On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 01:44:37 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 20:35:42 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

PocoLoco wrote:
What a boat, what a ride, what a fantastic week! I *will* go for another cruise
on the "Disney Magic", regardless of the number of kids aboard!

The service, food, entertainment, and atmosphere were much more than I expected.
I had taken three paperbacks to read, along with a new Nikon D70 book, to read
rather than be bored.

I finished none of them.

However, we had some bad news waiting for us. My older daughter underwent an MRI
which showed three breast tumors. Biopsies showed two to be benign, but one is
malignant. Now the younger daughter is very concerned, and wants to have a test
of her genes to determine if she inherited the BRAC1 or BRAC2 gene from her
mother, who died of 'abdominal' cancer. She, however, is concerned that if the
test comes back positive, she will lose her health insurance. Has anyone ever
heard of that?

Sorry to hear of your familial problems, John. Hope your daughter has a
successful outcome.

As to your younger daughter's concern, it is very real. Some employers,
future employers and insurance companies show an undue interest in the
health of their employees or prospective employees. Your daughter should
arrange to take the test anonymously, with absolutely no recording of
her personal particulars. She'll pay for the test herself, of course,
but no one need know of the results but the young woman.

Why do I know about this?

Let's just say I've spent more than 10 years as a consultant to
companies offering health insurance, and while they did not
discriminate, I saw case histories of competing insurers who did.
Since them, more employers have gotten into the act of snooping into
worker health records. Certain forms of discrimination on such a basis
is illegal, but it still happens.

I second Harry's advice.

If she is that concerned, have it done anonymously paid for by her for
herself only.

Then again, why take the test? She could carry the gene and never
have BC - what's it going to prove?

Perhaps she needs to increase her awareness of changes and
possibilities, but perhaps it's better not to know.

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

If one tests positive for the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene, their chances of getting
breast and/or ovarian cancer are many times higher than for those who test
negative. One can then decide to have a prophylactic double mastectomy and
hysterectomy, which greatly reduces the chances of either forms of cancer.

--
John H

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant:
It's just that they know so much that isn't so."

Ronald Reagan

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

thunder wrote:
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

But seeing how NOYB lives in Naples, and is the best at everything
there ever way, he knows everything, so the federal government couldn't
possibly be right.

On 31 Oct 2005 10:12:35 -0800, wrote:


thunder wrote:
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

But seeing how NOYB lives in Naples, and is the best at everything
there ever way, he knows everything, so the federal government couldn't
possibly be right.

STFU, Kevin.

--
John H.
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

"PocoLoco" wrote in message
...
On 31 Oct 2005 10:12:35 -0800, wrote:


thunder wrote:
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

But seeing how NOYB lives in Naples, and is the best at everything
there ever way, he knows everything, so the federal government couldn't
possibly be right.

STFU, Kevin.

"there ever way"???? Should I "assimilate" that kevin has grasped basic
english?


--
John H.
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

"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.

"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."

"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.



She has a big problem if the husband has to leave a group plan to a
individual / family plan. If the group also offers individual, then you can
change plans, They can raise the rates for her, but they have to insure
her. If they do not offer an individual plan, then after COBRA she goes on
HIPPA. Lots of dollars for very little coverage. My wife is on Lipator,
and had been on for 2 months when COBRA ran out, so we in a $1700 / month
HIPPA, with 4k deductible and no office visits.

On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 03:55:27 GMT, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"NOYB" wrote in message
link.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.



She has a big problem if the husband has to leave a group plan to a
individual / family plan. If the group also offers individual, then you can
change plans, They can raise the rates for her, but they have to insure
her. If they do not offer an individual plan, then after COBRA she goes on
HIPPA. Lots of dollars for very little coverage. My wife is on Lipator,
and had been on for 2 months when COBRA ran out, so we in a $1700 / month
HIPPA, with 4k deductible and no office visits.


Thanks for the info, Bill.

--
John H.
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 00:19:54 -0500, thunder wrote:

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


Thanks for your time. That's a good site with some good info.

--
John H.
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD