P
PRmerger
Guest
I don’t understand. If you had a “congenital condition” and were insured as a dependent, why were you denied after age 17?
- Status
P
pathia
Guest
Because my father’s insurance predates my existence. Once I had to get a plan on my own in a different state, things reset. They didn’t care that I had had previous coverage. There’s no law stating you have to cover anyone who applies who had coverage before. At least not in any of the states I’ve lived in.
There was also a substantial gap. From 17ish to 20 (My parting with my family was not…pleasant or completely willingly), I was usually living out of my car, or what shelters that would take me. Insurance was low on the totem pole compared to warmth and food and finding a job.
P
PRmerger
Guest
I’m saddened that you’ve had such struggles.
Do you really think that legitimizing homosexual marriage will change this? You’ll still have a pre-existing condition and won’t be insurable.
P
pathia
Guest
I could be included on my partner’s insurance. They have a union job, they cover my instances, we’ve researched it. However, they don’t cover anyone except a dependent or a spouse. I am not so sickly as to be disabled, so I cannot be a dependent.
B
bookgirl32
Guest
Bingo.
If a person’s parents are insured at the time of the person’s birth, added them as a dependent in the amount of time required by the insurance company, and provided continuous coverage for this person, then nothing would be a pre-existing condition, especially not a congenital condition (I’m an HR director, or was up to a year and a half ago when I had my son).
If a parent was unable to insure a child that child would immediately be eligible for medicare which does not reject minor dependents for pre-existing conditions.
Now, if you were a legal adult and allowed your insurance coverage to lapse so you then had a period of time without coverage, a new insurance company could refuse to pay for that condition, or refuse you coverage completely. The key is not having continuous coverage (not by one company, just continuous coverage) as a legal adult.
My sibling is not “intersexed”, but has a somewhat similar chromosomal disorder that has caused years of treatment. Never has an insurance company denied coverage b/c there was always continuous coverage.
If an insurance company is flat out telling anyone they are denied because of their sexual orientation (which I highly doubt), that person could then sue and probably get enough money to not need health insurance.
As to being transexual (not the intersex part), I don’t know the details, but if this is usually a self - induced condition, unless somehow the person was subjected to some sort of sex change/altering operation/treatment against their will (maybe in the case of a minor, but then the above section about minors applies). Transexualism is not considered a “condition”, although complications from any operations or procedures may be, and could be pre-existing dependant upon insurance situations. However, again, it is a self-induced situation, and therefore the ultimate responsibility can only be laid at the foot of the person who chose to have any operations or procedures.
Many people have lapses in coverage due to unemployment if they cannot afford Cobra (a program that serves as a “bridge”, allowing you to stay on your former employer’s policy while you pay for it, and can be expensive) or were not covered by disability insurance in case of injury. It doesn’t matter if you’re gay, straight, black, white, etc., this is why people have insurance matters. It is the fault of the insurance companies, yes. But is in no way exclusive to homosexuals. And again, if an insurance company claims this, it would be considered discrimination and I highly highly doubt an insurance company would expose themselves to this kind of liability.
The ONLY thing gay marriage would effect would be a “spouse” being allowed as a dependent on a policy. Pre-existing conditions have nothing to do with this.
I’m not necessarily addressing Pathia’s personal situation, obviuosly I am not personally familiar with the details.
I’m assuming pathia is referring to the intersexed issue b/c it could cause problems as to enrollment, how to catergorize procedures, etc – maybe. Again, in my personal experience, chromosomal disorders have not caused a denial in coverage. There are many chromosomal disorders that involve being not just xx or xy, I’ve never heard of one being the cause of a denial by insurance.
This is all from my own experience, and I don’t claim perfect knowledge on any of it, feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
B
bookgirl32
Guest
So the intersexed condition did not cause a denial in coverage, if you were covered till the age of 18. Did you choose to have transgender / transexual surger or treatment after the age of 18? If so, the insurance companies do have the right to deny you because that is a self-inflicted condition, not something you had no control over.
Our company is self-insured (hard to explain, meaning we pay for the major portion of the claims for the employees). As the owners of the “insurance company”, of course we have the right to deny coverage for certain procedures that are not necessary to keep someone alive. Two examples are artificial birth control, which we refuse to cover, and abortion. Infertility treatment is another example of types of procedures that are legally deniable.
Medically, would you have been in danger of death or would you have come to some medical harm b/c of NOT getting gender altering treatment? I’m not talking about psychological or emotional harm (not saying I don’t care, just being technical). If not, then the insurance companies can refuse you. It has nothing to do with sexual orientation, at all. It has to do with what they categorize as an unnecessary procedure, period. Again, infertility falls under the same category.
