Daily Kos - Emerging Details on the High Risk Pools

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/6/23/878815/-Emerging-Details-on-the-High-Risk-Pools
Emerging Details on the High Risk Pools
by deaniac83
Emerging Details on the High Risk Pools
Wed Jun 23, 2010 at 05:55:39 PM PDT
Crossposted from The People's View.

skip

Cost: The next question in the minds of people who are looking to buy this coverage is how much it will cost. Heck, that's probably the most important question. According to the HHS fact sheet, costs for such plans will not exceed 100% of the standard non-group rate (i.e. individual rate). Rates will not vary more than 1:4 on the basis of age. Is that affordable? No, insurance in the individual market is cost-prohibitive for a great number of people. It does, however, bring the rates of someone with a pre-existing condition to that of someone without one. According to the National Institute for Health Care Reform, people with pre-existing conditions are quoted rates of at least 150% of standard, if they are offered coverage at all. Unfortunately, this particular provision is not designed to provide insurance to those priced out of the market. It is there to provide coverage to those who are not accepted by insurance companies at any price.

Before we all go off the reservation about the affordability of this particular provision, though, there are some help coming to the affordability end as well - including for some who have pre-existing conditions. Beginning in September, children can no longer be denied based on pre-existing conditions. The 2009 expansion of the Children's Health Insurance Program, nearly 4 million additional children became eligible for CHIP. Thus, the portion of the market for the high risk pool that would be children is completely eliminated. About 14% of adults with pre-existing conditions are offered coverage through an employer plan.

At the end of the day, this program is not the answer to the prayer of Americans who are either denied or offered unaffordable premiums for coverage due to a pre-existing conditions. It is, nonetheless, a stop-gap measure that will help people get covered - not with the greatest of coverage, but some coverage while the system transitions to one where no one may be denied coverage or priced out of the market for pre-existing conditions.

Hey all you adults out there with pre-existing conditions that are offered coverage but can't afford it due to the astronomical prices - don't get your hopes up. These pools are NOT designed to address your problem. But, hang on 4 more YEARS until the exchanges are up and running and all will be well, although you may not be.

[sandnsea]

1. Most states will create a low-income subsidy

Even Texas has done that for people below 300% of poverty, which is quite a few.

http://www.txhealthpool.org/

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

2. What if you have the misfortune to be middle class, not low income, with a pre-existing condition?

I have a friend who was offered healthcare for 1200 a month and that is not counting co-pays, dedeuctables, etc. And actually, that was a few years ago, God knows what it would be now.

Do you understand that the "reform" did nothing to address this issue?

Wasn't "no one will ever again be denied health care (oops!)insurance due to illness" one those stirring points mentioned over and over when healthcare (oops!) insurance reform was discussed? And how many deaths a year were ascribed to lack of coverage? 30-40 thousand?

Why does it take four f!@#king years to make these for profit cannibals cover our fellow SICK citizens? Why did our President and our Dem controlled House and Senate pass this crap? I hope they are buried in mail from the sick and dying who somehow got the mistaken impression that someone somewhere actually cared and was looking out for them.

[sandnsea]

7. Some people won't be able to afford it

But a lot of people will. That's like saying since everyone can't afford college, we shouldn't have college at all.

This is a step towards getting everyone coverage.

[Nikki Stone1]

3. Most states are drowning in debt right now

and the condition will continue for quite some time. In addition, most people will be earning much less money to pay in tax. I don't see how states are going to be able to do this. Texas doesn't provide much in social services (compared to California) and it's had an influx of recent immigration from other US states because people are running from state income taxes and state bankruptcy. Many Californians are moving to Texas for just that reason. My guess is that Texas will soon have a problem maintaining its high risk pool funding, but other states will certainly not be able to afford it.

[Justitia]

11. The TX High Risk Pool is an absolute joke. It only has 25k people in it! We have 25 Million people

It does NOT have to accept you and it is completely unaffordable (example: premiums can be 10k per year, with 10k deductible).

TX has only allowed 25k people into it and that number has not changed much over the years.

Even if they do allow you into it, they can STILL refuse to cover pre-existing conditions and it's insanely expensive.

It is a joke.

And oh, by the way, Governor Asshole Perry just made sure that TX will NOT participate in the Federal High Risk Pools that HCR is creating - he denied them.

We are screwed 6 ways from Sunday.

