American Horse
AKA "Mustang"
Yes, they do. And they have a specific set of guidelines (actuaries) based upon an applicant's health history which they use to calculate the risk. I posted that link earlier in another thread, and I'll be damned if I can find it again. So that is their starting point. You don't just call up Blue Cross and say HEY, I want some health insurance, so send me a sample policy I can look at. THEY will tell YOU (the applicant) how THEY will proceed, and it first involves a lot of invasive medical questions, some of which you might need to prove.
They will provide you with all the pertinent information you need to make a decision. You should get a list of doctors or providers who are in their network of providers. I think once more that I should point out that if folks went to a commercial insurance agent that they will be provided with everything in the way of information about the policy being offered for sale that they need to decide. The truth of this assertion can be verified very easily: call a local commercial agent, state that you are considering sitting down with one of their agents or their "dedicated" agent for health insurance policies and then ask the question - "will I be able to examine a policy or a document that provides all the information contained in a policy?" My own experience was that the dedicated agent was able and willing to not only proviide all the pertinent information but took time to explain it in great detail.
I've always gotten a preview of the policy, and I've also gotten a copy of the policy which I could read and accept or reject. I have had to provide facts about my medical history, but they are about the same as I answer when I first visit a new physician. Would a question like "do you now smoke marijauna?" be an invasive question? To some it would; to others it would not. One can not prove a negative. Anything required by the company should be in a person's medical record, which would be positive information, not negative; IE there is no entry in a persons medical record that says Mr. Smith does not have cancer. That's ridiculous. A person with a pre-existing cancer which has not yet been diagnosed would be accepted for insurance, and if and when it came up later it would be treated.
It's nonsense that insurance company re-write rules UNLESS the rules change in the favor of the insured, IE a newly mandated treatment or advances are added. I've had a policy be removed from availability and therefore I was de-enrolled, but the new policy was more inclusive at about the same price. That happened so that the insurance company could comply with new federal or state law making my previous policy obsolete.
Edit: If Insurance companies capriciously changed the terms of their contract with the policy owner, state insurance commissions would jump on them and their ability to sell insurance of any kind in that state would be in jeopardy. Also politicians in Washington would have everything they need to haul them up before a house or senate committee and make an example of them. Instead all we hear from our politicians is propaganda, meaning their version of "reality" without substantiation.
Last edited: