<p>dstark,
My post was about people with pre-existing conditions who have been denied coverage, not about pre-existing conditions in general. Of course there are more than 100,000 in the US with pre-existing conditions. Wasn’t it obvious to you what was being addressed? Read more carefully, we’ve already gone over it twice already.</p>
<p>I’m not in the individual market today, but it looks about 99% certain that I will be exploring it in the next month or so.</p>
<p>For a lot of people who previously had insurance, the insurance didn’t include the pre-existing condition. </p>
<p>My d was not counted as being denied for preexisting condition as she had insurance through COBRA for 18 months. However, if not for the affordable care act she would not have been able to get insurance otherwise. As it was her COBRA had a premium of $7,800 a year.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ok, is this news? For a lot of people who have pre-existing conditions, they have coverage through their employer plans which do not exclude pre-existing conditions. That is not news either.</p>
<p>Dstark, </p>
<p>How, exactly, am I ignoring the benefits of ACA? Surely, you jest. </p>
<p>Posting here long enough for most of you to know I had a hard time gaining coverage a few years ago. I see lots of benefits. I also see some downsides. Anything short of cheerleading for it is seen as negative. It gets old. </p>
<p>That is my frustration.</p>
<p>I have taken this thread off bookmarked status. Carry on with your conversation. See you elsewhere at CC. </p>
<p>Sorry to see you go Samurai. It is a shame you feel attacked in some way. I will miss your discussion.</p>
<p>SL, I am sorry you are leaving. I appreciated your input. </p>
<p>Bay, </p>
<p><a href=“http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704164004575548563019515140?mg=reno64-wsj”>http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704164004575548563019515140?mg=reno64-wsj</a></p>
<p>“The four largest U.S. for-profit health insurers on average denied policies to one out of every seven applicants based on their prior medical history, according to a congressional investigation released Tuesday.”</p>
<p>I left out the denial of claims…</p>
<p>Sax, I am glad it is working out for your daughter.</p>
<p>^ Ok, so you provided an article stating that about 651,000 have been denied coverage at some point, and I provided information about the federal gov’ts program that could find only 110,000 people who have been denied coverage who wanted coverage. What does that tell us about how many people with pre-existing conditions were unable to get coverage pre-ACA and now can? Not much. As far as I can tell, there are no numbers, and never have been, or if there were any they are not readily available to those of us who are interested in knowing.</p>
<p>This thread sometimes gives a feeling of being on Alabama or USC threads where people are waiting to pounce on you for the slightest perceived slight. 
Take it easy folks - let people post what they feel and you can point them in the right direction without assuming they are performing a sacrilege of somekind. </p>
<p>I got $500 debit card from my employer because they are addressing something in ACA. I don’t know if I have all my doctors or drugs since I have not gone to a doctor got a prescription officially in at least a couple of years. I am sure some people are finding their doctors or hospitals are missing and only thing they can see is a new law. How are you going to convince a large number of people that law had no impact whatsoever? That is just living under a rock.</p>
<p>Bay, where are your numbers? </p>
<p>Mine were from the insurance companies. ;)</p>
<p>Here is one of many articles on the program, dstark. This one puts the total at 135,000 versus the 110,000 that I quoted, maybe because the number is more recent since I posted about it months ago…<a href=“Health Insurance Center: Your Guide to the Affordable Care Act”>Health Insurance Center: Your Guide to the Affordable Care Act;
<p>Bay, you missed a critical point in the article you linked to:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The problem isn’t that the government could only “find” 135,000 to buy coverage - the problem is that there were more people who needed coverage than the system could handle. You are counting the people who knew about the PCIP program, could afford the premiums, met the specific requirements for inclusion, and managed to get their applications in before the doors were shut to new applicants. </p>
<p>dstark,
There is more history to the program. They predicted 375,000 would enroll in the first year or two, and that $5billion would cover it. Not only did they not come close to finding 375,000, they ran out of money and had to shut down the program early. We already talked about this before.</p>
<p>Bay, “finding” is not the appropriate word – I don’t recall much going on in the way of outreach to “find” people. If I open a store and no one shows up, it doesn’t mean that no one is interested in the product I’m selling – it may mean that people don’t know about my store, or that my location is inconvenient or hours too short. In the case of the PCIP program there were multiple barriers to enrollment. </p>
<p>PCIP only accepted individuals who has been without health insurance for 6 months or more, and who did not have any other coverage, even if their other coverage specifically excluded their pre-existing condition. See: <a href=“https://www.pcip.gov/Whos_Eligible.html”>https://www.pcip.gov/Whos_Eligible.html</a></p>
<p>It seems to me that most people who want insurance would opt for at least partial coverage if they could get it. What would the numbers have been for the people who weren’t excluded by the PCIP requirements? What about the people who wanted the insurance but couldn’t afford the premiums?</p>
<p>Calmom
I didn’t bring this up to debate the program. Someone way back asked how many were uninsured due to pre-existing conditions pre-ACA. I merely offered it as the only hard data I have heard. </p>
<p>Now that I think about it, if the PCIP was a success, then theoretically it’s possible that no one with a pre-existing condition was uninsured for the last 3 years, right?</p>
<p>Bay, I find the links interesting but the number of people in the pcip program is not the number of people that were denied coverage. </p>
<p>Now you know from the investigation of the 4 largest insurance companies how many people were denied coverage from these 4 companies. You also see how many claims were denied. We also know there are other insurance companies out there including Blue Shield that have denied coverage. </p>
<p>So, let’s work from real numbers of people that were denied coverage. You now know the pcip numbers do not include everybody who was denied coverage. </p>
<p>Ok, but just because someone was denied once, doesn’t mean they didn’t eventually find coverage, dstark. Your number doesn’t tell the whole story, either.</p>
<p>I was denied coverage once. I reapplied and got coverage. Bay is correct. Being denied once is not terminal. It’s pretty meaningless, really. There is also group coverage and that was always gettable even without an employer provided plan.</p>
<p>
No, of course not – simply because of the number of people who were excluded because of failure to meet the criteria - not to mention the fact that the program ran out of money and shut its doors. </p>
<p>Your comment is akin to arguing that if a city’s buses are full, that must mean that there is no one left without transportation – no matter how many people were left standing in line when the bus pulled away. </p>
<p>Bottom line: if PCIP ran out of money and shut it’s doors after enrolling 130,000 people, that would have been a good argument for increasing funding to PCIP and expanding its reach. Obviously the demand exceeded the program’s ability to meet the needs of its enrollees. </p>