Off-Topic: Hey Coop
(Lake Martin Specific)
111,146 messages
Updated 5/2/2024 12:15:00 PM
Lakes Online Forum
83,608 messages
Updated 5/2/2024 8:19:22 AM
Lakes Online Forum
5,193 messages
Updated 4/3/2024 3:47:36 AM
(Lake Martin Specific)
4,169 messages
Updated 4/16/2024 3:16:57 AM
Lakes Online Forum
4,169 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 11:05:05 PM
Lakes Online Forum
4,260 messages
Updated 3/24/2024 9:24:45 AM
Lakes Online Forum
2,976 messages
Updated 3/20/2024 11:53:43 PM
(Lake Martin Specific)
169 messages
Updated 5/31/2023 1:39:35 PM
Lakes Online Forum
98 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM
Lake Martin Photo Gallery





    
Welcome, Guest Select View Mode: [ classic | beta | recent ]
Name:   copperline The author of this post is registered as a member - Email Member
Subject:   Hey Coop
Date:   10/7/2016 3:32:29 PM

I don't think I am wrong here, but I will re-examine it.

If I understand what you are saying, the Certificate would be issued by Insurance company A and used to tell Insurance company B that they could not enforce policies related to pre-existing conditions by which they could deny coverage.   I cannot think of any other examples of a corporation issuing a legally binding document that controlled what a competitor could sell, or to limit which of the competitor's exclusions could be enforced on new subscribers.

I have to assume that you also mean that a Certificate of this type was legally enforceable, effectively binding the competing insurance company to do as instructed.   I have not seen a law or state insurance regulation like this before.     Under what legal framework did this Certificate do as you describe?

I can only imagine that there could have been circumstances whereby employer groups agreed to change coverages with the proviso that none of their covered employees would be subject to rejection by the new insurer.   The Certificate of Credible Coverage may have been more useful to negate waiting periods because they would show the time frame of coverage lapses between insurance groups... but did they really negate the threat of pre-existing conditions?

 

Other messages in this thread:View Entire Thread
So Dr. RHH - Lifer - 10/7/2016 5:55:41 AM
     So Lifer - copperline - 10/7/2016 9:46:33 AM
          So Lifer - CRD - 10/7/2016 10:17:47 AM
               A question for the real doctor. - Lifer - 10/7/2016 10:29:08 AM
               I forgot doc... - Lifer - 10/7/2016 10:59:17 AM
          So Lifer is right again - Lifer - 10/7/2016 10:19:56 AM
     So Lifer - copperline - 10/7/2016 12:59:40 PM
          So wrong again.. Doesn't it get old. - Lifer - 10/7/2016 1:43:38 PM
               Hey Coop - GoneFishin - 10/7/2016 2:15:56 PM
                    Hey Goofy - Lifer - 10/7/2016 2:24:00 PM
                         Hey Goofy - RHH - 10/7/2016 3:23:35 PM
                              Hitched to loser - Lifer - 10/7/2016 4:03:37 PM
                    Hey Coop - copperline - 10/7/2016 3:32:29 PM
                         None so blind - Lifer - 10/7/2016 3:47:34 PM
                              Hey Guys - GoneFishin - 10/7/2016 5:39:38 PM
                                   Hey Guys - copperline - 10/7/2016 5:59:27 PM
                                        Hey Guys - Lifer - 10/7/2016 6:22:43 PM
                                   Thanks again GF - Lifer - 10/7/2016 6:19:38 PM
                                        COOP FYI - GoneFishin - 10/7/2016 7:47:20 PM



Quick Links
Lake Martin News
Lake Martin Photos
Lake Martin Videos




About Us
Contact Us
Site Map
Search Site
Advertise With Us
   
www.LakeMartin.com
THE LAKE MARTIN WEBSITE

Copyright 2024, Lakes Online
Privacy    |    Legal