[Nikki Stone1]

14. That sounds about right. I think that's the pattern.

And Perry...well, all I can say is I hear ya. :(

[catrose]

30. And the lifetime cap is so low

That you'll use it up quickly, supposing that you can afford it in the first place. Then you can just go die.

[Hannah Bell]

15. with what money? states are cutting, not adding.

[laughingliberal]

4. I said, during the debate, those who could afford coverage but were denied...

2nd to pre-existing conditions was a group who would be helped. Those who can not afford the coverage are in the same place they were.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

5. I know. I followed HCR closely

And what a shock it was to see some of the most basic tenets of reform go swirling down the drain.

Pre-existing conditions bans was one of the most incredible ones to watch disappear. Oh, but the children are covered. Too bad their parents will die. I always call health care reform that focuses solely on children while simultaneously ignoring adults "Healthy Orphan Acts" because that will be the end result.

[laughingliberal]

6. "Healthy Orphan Acts" That describes it very well. nt

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

8. When John Kerry was running for President he had quasi reform which

was based on covering children with little to say about the adults. That's when I first started calling that kind of end run around real, extensive, broad based reform by that name. It's an old dodge and I'm just tired of it. Cover everyone: Young, old, sick, healthy, man, woman, child.

[laughingliberal]

9. An enthusiastic hell yeah! for that! nt

[BzaDem]

19. What in the world are you talking about?

ALL people will not have to worry about pre-existing conditions starting in 2014. Not just children. Exclusions for pre-existing conditions are prevented NOW for children, but ALL exclusions and rating differences for pre-existing conditions are banned in 2014.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

26. I am talking about kicking the PEC can down the road for four more years

for adults. 4 Years is a long time if you are ill or have a chronic condition.

[amandabeech]

33. Those premiums will be age adjusted, but the subsidies will not be.

If my income is $43,500, the Kaiser family foundation says that the subsidized premiums will be $550 a month, which is a stretch in the expensive urban area where I can find work. Housing and transportation are the big problems. Right now, I live in a group house and drive a used car. If I make $45,000 and lose the subsidy, my premiums will be $800-$900. That's a lot out of pocket.

Recently, my state started offering subsidized high deductible coverage, and I am looking seriously at that. However, that policy won't be available once health care reform comes in in 2014 because it doesn't cover enough stuff. I guess I better get sick now.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

34. My understanding is that even when the exchanges kick in age rating will be allowed

but (get this) restricted to no more than 4:1. Comforting, no?

[amandabeech]

35. I'm not sure about the 4:1, but yes, age rating will substitute for pre-existing conditions,

since so many people over 45 or 50 have something for which they take meds regularly. That's about all it takes, really to get kicked into the high risk pool.

There are going to be a lot of sick folks hitting the Medicare rolls in 10 or 15 years. That is if the corporate Dems and the Pukes haven't eliminated that, too.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

10. What is the rationale of forcing ill people to go without coverage for sixth months

in order to get into the pool?

What possible sense does that make?

If they have any major procedures during that six months they will go bankrupt. If they put off or delay medical care, their resulting treatment will probably be more expensive due to letting a condition go untreated.

We debated this at the time the "reform" was being passed. No acceptable answer was ever presented that I recall. Not that there would be an acceptable answer. Now that theory is reality it's even more horrible.

"Oh, I'm sorry Mr. John Q Public that you have lung cancer and lost your job and no longer have health coverage. Give me a call in six months and we'll pop you right into one of the high risk pools. If you're not around, could you have your widow call me? I like to keep my database up to date."

[Missy Vixen]

13. At least we don't have kids

We don't have health insurance. We lost it a year ago in November when DH lost his job. It's been comical to talk to people like the dentist's office, who can't seem to get it through their heads we're making other arrangements for dental care. After all, a cleaning and a five-minute exam is $300 out of pocket.

We are uninsurable due to preexisting conditions. It looks like health care "reform" will do little for us, if anything at all. The Washington State high-risk pool quoted us $1400 per month when we looked into it last year. That's another mortgage payment.

Of course, we are just two people. It will help many others, so it's okay, right?

:eyes:

[BzaDem]

18. It was purely for budgetary reasons. They don't want people to leave state high risk pools into the

much more heavily subsidized federal one. They would rather insure new people who are currently uninsured than help currently-insured people with their premiums. With a fixed pool of money for the entire few years, a choice had to be made.