B
bookgirl32
Guest
THIS was why you were denied insurance. THere are federal laws allowing the insurance companies to deny you if you had a period of not being covered. If you did not move to your own coverage within 30 days / 60 days (sometimes 90) of your previous coverage ending, anything can be up for grabs as pre-existing condition, even someone dying of cancer. Insurance companies aren’t very nice, they stick to their rules like crazy, and believe me, they’re legally covered, it’s part of what makes them so expensive.
Again, none of this was due to your sexual orientation, it would happen to anyone, and does.
B
bookgirl32
Guest
They would have to offer you coverage, they would not have to cover everything. This wouldn’t fix everything, in any way.
This has to do with a lapse in coverage, not a gender issue. Even a cancer patient entering into a heterosexual legal marriage would face the same problems if their cancer was a pre-existing condition AFTER they became a legal adult.
P
pathia
Guest
They have told us repeatedly that if we could get married, I would be covered. You have to realize right now I have NO coverage. Even limited coverage is better than NONE
P
pathia
Guest
I was more meaning to talk about the denial of medical care from EMT’s and in emergency rooms I’ve received, it sort of derailed into insurance. I sent you a PM about my insurance issues in more detail.
I have been hospitalized many times, most of the times they were quite good and quick. They didn’t care what I was, however there was one instance where no one would touch me. They all automatically assumed since I was gay and/or transsexual that I had HIV or some other communicable disease. I was passed around several doctors, while fairly delirious I might add, before they found an openly gay doctor who was willing to treat me.
Nothing ‘bad’ happened, since they did find a doctor, but I have no idea what would have happened to me had they not found a doctor willing to treat me. There was no way to file a complaint or suit, because I got treatment and I had no visible damage from the delay in emergency care. I am terrified of it happening again though.
B
bookgirl32
Guest
THis isn’t right of anyone to do, but it is also not illegal. I’m sorry you’ve had these experiences. I don’t understand what homosexual marriage would do to fix this.
B
bookgirl32
Guest
I did write you back on PM. Again, even you having NO coverage right now is due to you allowing your coverage to lapse after being a legal adult, not being a transexual. True, it may be easier for someone with a different issue (although in the case of patients with terminal and chronic illnesses, probably harder) to find someone to allow future coverage of future conditions, but if you had not allowed the discontinuation of coverage, it wouldn’t have happened.
I’m not tryign to be insensitive, I’m just trying to point out that it can’t really be blamed on being intersexed, transgendered, or homosexual.
P
pathia
Guest
It’s just a more in general complaint about things that really do happen. Many people just sort of seem to handwave these things off, ‘oh no doctor would ever do that’ or ‘the gay agenda just makes these things up’. When I experienced it fairly directly.
All these things are frequently denied as being sob stories, or trumped up accusations or ‘pity party’. The fact of the matter is, it’s unfair and people know it. I personally think they choose to ignore the fact that it occurs to clear their consciousness. If it never actually happens, then it isn’t a concern.
It seems mostly regionally based, on the west coast I have never seen anything like this, but in the east and south? It’d probably be safer for me to self-treat a gunshot wound than go to the ER from my experiences there.
B
benedictus2
Guest
A strong faith does not equate to knowledge of Truth. A strong faith does not make one immune to the lies of the devil.
B
benedictus2
Guest
Truth is not a matter of speculation. Christ said I am the Truth. Christ founded the Catholic Church which He promised to guide into ALL TRUTH via the Holy Spirit.
Christ said to the apostles he who hears you, hears Me.
B
benedictus2
Guest
Pathia, I do feel for you and I sincerely mean that. I watched Michael Moore’s movie about the state of health in the US and it is shocking. Medical care should be universal and should not look at race, colour or creed.
I will include you in my prayers.
I agree that your friends should be allowed to visit you if you expressly wish them to.
However, to extend that to marriage is just totally wrong. To argue that the Church should allow gay marriage just so your partner can visit you at hospital is downright ridiculous.
B
benedictus2
Guest
I would disagree with your reply to Teen because I feel this borders on a utilitarian view of family. What about those with congenital defects? They will need a lot of help from society. Isn’t that what a Christian society is all about, caring for the less fortunate.
Rather I would say that surrogacy and sperm donation are practices contrary to Christian doctrine. This is man playing God once more and thus not a valid argument especially from someone calling herself Teen4Christ. This practice is more like Teen4Myself.
B
benedictus2
Guest
Excellent!
M
maggiemay2u
Guest
they are if they hold power of attorney…There is, when a homosexual is in the hospital, their lover in many cases is not permitted to be by their side
P
pathia
Guest
Easier said than done.
- Status