Why do individual health insurance sign-up plans ask for details that go beyond the look-back period for your state?

good question - i wonder if they're trying to get you to cough up extra info....phishing for more clues

Because statists have destroyed healthcare in America by abolishing the free market.

I do believe the Obama legislation eliminated the pre-existing conditions clause for health insurance eligibility. They don't need to know that data anyways, less work for the data entry clerks.

Weitzleberg wrote:

I do believe the Obama legislation eliminated the pre-existing conditions clause for health insurance eligibility. They don't need to know that data anyways, less work for the data entry clerks.

for good coverage, if you choose to go with a private insurer, they usually require preexisting conditions screening and coverage is NOT guaranteed

they are trying to learn more about you without you being aware that you do NOT have to provide details. it's their way of beating around the bush

These rules are ridiculous. If someone is going to be involved in financing your healthcare, your medical history is relevant information. Why should the company have to choose whether to accept you as a client and then set a price for your policy with incomplete information?

Does it bother you that colleges demand detailed information about your academic history before they accept you? Does it bother you that employers demand detailed information about your work history before hiring you?

Why should anyone enter into a contract with you without knowing all the facts. And more importantly, why should the government prevent complete information from being shared between two contracting parties?

Should an employer be able to ask your health history before hiring you? After all since they are going to have to pay for your health care is seems only fair that they get that info.

complete info wrote:

These rules are ridiculous. If someone is going to be involved in financing your healthcare, your medical history is relevant information. Why should the company have to choose whether to accept you as a client and then set a price for your policy with incomplete information?

Does it bother you that colleges demand detailed information about your academic history before they accept you? Does it bother you that employers demand detailed information about your work history before hiring you?

Why should anyone enter into a contract with you without knowing all the facts. And more importantly, why should the government prevent complete information from being shared between two contracting parties?

aDSa wrote:

Should an employer be able to ask your health history before hiring you? After all since they are going to have to pay for your health care is seems only fair that they get that info.

Sure, just as you should be able to ask questions pertinent to the company's "health" (i.e. the firm's financial situation).

just sayin yall wrote:

they are trying to learn more about you without you being aware that you do NOT have to provide details. it's their way of beating around the bush

This is true

aDSa wrote:

Should an employer be able to ask your health history before hiring you? After all since they are going to have to pay for your health care is seems only fair that they get that info.

Group vs. individual.

No thats the insurance company (although for small groups <10 employees they do ask). I am saying your company before they hire you should have the rights to your complete health history to see what your estimated cost is. After all they are going to be paying it. Is it age discrimination when you don't hire someone that will cost you 10k more a year in health insurance than some one younger or is it good business? What about when you don't hire a 20-40 year old female who just got married?I don't know what the solution is for the preexisting condition is. If you go down the complete disclosure, then the insurance company should also be allowed to run a slew of genetic tests so they can more properly qualify their risk. If you don't require any discolsure people will not get insurance until they are sick. Neither one seems right to me

Brian Wave wrote:

aDSa wrote:

Should an employer be able to ask your health history before hiring you? After all since they are going to have to pay for your health care is seems only fair that they get that info.

Group vs. individual.

The statists offer a false alternative: the status quo or government rationing of healthcare. The moral alternative to both — the alternative that recognizes the individual’s moral right to act and trade in accordance with his own judgment — is a free market.

The solution is a mandate

It's just like paying taxes, not unconstitutional

That goes to zero months in 2014 due to HCR. Insurance companies can no longer ask for pre-existing condtions in 2014. Insurance companies and states must establish risk pools to handle high risk insureds.

Think of not disclosing some health issue from you past in a different way. Say you are buying a house, in this role you are the insurance company. The Relator asks the Sellers to disclose any issues with the house, like water in the basement. The Sellers know that they will not get a favorable price if they disclose that the basement did leak several years ago in a big rain storm. So, they do not divulge that fact.

So, based on what you have been told about the house, you pay a fair price. Then next summer, a heavy rain hits and your basement gets wet, and you lose stuff that you stored there. A contractor comes in a examines your basement and says that this has happened before and can be fixed for several thousand. So you are now out money, and don't you feel that the Sellers really owe you for not revealing what they knew? You would have taken the cost of fixing the leaky basement into your price offer had you known upfront.

If people want to charge me more for having a pre existing condition fine. You can put in a rider/waiver for that condition that nothing will be covered that relates to that condition. Just don't exclude me from coverage because no one should have to pay 3000 bucks out of pocket for an MRI

There are a lot of issues with the free market system where everyone buys their own insurance1) Switching systems will adversly effect certain people. Lets say I am 60 years old and have been working since I was 20. I subsidized all the old people in my group when I was young, is it fair that I don't get subsidized when I am old?2) Is it fair that certain people will be charged higher rates through no fault of their own. For example if the average 25 year old has to pay 500/month would it be fair to charge someone 1k a month because they have a gene which makes it likely they will have breast cancer by the time they are 503) When can the insurance company raise rates and who can they raise them on. For example if your come down with diabetes, is it fair for them to raise your premium to 50k per year? Free market says yes.4) How can people switch between plans? This is the same problem that Romney has when he suggests the states can do health care. Reducing mobility (i.e. I can't leave MA because I can't get insurance in CA) hurts the us economy. However if you let people move freely your back to the preexisting condition problem of CA doesn't want unhealthy MA people moving and my insurance company doesn't want to be know as a place offering first rate care for diabetics if I can't charge a huge premium for it.5) We will still be paying the 30% overhead for insurance companies that a single payer avoids. There is a reason why medicare and the VA are far more efficient than any private plan.There is no great solution to this health care problem. I am sure we could come up with a system that sucks less and is more fair but it will still disadvantage a bunch of people

um no yah wrote:

The statists offer a false alternative: the status quo or government rationing of healthcare. The moral alternative to both — the alternative that recognizes the individual’s moral right to act and trade in accordance with his own judgment — is a free market.

aDSa wrote:

There are a lot of issues with the free market system where everyone buys their own insurance

In a free market, insurance wouldn't be used to pay for most medical expenses. As a result, healthcare costs would be dramatically lower than they are now under our government-enforced insurance monopoly.