You know what? My pre-existing condition was that I'd had my gallbladder removed in the early 2000s. That's it. Uninsurable for 10 years because of an operation which I recovered from fully in less than a week.
Telling me it's "regulations" that had every insurer reject me? Pull the other one, it's got bells on.
My preexisting condition was "history of headache". I was denied by every insurer that did business in our state in 2010 and 2011. I wish I was kidding. Had I failed to mention the headache thing and sought treatment, I would have been vulnerable to rescission.
My "pre-existing" condition was that I'd been to the doctor for heartburn in 2008 and been prescribed a 2 week course of medication.
Sorry - it wasn't quite the same as not being able to get insurance at all. Didn't mean I couldn't get insurance at all, but was 'rated' fairly higher than what was originally quoted.
Citizen Frondo, you don't understand. If the market says you must not be insured it is right because the market is always right. Why, on this board you had people tell with a straight face that one should not bother to eradicate schistosomiasis and malaria in the African continent because if the continent was meant to be productive people would be spending money in the project right now.
If the OP is correct, then it is not the market that is enforcing the insurance scheme to reject cover for him based on pre-existing conditions, but rather the state that is making it illegal for schemes to be tailor-made for specific (pre-existing) conditions.
Telling me it's "regulations" that had every insurer reject me? Pull the other one, it's got bells on.