcare. (this gets a little more fuzzy if we consider the expected costs of routine preventative care, but leave it for now.)

I am saying that the whole health insurance in America thing is a kind of silly way to do things, but at the same time it makes perfect sense for a for profit insurance company to decline a losing bet.

I think much of the anger I hear folks directing towards pre-existing condition policies, should really be directed against more general social policy.

The other word, perhaps most important, is "worth" as in "not worth treating". It is society's place to affirm individual worth and to say that everyone is worth treating. But remember, insurance does not treat; it reimburses. It is only the insurance company's place to decide if it is worth taking your bet - which has nothing to do with your worth as a person.

Once we stop muddling the issues, the decision space becomes clearer, and the potential for meaningful social dialog/change presents.

----------

But my sympathy is also for you as an individual. I just dodged having to look for new insurance while in a flare, so maybe even "empathy". You cannot change social policy by yourself, and you are in a way forced to participate in the insurance-healthcare system. Understandably, you just want relief. You want it now - not in some abstract future where social issues are resolved. I hear you.

I am only saying to blame the insurance companies for large profits, or for obstructing changes in healthcare policy - do not blame them for declining a losing bet.

Post Edited (DBwithUC) : 2/14/2012 2:45:11 PM (GMT-7)

Posted 2/14/2012 10:23 PM (GMT 0)
I worked for a large insurance company for many years...
Most people have no idea just how GREEDY they are. Bonuses given to the executives rival those that are enjoyed by bank executives. Insurance Cos. have a huge lobbying group in Washington. We were all pressured to contribute to it every year.

As the company where I worked made record profits (and still does), those in charge were busy reducing pension plan and healthcare benefits for employees and doing their best to get rid of anyone over the age of 50 (who might have accrued respectable retirement benefits).

about 15 years ago, one of my job responsibilities was terminating benefit plans for large corporations so they could increase profit margins. I don't think anyone realized (unless they saw it up close) what was happening.

Insurance companies are not going to lose any bets.
Ask people in Florida what they pay for homeowner's insurance after those years when there were several hurricanes.
Posted 2/14/2012 10:29 PM (GMT 0)
I agree that insurance companies are a big part of the problem. Ideally, they wouldn't be involved in the perfect healthcare plan in my eyes.

I am not flaring so I am not in dire need of being insured but I know when it comes time to purchase medication, I will be unable to without health coverage which will probably send me into a flare up. I am sure things will work out so I am not going to stress about it. If I end up uninsured and unable to get healthcare coverage, oh well... I can't focus on that and let it drive me into depression. If I get sick and can't afford help, that would be tragic but I am not in the position where I could go into debt over my health. I have enough debts.

I would decline me if I were an insurance company. It's like knowingly taking on a bad investment - no business can afford to do that. This is exactly why the system doesn't work and never will. In reality, health is probably always a pretty bad investment, we are all getting closer to death every day.

----

when I said "they", I was mostly referring to the government. I don't think society has any say in what happens in this country.

Posted 2/14/2012 11:02 PM (GMT 0)

Choir here. I tend to believe you. It may or may not be all companies, but many are worshipping short term profit over ethics and being good corporate citizens.

ItsAlwaysSomething said...
I worked for a large insurance company for many years...
Most people have no idea just how GREEDY they are. Bonuses given to the executives rival those that are enjoyed by bank executives. Insurance Cos. have a huge lobbying group in Washington. We were all pressured to contribute to it every year.

As the company where I worked made record profits (and still does), those in charge were busy reducing pension plan and healthcare benefits for employees and doing their best to get rid of anyone over the age of 50 (who might have accrued respectable retirement benefits).

about 15 years ago, one of my job responsibilities was terminating benefit plans for large corporations so they could increase profit margins. I don't think anyone realized (unless they saw it up close) what was happening.

Insurance companies are not going to lose any bets.
Ask people in Florida what they pay for homeowner's insurance after those years when there were several hurricanes.

I would favor some sort of cap on profit from necessary goods (e.g. energy) and services (e.g. healthcare). For example, cap profits at 12% (or whatever). Anything over, not invested back into the company, could be taxed at 100%. There may be virtue in having things private instead of government, but that does not mean it needs to be unbridled profit. Leave the luxury goods and entertainment businesses for the unbridled profits.

I get very upset when corporations get all the rights of citizens, but are not expected to act anywhere near as decently as we expect real humans to behave. I do not think that insurance companies should have the right to lobby for policies more favorable to even larger profits.

My only point was to distinguish who "provides care" and who "values lives" and so forth. .... and simply put, the cost of insurance is the average cost of the group you are in, plus a bit. It is a good deal when you are in the healthy group, where the average cost is low and there are many paying it and few making claims ... but it is not a good deal when you are in the known condition group, where the average cost is higher, and few are paying it, and you can't afford it.

Still, it always amazes me when folks want insurance companies to ignore risk and take losing bets. It shows a basic lack of understanding of what insurance is and is not. The only way the "no pre-existing" policy is going to work is because of the individual mandate. IF the individual mandate gets struck down, then you can bet the pre-existing exclusion will disappear too. Has to.

Posted 2/14/2012 11:48 PM (GMT 0)
DBwithUC-
It's interesting that you should bring up "individual mandate" in regard to health insurance. I live in Mass. where all residents are required to have health insurance.
Those who don't carry any (and file state tax) are penalized. I believe the amount of premium paid is related to earnings and state assistance is available for low income individuals.
An "individual mandate" to carry automobile insurance seems to be accepted by most people. Having to carry health insurance is another matter.

I've heard people complain about having to carry minimal insurance and wonder what they expect to do if they have to go to the hospital or ER. I guess they expect me and other taxpayers to foot the bill.
In the past, many people routinely went to the ER for minor health issues. Walk-in clinics have been established to service those who have minor complaints.
I think establishing the clinics was also part of the plan.
I'm not a big fan of Mitt Romney but think the healthcare situation in Mass. is not a bad thing.
Guess time will tell.
Posted 2/15/2012 2:10 AM (GMT 0)
[quote]An "individual mandate" to carry automobile insurance seems to be accepted by most people. Having to carry health insurance is another matter.

But a person could choose to go without a car if they couldn't afford or didn't want to pay for car insurance. We can't choose to go without a body, or trade in for a safer model when the current one is known to be defective.

I think we're going to be in trouble as long as society's thinking in terms of health *insurance* rather than *health care*. Health insurance is essentially 'body insurance' and of course no one's going to want to *insure* something that's already broken! But they/we have to decide that keeping each other healthy is good for us as a whole, just like public education and roads and libraries, etc, etc.
Posted 2/15/2012 6:27 AM (GMT 0)
Well said Hoshi, I'd glady give up a car if it were costing me too much money. My body I can't do without.
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply
12