Insurance Update

[HappyHappy]

Wrong again for the Communist minion.
I am a happy man. Lonely is a title for the few remaining
supporters for the Communist puppet Barack Obama.

"For the record"

Read my sig for some Callmeshit lies.

HH

[Pudfark]

and, Pud, note that I am true to my word on this subject, and have tried to report honestly along the process, as I said I would back at the end of the summer.

I do appreciate your veracity on this subject. Not a point of contention or argument to me, I would be interested if the latest financial numbers, that you were quoted, change?

Thank You

[Pudfark]

Found this at Huff-Po

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/0 ... 84820.html

This raised the hair up on the back of my neck:

"The Obama administration insists the enrollment glitches will be fixed in time to prevent any troubles next month, but won't disclose the extent of the problem. Nor will it guarantee that any patients who fall victim to these problems won't be exposed to medical bills if they get sick or injured."

We may disagree about a lot of things and we do.....never would I want something to occur or turn out bad, for you and yours.

[callmeslick]

let's be honest, Pud. Short of someone in the clan getting a complete internal organ transplant, I can cover the bill.

[Pudfark]

Good for you and yours.....how about the others?

[HappyHappy]

Good for you and yours.....how about the others?

I bet he will say "Let em eat cake" secretly but post some Liberal bullshit.

HH

[callmeslick]

Good for you and yours.....how about the others?

well, you asked about me, but I suspect there will be no one that doesn't get retroactive coverage....

[Pudfark]

It will be interesting to understand/see how retroactive coverage can be legally implemented.
Perhaps it can be called "Operation Rain Check"....just teasing a bit.

I don't see an "executive order" as legally binding on an insurance company or congress....though,
nothing truly surprises me any more....or less.

[callmeslick]

It will be interesting to understand/see how retroactive coverage can be legally implemented.

happens all the time. I had a snafu about 6 years back with old-fashioned company-sponsored health insurance. They bolloxed up my policy until March 10th or so. Most of our regular providers just provided service and just kept sending the insurer claims. Only one asked for me to pay. I got reimbursed, and so did the doctors, for all service from Jan 1 until it was fixed. As long as you have a receipt with date of policy initiation(which I do, this time, with ACA), you're all set.
Very, very routine stuff.

[Pudfark]

I'm picking up what you're laying down...in the manner you intended.

However, what legal mechanism is in place to effect this solution. I understand how it worked for you under your circumstances. I gonna make a risky assumption, you were probably part of a "large group plan" through your employment and the concessions made, voluntarily, by the "insurance provider" were made in order to continue doing business with your organization. Which financially benefited your "provider" and continued your coverage/reimbursement.

All of the above meaning you were part of a large organized group and collectively united and therefor able to wield substantial financial incentive to persuade/leverage a favorable outcome.

I don't see this for the regular folk, as in, one squeaky voice here and there across this country isn't going to compel any large and multiple different companies to offer/honor retroactive remuneration to folks that they have no financial legal contractual obligation. No matter what Obama sez. It is/was/supposed to be/have been the ACA manager's/employees responsibility to accurately provide the "insurance provider's" in a timely manner, the insured's information. Meaning, ObamaCare dropped the ball and the "insurance provider's" have no legal contract to force them to pay for anything.

As I'm sure you know?
At this moment...there exists no legal mechanism...for many, to pay their premiums.
The "current" fix for that....is from Obama and it's based upon his word.....legal or otherwise...?
that he will make it all, right in the end. Insurance providers cannot be compelled to "take" his "word".

So, at the moment, legally, No Contract/Policy - No Pay
That's just the way I see it at this time....

We could probably agree on this one thing.....it's a mess as is?