Anonymous wrote:The preexisting condition portion of the Affordable Care Act was scheduled to kick in in 2014. In the meantime, a PP posted the link for the government-run high risk insurance pool. We will see what the Court decides either this Monday or the following Monday. I have to say, based on oral arguments, it's not looking good. I hope that the high-risk option they started will continue to exist -- it wasn't perfect but it was decent coverage at an affordable price. You only have to have been turned down for private insurance by one company to be eligible.

It isn't looking good for Obamacare. If you listened to the oral arguments, you can have your choice between (1) the Solicitor is incompetent; or (2) the Solicitor had no good arguments because there really aren't any that stand up to more than the negligible scrutiny than the bill was given before it was signed into law.

The reason complete, no questions asked coverage of preexisting conditions is likely to fall with the mandate is because the mandate that forces healthy people to buy insurance is what pays for the coverage for the sick people. If there were no mandate, many, many people would simply not bother to have health insurance until they needed it. Why would you, if you could simply get coverage after you get sick for the same price you'd pay if you were healthy? The "pool" of sick people would be increasingly expensive to insure, and the healthier people would drop out, making it more expensive (per patient), and the spiral would continue.

The pools do seem to be at least part of the answer, and they are likely to continue, as many states had them before Obamacare was enacted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is EXTREMELY expensive to purchase private insurance and everything under the sun is considered a pre-existing condition that either up the cost of the insurance or get you rejected by the plan.

I can vouch for this. I was rejected at 25 y.o. b/c I had a UTI once.

My MIL was rejected at 57 (and she was, and still is, as healthy as a horse) for having toenail fungus! I guess the real reason was her age, but fungus was an excuse. The system is truly ridiculous.

This is garbage. You don't have to disclose that you had a UTI, and it's not a pre-exisiting condition, so that's not why you got rejected. The toenail fungus story is just bizarre.

Half of my DC neighborhood is self-employed. Everyone has health insurance. And the monthly premiums are deductible, which is a nice bonus.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is EXTREMELY expensive to purchase private insurance and everything under the sun is considered a pre-existing condition that either up the cost of the insurance or get you rejected by the plan.

I'm recently divorced, and this is not true. I have several medical "pre-exisiting conditions" including an in situ melanoma and a thyroid condition that requires eventual removal of my thyroid. But I have chosen a great BCBS Carefirst HHO in DC for less than $400 a month in premiums. I'm also in my mid-forties.

I don't know why you would post untruths like this.

NP here, b hut my experience has been the opposite. Denied for any plans that cost less than 800/month (denied and offered the state high risk pool).

Well, not sure what your medical problems are, but they must be interesting. I got my insurance with no problems whatsoever, and I've got two pre-exisiting conditions. Less than $400 a month in DC - an HMO too. Not only that, but I know quite a few other people who are self-employed, and they use the same plan with no problems either! We love our health insurance and all compare doctors.

EHealthInsurance can do it all for you. Or one of my friends used an insurance broker (free), who also made things very easy for her and her family.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DH is a fed so I can continue coverage under our current family plan paying the same premium for the same coverage. We have a child with SN and I chose to stay home while he was young and before we knew he had SNs. I am thinking about returning to work as an attorney but may settle for doing occasional contract work rather than going back to a full fledged career. My DH will be retiring in 10 yrs when DC starts high school and I'd like to be home with them.

My DH is also fed. How long can a widow continue to stay on the family plan? What are the requirements for service? e.g. 5 yrs in, 10 yrs in, etc?

Look on the opm.gov site. All there. You have to be covered under FERS and an annuity in most cases. Not too long either, I think it was 9 months but look on the site. Very straightforward.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is EXTREMELY expensive to purchase private insurance and everything under the sun is considered a pre-existing condition that either up the cost of the insurance or get you rejected by the plan.

I can vouch for this. I was rejected at 25 y.o. b/c I had a UTI once.

My MIL was rejected at 57 (and she was, and still is, as healthy as a horse) for having toenail fungus! I guess the real reason was her age, but fungus was an excuse. The system is truly ridiculous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go back to work and get benefits through the new job.

If this is your plan in this economy, after you've been out of the workforce for several years, then you need to think again.

Don't you think that if you're STILL a SAHM in this economy that you're really not "into" the economy?

It's all cherries and cream!

Let OP dream on!

New SAHM poster here. I've received two unsolicited job offers in the past year from clients I used to work for. Seems peoople remember when you're damn good at what you do, and they find a way to get you back with them. Not all SAHMs are financially clueless. Some of us know we have very strong professional reputations, are in demand, and aren't willing to let an irrational risk adversity stop us from doi g what we believe is best for our families and ourselves. To each her own, but don't assume SAHMs are uninfirmed it lack judgment.

Will this still be the case 2, 3, 5 years from now?

Based on similar situated friends who were SAHMs, I'd think I have a few more years before I need to rely on having updated experience if I wanted to re-enter at a relatively senior level. It would be pretty for me to get transitional teaching or consulting work, though, so no problem. Also, we have sufficient assets, income, and insurance for me to remain home permanently if something were to happen to DH. For those who are assessing what their needs would be in the worst case scenario, I'd recommend considering the possibility of DH's disability rather than his death. It can be a much more expensive situation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go back to work and get benefits through the new job.

If this is your plan in this economy, after you've been out of the workforce for several years, then you need to think again.

Don't you think that if you're STILL a SAHM in this economy that you're really not "into" the economy?

It's all cherries and cream!

Let OP dream on!

New SAHM poster here. I've received two unsolicited job offers in the past year from clients I used to work for. Seems peoople remember when you're damn good at what you do, and they find a way to get you back with them. Not all SAHMs are financially clueless. Some of us know we have very strong professional reputations, are in demand, and aren't willing to let an irrational risk adversity stop us from doi g what we believe is best for our families and ourselves. To each her own, but don't assume SAHMs are uninfirmed it lack judgment.

Will this still be the case 2, 3, 5 years from now?

Anonymous wrote:DH is a fed so I can continue coverage under our current family plan paying the same premium for the same coverage. We have a child with SN and I chose to stay home while he was young and before we knew he had SNs. I am thinking about returning to work as an attorney but may settle for doing occasional contract work rather than going back to a full fledged career. My DH will be retiring in 10 yrs when DC starts high school and I'd like to be home with them.

My DH is also fed. How long can a widow continue to stay on the family plan? What are the requirements for service? e.g. 5 yrs in, 10 yrs in, etc?

Anonymous wrote:It is EXTREMELY expensive to purchase private insurance and everything under the sun is considered a pre-existing condition that either up the cost of the insurance or get you rejected by the plan.

I can vouch for this. I was rejected at 25 y.o. b/c I had a UTI once.

Anonymous wrote:I would think this wouldn't even be on the second page of the things I'd be worried about under this scenario.

Then that's just crazy talk. Health insurance is expensive to buy on your own, especially for families.

The preexisting condition portion of the Affordable Care Act was scheduled to kick in in 2014. In the meantime, a PP posted the link for the government-run high risk insurance pool. We will see what the Court decides either this Monday or the following Monday. I have to say, based on oral arguments, it's not looking good. I hope that the high-risk option they started will continue to exist -- it wasn't perfect but it was decent coverage at an affordable price. You only have to have been turned down for private insurance by one company to be eligible.

COBRA and life insurance baby!

My dh's Cobra is covering me for 3 years. Widows and widowers are covered longer than those who are laid off. Then I'm on my own. I hope Obamacare will cover me then.