The Strange, Sick World of the GOP, their Unwillingness to Insure their Constituents and Why Insurance Companies are from Hell

Let's take a look today at some interesting statistics.  From MSNBC.com:

Of the nation's 435 congressional districts, Texas districts topped the list with the highest percentage of uninsured residents, while the lowest percentage of the uninsured were in congressional districts in Massachusetts, which in 2006 legislated near-universal health insurance.

And how does Senator John Cornyn feel about reform that could benefit his state, the one with the highest percentage of uninsured residents?  He's against it.

Now what is really fascinating (I found it so) is you take the chart I found here at State Health Facts dot org sponsored by the Kaiser Family Foundation, and you can line up the following bits of information.

1. States having the Prudent Person or No Definition of pre-existing conditions usually have GOP members of the House and Senate.

2. Those same Elected Representatives are uniformly against Universal Care or Government-back Public Option--for their uninsured constituents.

Definitions from the website are below this chart but basically, the Prudent Person definition of a pre-existing condition gives the insurance company great latitude because it can cover conditions that were never diagnosed.  What, you say?  Then how is it defined as a pre-existing condition if it was NEVER diagnosed?  That makes no sense.

I know it makes no sense, because applying sense and facts to the behavior of insurance companies is like knocking your head against a wall.  And I'm not making this Prudent Person stuff up--conditions which were never diagnosed but which exhibited symptoms?  How open to interpretation and twisting might any little symptom be in order to suit the denial of claims with that definition?

3. Those same states with the GOP in charge also have high Maximum look-back periods (the amount of time the insurance company can look-back through your medical history for evidence of a pre-existing condition) and high Exclusion periods (the amount of time the insurance company can deny a claim you filed if it is a pre-existing condition.)  It's like these states laws were designed to allow the insurance companies to make oodles of money by abusing the very people they collect premiums from.

Granted, Blanche Lincoln from Arkansas is a Democrat (you'd never know it) but let's look at her state: Uses the Prudent Person Standard, 60 months of a look-back period and No Limit on exclusion period. Well, how's a person ever to get healthy in that state?

And Oklahoma, Lorded over by Doctor/Senator Tom Coburn.  No definition of pre-existing condition which is why domestic abuse is considered one in the Sooner state.  No limit on maximum look-back or maximum exclusion period.  And we know how Dr. Tom feels about Universal coverage. Against it. Says Tort Reform will help lower medical costs.
What color is the sky in your little world, members of the GOP?

---

	Elimination Riders Permitted	Definition of pre-existing condition	Maximum Look-Back Period (months)	Maximum Exclusion Period (months)	Credit for Prior Coverage
United States	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
Alabama	Yes	Objective standard	60	24	No
Alaska	Yes	No definition	No limit	No limit	No
Arizona	Yes	No definition	No limit	No limit	No
Arkansas	Yes	Prudent Person Standard	60	No limit	No
California	No	Objective standard	12	12	Yes
Colorado	Yes	Objective standard	12	12	Yes
Connecticut	Yes	Objective standard	12	12	Yes
Delaware	Yes	Prudent Person Standard	60	No limit	No
District of Columbia	Yes	Prudent Person Standard	No limit	No limit	No
Florida	Yes	Prudent Person Standard	24	24	Yes
Georgia	Yes	No definition	No limit	24	No
Hawaii	Yes	No definition	No limit	36	No
Idaho	No	Prudent Person Standard	6	12	Yes
Illinois	Yes	Prudent Person Standard and Objective Standard	24	24	No
Indiana	No	Prudent person standard	12	12	Yes (small group coverage only)
Iowa	Yes	Prudent person standard	60	24	No
Kansas	Yes	No definition	No limit	24	No
Kentucky	No	Objective standard	6	12	Yes
Louisiana	Yes	Prudent person standard	12	12	Yes
Maine	No	Prudent person standard	12	12	Yes
Maryland	Yes	Prudent person standard	84	24	No
Massachusetts	No	Objective standard	6	6	Yes
Michigan	No	Objective standard	6	12	No
Minnesota	No	Objective standard	6	18	Yes
Mississippi	Yes	Prudent person standard	12	12	No
Missouri	Yes	No definition	No limit	No limit	No
Montana	Yes	Objective standard	36	12	Yes
Nebraska	Yes	Prudent person standard	No limit	No limit	No
Nevada	Yes	Objective standard	No limit	No limit	No
New Hampshire	Yes	Objective standard	3	9	Yes
New Jersey	No	Prudent person standard	6	12	Yes
New Mexico	Yes	Prudent person standard	6	6	Yes
New York	No	Objective standard	6	12	Yes
North Carolina	Yes	Objective standard	12	12	Yes
North Dakota	Yes	Objective standard	6	12	Yes
Ohio	Yes	Prudent person standard	6	12	Yes
Oklahoma	Yes	No definition	No limit	No limit	No
Oregon	No	Objective standard	6	24	Yes
Pennsylvania	Yes	Objective standard	60	12	No
Rhode Island	Yes	Prudent person standard	36	12	No
South Carolina	Yes	Prudent person standard	No limit	24	No
South Dakota	Yes	Prudent person standard	12	12	Yes
Tennessee	Yes	No definition	No limit	24	No
Texas	Yes	Prudent person standard	60	24	Yes
Utah	Yes	Objective standard	6	12	Yes
Vermont	No	Prudent Person Standard	12	12	Yes
Virginia	Yes	Prudent person standard	12	12	Yes
Washington	No	Prudent person standard	6	9	Yes
West Virginia	Yes	Prudent person standard	24	12	No
Wisconsin	Yes	Prudent Person Standard	No limit	24	No
Wyoming	Yes	Objective standard	6	12	Yes

Definitions below taken directly from HealthFacts.org:

In general, pre-existing conditions are medical conditions or other health problems that existed before the date of enrollment in an individual policy. However, the exact definition of pre-existing condition varies by state.
Some states use an objective standard allowing only those conditions for which someone actually received medical advice, diagnosis, care or treatment prior to enrollment to be counted as pre-existing. Most states use a broader, prudent person standard, which also includes conditions that were never diagnosed, but which exhibited symptoms for which an ordinary prudent person would have sought medical advice, care or treatment
In many states, health problems disclosed at the time of application may be permanently excluded from coverage by an amendment to the individual health insurance contract called an elimination rider. Once coverage begins, a consumer who makes claims under the policy may be investigated to see whether the health problem was pre-existing. In many states, it is not necessary for a health condition to have been diagnosed prior to the purchase of coverage for it to be considered pre-existing. Depending on state law, insurers can look back months or years prior to the policys purchase for evidence of a pre-existing condition. This process is sometimes called post-claims underwriting. In most states, the maximum pre-existing condition exclusion period constitutes a limit on post-claims underwriting. Any claim filed during the exclusion period can be investigated as possibly pre-existing and, if found to be so, can be denied and coverage for all further care for that condition can be excluded during the exclusion period. The maximum lookback period limits the period of history preceding purchase of a policy that can be investigated for evidence of a pre-existing condition. For example, in Alabama, an applicant for individual health insurance might have a known pre-existing condition permanently excluded from coverage. In addition, if she makes a claim for health care services during the first 24 months of coverage, her medical history dating back 5 years prior to the purchase of her policy can be investigated for evidence that her current health problem existed prior to the purchase of coverage.