3 ms·
Rescission was vanishingly rare. Regardless, it is a side issue, since it's not what the quote from the USA Today article was discussing. New York may have outl
by twoodfin 13y ago
Rescission was vanishingly rare. Regardless, it is a side issue, since it's not what the quote from the USA Today article was discussing. New York may have outlawed rescission too, but it was the requirement that "insurance" be available to purchase when you're already sick that made their pre-ACA premiums so high.
- jjoonathan 13y agoYes, and those vanishingly rare cases were the most expensive ones. My point was that the latter was partially caused by the former along with every other mechanism of dumping undesirable patients on the open market. I suspect the major one is the exploitation of the fact that most people will underestimate the extent to which high health costs correlate with decreased income and a higher rate of premium lapse. It won't be counted as "rescission" even though the industry benefits from it (and the people hurt because of it) in exactly the same way. These mechanisms might not constitute the entirety of the central issue, but they certainly account for a healthy chunk of it.