Of course, I would much rather have had HCR take into effect now (or soon), so high risk pools weren't needed. Unfortunately, that would have raised the 10-year total cost to the point where the the 57-60th votes for the bill would have bolted.

(It was actually going to originally start in 2013. But they wanted to raise subsidies higher than they were, and that would have raised the 10 year cost too high for the last few votes. So they moved the starting date to 2014. This gave them a lot more money to work with to increase subsidies.)

Many (or at least several) aspects of HCR weren't designed to be stupid (as it may appear); they were designed due to medium-term budgetary constraints imposed by the last few votes required for passage.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

22. Thank you for a thoughtful response.

This brings us right back to the point that we are subsidizing PROFIT at the expense of care. Bad budgetary choices by our government. Not too mention that we have unlimited money for war, but are penny pinching misers when it comes to the health and well-being of our citizens.

We subsidized profit when we agreed to look the other way and laxly regulate and oversee the oil companies. What is the longterm cost of that decision?

If we had people in government who cared about the expenditures of the public coffers for actual public benefit, we could have subsidized (for real) healthcare, subsidized higher education, subsidized child care, greater strength in all of our social safety nets and on and on. People like the Teabaggers deride public expenditures on worthy things like this, but they are completely willing to subsidize corporate for profit criminals who deny us medical care, poison our food, pollute our water, and trigger massive unemployment. And our government completely agrees with them.

Healthcare reform is a complete joke. We will still be discussing it in 4 years, 8 years, 12 years and throwing our collective and individual money down a rathole.

[BzaDem]

27. "We will still be discussing it in 4 years, 8 years, 12 years"

No one says otherwise. Even countries with single payer frequently have to discuss and amend the law.

As far as single payer goes, there probably were around 10 votes in the Senate and ~100 votes in the House for it. So that wasn't going anywhere and likely won't go anywhere for decades.

As for the 4 year gap due to budgetary concerns, we almost could have avoided that. I think that somewhere between 56 and 58 Senators would have voted for a more generous bill (that kept the private system but increased subsidies and reduced the time for implementation). We definately had 56 votes for the public option, and my guess is that we really had 58 and possibly (though doubtfully) 59. I think Lieberman was the only one who had his heart absolutely set on demolishing the public option, primarily for personal grudge-related reasons. Once it became clear that Lieberman wanted to kill it, Landrieu, Lincoln, and possibly Nelson likely decided to turn against it for political reasons.

[riderinthestorm]

24. In Illinois, you have to wait 6 months before putting in an application for the high risk pool

and then once you put in the application, you are placed on the waiting list which can take as long as another year! So this "popping" you into the high risk pool right away after a six month lag time (and you are right, why this stupid wait without insurance?) isn't the way it works at all.

All to be offered a policy at exorbitant rates (my husband's is $1036/month). Since he's already in Illinois' high risk pool, he is ineligible to apply for the federal rates.

The rates are killing us! We do not do or spend anything "extra" ("go to the Gulf and spend money" says Obama!) since virtually all our disposable income goes towards that. I don't have any health insurance because we need to keep my husband covered for his PEC.

I know, I know the standard argument is that the HCR we got is better than nothing but there doesn't seem to be any acknowledgement from the HCR cheerleaders that enshrining the insurance companies as the middle man is/was a huge mistake. The stories of whose left behind will become more prominent but I don't have any hope for anyone addressing HCR again for another couple of decades. It's going to get a lot worse before it gets any better under the current revisions imho.

[XemaSab]

12. In a country with real heath care

they would have outreach to high-risk populations, such as people with HIV, asthma, diabetes, heart conditions, obesity, and so forth, and they would develop heathy living strategies to keep these people out of the hospital.

When the ER is your primary care physician, everyone's health care suffers.

[berni_mccoy]

16. High Risk Pool Premiums have both Subsidies and Caps

http://www.nihcr.org/news_High-RiskPools.html

Generally, the temporary program is open to citizens and legal residents who have a pre-existing condition and who have been uninsured for at least six months. The law does not specify what benefits must be provided, but the pools must cover at least 65 percent of the cost of whatever services are covered. The coverage also must have an out-of-pocket limit-the sum of deductibles, coinsurance or copayments-no greater than the limits established for high-deductible health plans linked to health savings accounts: $5,950 for an individual and $11,900 for a family in 2010.

