After a layoff, risky to take a health test?

I would take the test because I’m not worried about nothing. Whatever, its in God’s hands and He will take care of it.

Jahnanne, what is the NASE? Not familiar with that… Does anyone think the Obama Administration will FINALLY be able to make our health care system work at its optimum capacity? That would be awesome, but it’s so complex. Readers, I’d love to hear your comments (as always)!

Individual health insurance, at this point at least, is ridiculous. AARP, which theoretically is designed for 50-plus people, turns down people for everything from antidepressants to being overweight. I ended up with a policy from the NASE when I got laid off, which cost $500 for a $2500 deductible and they denied almost everything I claimed. Sad but true.

Cindy, unfortunately, in this situation insurance companies can (and will) regard your cancer as a pre-existing condition — because, well, it is one. Insurance companies can’t use genetic test results because those results predict the likelihood (or not!) of an illness that hasn’t occurred yet. Insurers can base their coverage decisions *only* on people’s actual medical history. Your medical history, therefore, is exactly what they will be looking at. This doesn’t mean you won’t be able to get insurance, only that it will probably be very costly. I wish I had better news to give you, believe me! This is a tough spot to be in. Good luck!

Much like the writer in your current columm, I was laid off and in a few months, am facing the loss of my Cobra coverage. Last week, I was diagnosed with breast cancer. Although most of the immediate treatment will be completed before I lose my Cobra coverage(surgery and radiation), depending on the outcome of surgery I may still need long term chemo. In November when I am faced with finding individual health coverage, may I be refused coverage due to the pre-existing diagnosis of breast cancer…if I never let my coverage lapse? Is there a federal provision that protects people like me? Thank you!

Genetic testing would certainly give the insurance companies an unfair advantage. Insurance is gambling and it needs to be regulated as such.

The only way I could see the insurance companies being able to use this information is if they would use it all the way. What I mean is that, if one tested negative for many diseases, their premiums would have to be lowered.

You can bet that the industry will spin this and try and say that these tests would help control costs for all. That is BS.

I can’t help but remember the movie Gattaca. The entire story line was built around this same concept.

However, in that story, there were the same laws governing the use of someone’s genetic makeup for hiring practices.

They were able to get around it by asking for a simple “drug test”, then when the results came back, they’d make up some reason not to hire you.

Sure hope life doesn’t imitate art…

There is no way that I would get tested and use my health insurance to pay for it, so that the result would appear on my medical record and an employer or prospective employer would find out about it. I would use a pseudoname and get tested in a different city and pay cash.

I have thought about this because my sister (who was covered under her husband’s policy) was tested for a genetic condition and found to have it.
When you are applying for a job, you have no way of knowing why you might not have gotten it. You don’t know if it’s because it’s a small company with 20 employees if it’s because they found out about your mutation and feel that you illlness might bankrupt the health insurance policy, or if really they interviewed someone who is a better fit.