"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 21:20:47 -0500, PocoLoco wrote:


Thanks for quoting Harry's response. It seems to lend credence to what
my
daughter has heard.

I just did a little search on this issue. Depending on the state, not
only might she have insurance problems, she might also have employment
problems. Not common, but still possible, depending on circumstances.
I
would suggest Harry's idea about maintaining anonymity might be best.
There is federal legislation to address this, but . . .

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/353/9/865

Since John's daughter is already insured under a group policy, she can
never
be rejected (or quoted a higher premium) by another group because she is
protected by COBRA.

She *could* have problems with medically underwritten individual plans
though.



From the link

"Few Americans have health coverage from organizations that pick and choose
whom to cover on the basis of health, using what is called medical
underwriting. More than 160 million Americans receive coverage through an
employer, whether their own, their spouse's or partner's, or that of another
relative. Few large-scale employers ever selectively provided health
coverage on the basis of an employee's medical condition; the federal Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 prohibited almost all
employers but those in the smallest businesses from using such medical
underwriting and from considering genetic risks as preexisting conditions.
More than 80 million Americans are covered by federal or federal-state
programs - notably, Medicare and Medicaid - that do not use medical
underwriting. Very few of the more than 40 million Americans without health
coverage lack it because of genetic discrimination; most simply do not
qualify for governmental coverage and either cannot afford or choose not to
pay for employer-provided or individually underwritten coverage. That leaves
only about 10 to 15 million Americans who buy their own, individually
underwritten coverage, along with perhaps an equal number with coverage from
very small employers. Only the people in these two groups can be at risk for
genetic discrimination by insurance companies. But the same health care
financing system that limits the possibilities for genetic discrimination by
insurers encourages such discrimination in employment. Employers have an
incentive to reduce their future health insurance costs by not hiring or by
firing people who have predictably high health care expenses, for genetic or
other reasons.

The law provides a second barrier against genetic discrimination. In the
past decade or so, all but 3 states have adopted laws limiting genetic
discrimination for some kinds of health insurance, and about 40 states have
fairly strong rules against discrimination by small employers or companies
that sell individual health insurance. More than 30 states ban or limit
genetic discrimination in employment.5 The coverage, definitions, and
enforcement mechanisms vary enormously from state to state; none of the
relevant laws appear to have been defined or tested in any reported
appellate-court decisions. In addition, the federal Americans with
Disabilities Act, passed in 1990, may more broadly prohibit genetic
discrimination in employment, depending on whether the genetic risk is
considered a disability. Another federal law, the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, prohibits an employer from discriminating against current
employees on the basis of their existing or projected health care expenses.
Although the exact reach of these federal laws is unclear, they - along with
state laws and the prospect of more stringent legislation in the future -
have largely deterred insurers and employers from practicing such
discrimination."