At most, 5.9k per individual per year, 11.9k per family in the high risk pool.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

20. Your link's title: 5 Bill. for High Risk Pool Will Fall Far Short of Extending Affordable Coverage

So thank you for making my point. I will certainly bookmark that link.

http://www.nihcr.org/news_High-RiskPools.html
Policy Options for Design of the Temporary High-Risk Health Coverage Pool
$5 Billion for High-Risk Pool Will Fall Far Short of Extending Affordable Coverage to Millions of Uninsured Americans with Pre-Existing Medical Conditions

For Immediate Release
May 27, 2010

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- While 5.6-million to 7-million Americans may qualify for health coverage through the new temporary national high-risk pool program, the $5 billion allocated until 2014 will cover only a small fraction of those in need, potentially as few as 200,000 people a year, according to a new Policy Analysis from the National Institute for Health Care Reform (NIHCR).

skip

Estimates from the 2007 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) show about 51.6 million nonelderly people were uninsured in December 2007-the most recent available full year of data, according to the analysis. Of these, 43.7 million—85 percent of the total—had been without insurance for six months or more, as required by PPACA. Of that group, nearly 7 million had potentially high-cost medical conditions.

Of the nearly 7 million uninsured with high-cost conditions, 14 percent were offered coverage through their current employment. If those with access to other coverage were excluded-they likely would find subsidized employer coverage more affordable than premiums in the high-risk pool program- approximately 5.6 million people might be eligible for the new high-risk pool program, according to the analysis.

In 2008, existing state high-risk pools' costs per participant exceeded premiums by $4,200, according to a 2009 U.S. Government Accountability Office report. If a $4,200 subsidy was needed to bring premiums down to the typical 125 percent to 150 percent of standard rates used in many state pools, the subsidy needed to bring premiums to 100 percent of standard rates would have been in the range of $6,000 to $7,000, according to the NIHCR analysis. If federal subsidies of this size were provided for the full life of the national program, the annual number of people who could be covered would be around 200,000.

Do you see the numbers, Bernie? 200,000 out of 5.6 million will be ABLE to be covered by the funds allocated.

Now, take a look at the coverage they are going to get if they are "lucky" enough to get it it: 6 grand a year for an individual or 12K for a family and you are TOUTING that as being a good thing??!!! Let's take a poll right here on DU and ask how many people think that a family being told that their health coverage is "only" 12K a year AFTER reform sounds like a good deal?

The rest of the world thinks that we are totally insane in regards to how we handle healthcare and we are. And people who cannot face what a crapalicious scam this "reform" is run around and try to convince people that a shit sandwich is the only thing on the menu and let's be grateful we have that.

I AM NOT grateful for the shit sandwich,ok? It's a freaking disgrace.

[berni_mccoy]

23. You're not reading it right.

200,000 will be eligible for subsidies. Anyone who is eligible can buy into the high risk pool at the specified premium values. And yes, absolutely, 5k per individual per year as the most an individual will have to spend is a deal against current rates. And it's something people who have PEC can't do now. I spend 20k on coverage for my family before I see a cent of medical care covered. So yes, this will be a huge savings for me. It's affordable for many. And for 200,000 who have PEC and can't afford insurance, they will now be able to.

No one has claimed that the HCR is perfect or that it didn't fall short of expectations. But the claims of your OP twist the original author's article. You focus on one sentence and exclude others from the article in your OP. The original author does not share your sentiments about the high risk pool.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

25. You are wrong on several counts

200,000 out of 5.6 MILLION will be able to get high risk pool coverage, according to your article. That leaves 5,400,000 people who would qualify for the high risk pool uncovered due to the simple fact that not enough money was allocated to subsidize the costs for all the people who need the coverage. And that's assuming that they could even AFFORD the subsidized costs of 6K and 12K. Let's look at the first sentence of YOUR article again:

"WASHINGTON, D.C. -- While 5.6-million to 7-million Americans may qualify for health coverage through the new temporary national high-risk pool program,the $5 billion allocated until 2014 will cover only a small fraction of those in need, potentially as few as 200,000 people a year, according to a new Policy Analysis from the National Institute for Health Care Reform (NIHCR).

So 3% of the 5.6 million will be able to get coverage with the funds allocated. Hip, hip hooray. Too bad for the other 97%.

