Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Other Side" data-source="post: 989585" data-attributes="member: 17969">How does a person who has medical issues already, point to an article where the writer says that &quot;pre existing conditions&quot; is like making a car insurance company providing coverage for a car that has already been wrapped around a tree.I have a customer, who met a girl, they had been dating for about a year, she got pregnant, he has a job at a small business and makes less than 35K a year.&nbsp; He has insurance that HE pays 200 dollars a month to participate in.&nbsp; He marries the girl when she was 7 months pregnant and gets to open enrollment to add his NEW wife, and presto....&nbsp; DENIED.Thats right, DENIED.&nbsp; WHY?&nbsp;&nbsp; The insurance company said she has a pre existing condition...PREGNANCY.NO COVERAGE.&nbsp; They were forced to go to medi-cal for pre natal care, and now, after the baby was born, his insurance company wouldnt cover the baby either because its sick.&nbsp; With the supreme court ruling however, his CHILD and his WIFE will now be covered and NO QUESTIONS ASKED.How do you side with the insurance company on this case?What about your health issues?&nbsp; Should your husbands policy exclude you if they could find a disqualifer in your history?I dont understand how you VOTE against your own best interests, or the interests of your fellow americans who lives are just starting out?I dont get you.PeaceTOS</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Other Side, post: 989585, member: 17969"] How does a person who has medical issues already, point to an article where the writer says that "pre existing conditions" is like making a car insurance company providing coverage for a car that has already been wrapped around a tree. I have a customer, who met a girl, they had been dating for about a year, she got pregnant, he has a job at a small business and makes less than 35K a year. He has insurance that HE pays 200 dollars a month to participate in. He marries the girl when she was 7 months pregnant and gets to open enrollment to add his NEW wife, and presto.... DENIED. Thats right, DENIED. WHY? The insurance company said she has a pre existing condition...PREGNANCY. NO COVERAGE. They were forced to go to medi-cal for pre natal care, and now, after the baby was born, his insurance company wouldnt cover the baby either because its sick. With the supreme court ruling however, his CHILD and his WIFE will now be covered and NO QUESTIONS ASKED. How do you side with the insurance company on this case? What about your health issues? Should your husbands policy exclude you if they could find a disqualifer in your history? I dont understand how you VOTE against your own best interests, or the interests of your fellow americans who lives are just starting out? I dont get you. Peace TOS [/QUOTE]

Verification