But let's talk about you for a moment. You HAVE coverage. You are paying 20K a year. You will NOT qualify for this pool. That was the gist of the sentence I bolded in the OP. You are counting your chickens, but they won't hatch for another four years.

Children can no longer be denied due to PEC. That's great. But at what cost? I guess more children will qualify for CHIP, but it's my understanding that CHIP has income guidelines for who qualifies -

http://www.chipmedicaid.org/english/chart_income_guidel...

The Daily Kos writer seems to think that almost all uninsured children with PEC will be covered under CHIP - let's hope that is the case. I am unclear on that point at this moment. But, I sincerely hope that you qualify for CHIP for your kids and can save a bundle. Because if you don't, you are back to the place you are now, private virtually unaffordable for most coverage.

Let's talk about adults. If you have a PEC and HAVE coverage, even if you are paying an astronomical amount, you do not qualify for the high risk pool. You have to actually hope that you are denied and even then you have to be uncovered for SIX MONTHS! If you are offered coverage, even coverage you cannot afford, you are just SOL. That is what the DK writer is saying and that was the sentence I bolded.

Everyone is able to read BOTH articles and draw their own conclusions.

There is some good:
More children (approx 4 million) will be covered by CHIP
3% of people who are currently denied coverage due to PEC and who can afford out-of-pockets of 6K and 12K will be covered

Is that enough to satisfy you for four years and to make you think that the insurance "reform" accomplished all that it should? How many more bankruptcies and deaths in the next four years? How many after? A lot. Because they never addressed core issues of affordibility and cutting costs and lowering premiums. Because they weren't willing to eliminate PROFIT - the one item the rest of the civilized world does not enter into any healthcare equation.
***************************************

EDIT: I do understand that prices for coverages for PEC will drop to the same standard as individual private insurance without PEC - I haven't posted like I get that. I do. But even that is unaffordable for many and the AGE rating ratio of 4:1 remains. Many PEC folks also happen to be older. My major point is that it was and remains unaffordable for most.

Edit my edit: upon further research,the standard about PEC coverage being the same as for standard coverage only applies to the coverage in the High Risk Pool itself. So my comments about people being stuck with their current high unaffordables stands.

[Scarsdale Vibe]

17. Did you even read the article?

Costs for people with pre-existing conditions will drop by at least 33% and in most cases by even more. For many people with pre-existing conditions health insurance will now become affordable.

The part you bolded is talking about healthy people who are priced out of the market, not those with pre-existing conditions.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

21. The High Risk Pool is called the High Risk Pool because it deals ONLY with people with

pre-existing conditions. The entire article I linked to is about the High Risk Pool - the title gives a clue. Instead of advising me to read the article I linked, perhaps you should take your own advice.

The bolded part is saying that if a person with pre-existing conditions is offered ANY coverage, even completely unaffordable coverage,THEY MAY NOT PARTICIPATE in the High Risk Pool, get it? Part of my point is that these people are doubly screwed - they are offered coverage they can't afford that then prohibits them from even getting into the pool. And then the pool itself is problematic.

Also please read the article that Bernie McCoy so helpfully provided in his reply.

[riderinthestorm]

28. You stated my point more eloquently.

Probably because this just pisses me off. I suspect that some of these insurance companies are offering such outrageous premiums, instead of outright denial anymore, to make sure these folks can't be included in the Fed high risk pool when that opens up. They're effectively making sure that those with really ugly PECs aren't eligible to even apply because they were never denied a policy.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

29. Which was also the major point and the sentence I bolded in the DK diary

Somehow, people seem to be missing this.

The DK Diary is bad enough talking about the actual uninsured, but people are not considering the double whammy this policy is putting on people who HAVE current insurance with their PECs who will be effectively prohibited from getting more affordable coverage unless and until they go naked for six months. Does that sound like something you would be willing to do? Not if you could possibly avoid it - so people end up in the situation you describe, virtual slaves to their health coverage, eating catfood and darning their socks by candlelight. (Not that you're doing that, but I bet many are close)

Everyone was soooo anxious to just get something passed so they could check it off on the accomplishment list. Many, many people were screaming about how pathetic the end bill actually was and we can really see that now. We just read about double digit increases from the insurers. Was there anything in the legislation that stopped that from happening? Obviously there was not. The increases as usual far surpass the actual increase in the cost of care. Did they do anything sensible in the legislation like freezing premiums at current rates with ONLY increases in the actual cost of care being allowed? No they did not. But President Obama just sternly spoke to the insurers. BFD. He and the Dems who passed this bill are the greater fools if they once again are going to rely on the voluntary compliance to do the right thing by an industry that has proven over and over agin that they are INCAPABLE of doing the right thing.

Ok. Things might seem better in 4 years when the exchanges are set up. Individual out of pocket expenses may drop for many. But the aggregate cost of healthcare in this nation will stay exactly the same or more than it is now.The only difference is that the government will be splitting the cost with us. So individually, we may reap a benefit, but as a nation we reap none. Madness.

[riderinthestorm]

31. In IL, you have to have been denied AND then go naked for 6 mos

So what we are facing in IL is that you aren't ever denied anymore. You just get a rate quote that's outta sight.

So you can't apply for the high risk pool at state level. And nobody can tell me how the Federal high risk pool is going to get integrated into IL. If you have to have a denial AND go naked for 6 mos, or just go naked.

I've tried to get a straight answer from my congressman's office and even they don't know.

So $13k/year gets spent out of our family pockets for 1 person's insurance without any help in the future for those in our niche. We're not eating cat food but we're not eating out, ever.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

32. I think that is also what the National High Risk Pool Requires

Here is a link of the basics from the HHS Dept. which has oversight over the program.

http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/initiative/hi_risk_pool_facts.html

It seems to state unequivocally that one has to have gone without "credible coverage for six months". It also refers to providing affordable premiums to those who have been "locked out" of the insurance market. They could have said "priced out" but they did not. I think the use of the phrase "locked out" implies a denial of any coverage.

Therefore, it appears that the National High Risk pool mirrors the requirements of your state pool. That really is not surprising, given that they did not want great masses of people transferring to this program if there was any other option, even an option that doesn't compute.

So this High Risk Pool, which I know personally many many people who were waiting with baited breath for, turns out to be mostly an illusion. It does not free anyone from being fleeced with exorbitant fees and it doesn't offer any fast, SWATlike response for ill people with a critical need for coverage. It is throwing the picture of a lifesaver to a drowning person.

[riderinthestorm]

36. And insurance companies are savvy to the lingo, since they wrote it.

"They could have said "priced out" but they did not. I think the use of the phrase "locked out" implies a denial of any coverage."

But the limbo this implies is important.

Many, many millions like my husband, in the last year, have seen insurance companies write a policy instead of outright denying them

He has Stage IV, Grade IV lymphoma. And ya think BCBS in the last year would deny him right?

No way.

Just write him up an exorbitant policy and let him dangle out there in no-man's land.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

37. This just makes me so angry.

Your situation is repeated millions of times across this country. It could be any of us, at any time.

I have a relative who is now losing COBRA coverage which was subsidized just recently by the government. But it has run out. She has a history of breast cancer, but not really. Various suspicious things over the years that have been biopsied and removed, but enough to place a stigma on her coverage. She has been shopping and is basically being offered one horrendous plan after the other, all basically un affordable.

She was really hoping to get into the Federal High Risk Pool. It will be horrible when she discovers that just by the virtue of her being offered half-assed, un affordable coverage,that she is ineligible.

[riderinthestorm]

38. We need to go out drinking. I hear ya.

People are pacified at the moment. Nobody truly understands the nitty gritty of HCR. We are going to be fucked six ways to Sunday. Your relative is not going to qualify for the fed pool. If IL is any example, she is SOL unless she has been officially denied coverage. THAT is now a rarity cuz the ins companies are savvy about what's happening. Anyone who is high risk, that they can find a way to exlude now, is the way to go.

15+ more years of craziness.

I don't have insurance but I'm an Irish citizen. If the shit hits the fan, I just go there if needs be (even if it's an airlift flight from the US to Ireland, for beau coup bucks - at least its cheaper than bankrupt). And they are one of the countries in deep, deep financial trouble. Yet healthcare isn't one of the targeted cut-backs.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

39. You're lucky to be an Irish citizen

I read a story not to long ago about an American who flew to Ireland to have gallbladder surgery. The flight, the stay, and the surgery cost literally a fraction of the equivalent in the US. I can't find that story right now but since HCR didn't do anything to reduce costs and will still leave millions out in the cold, medical tourism will continue to grow.

http://www.yoursurgeryabroad.com/real-life-stories/

Oh,and by the way
:toast: