regulations for no medical insurance coverage for Skydiving.

[rendezvous 0]

Read in this months (June) Parachutist that there are going to be federal regulations that deny Skydiving and some other sports medical coverage. Does anyone know about this issue and were it stands.

[jlmiracle 7]

USPA has been fighting this battle - This is from the website.


USPA Opposes New Group Health Rules (07/01/01)

USPA submitted comments to three federal agencies that had issued new regulations concerning discrimination in employers' group health plans. USPA fully supported the new provision that requires an employer to enroll a worker in a group health plan even if that worker enjoys active hobbies or sports activities like skydiving. However, USPA adamantly opposed another provision that allows an employer to refuse to pay a claim for injuries incurred as a result of recreational activities. The association extends gratitude to all skydivers who took the time to submit comments to the federal government. USPA will monitor the results and keep its members advised.

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

[quade 4]

Damn it. Now I gotta go look it up!

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[bmcd308 0]

>>However, USPA adamantly opposed another provision that allows an employer to refuse to pay a claim for injuries incurred as a result of recreational activities. <<

Do you know if this includes all recreational activities, or just a finite list of "high risk" recreational activities? Is mowing the lawn a recreational activity? Gardening? Working at the job I love so?

Brent

----------------------------------
www.jumpelvis.com

[quade 4]

Ok, here's the deal . . .

In 1996 Congress passed a law requiring health care to be "transportable" between employers. If you had health coverage and changed jobs, you could now get heath coverage again for "pre-existing" conditions -- like diabetes for instance. This law also required extra protections for privacy concerns. It also required insurance companies to INCLUDE people that engaged in lawful recreational activities, but did NOT require them to pay for injuries sustained when engaged in those activites.

This issue has been bounced around in various forms for several years.

There is currently a couple of amendments H.R.1749 and S.423 looking to correct the seeming contradiction in the coverage issue.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[BikerBabe 0]

Yep, this is a big deal. Actually, the way the law was originally written, it did require coverage and payment for all injuries, including recreational activities. However, as the actual legal codes were written, this got overlooked and twisted around to where it is today.

I would bet that USPA is already teamed up with other organizations such as AMA (Am. Motorcyclist Assoc.) that represent people who participate in these activities to fight this. It's been covered almost every month in the AMA magazine lately...it's an even bigger issue for them, since there are so many motorcyclists in this country.

The following link is a recent article by AMA, and includes links at the bottom to more articles written from their position...lot's of good info.

http://www.ama-cycle.org/legisltn/releases/2003/G03011.asp

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[PhillyKev 0]

We have an annual meeting with our health insurance brokers at work. I make a point to ask them every year specifically if I will be covered. They say yes and I have witnesses. So, if the insurance company didn't cover it, they will be or else they'll have a world of trouble for misrepresenting the coverage. Very serious consequences in the insurance world for doing that.

[jlmiracle 7]

Bikerbabe - I wouldn't bet the USPA has contacted anyone. I think you should let them know.

and didn't we decide that you were going to run for a director position next election?

Judy

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

[rickfri59 0]

I checked with my health insurer. AS long as I'm not participating in a riot, or other act of civil disobedience, I'm covered. I even specifically mentioned Skydiving, just to be sure..

Hell, you could argue that climbing a ladder is a risky activity.

[eddytheeagle 0]

Quote

I checked with my health insurer. AS long as I'm not participating in a riot, or other act of civil disobedience, I'm covered. I even specifically mentioned Skydiving, just to be sure..

Which health insurer do you have, if I may ask?

Don't underestimate your ability to screw up!

[rickfri59 0]

I'll send you a PM

[lawrocket 3]

PhillyKev:

Take it from a lawyer, there are ways around that. Make sure that the people who assure you that you are covered are "agents" and not "brokers."

It might not seem like a difference to the general population, but we lawyers make money on the differences....

Brokers work for you. Agents work for the insurers. You can see how the difference can be important.

One way or another, read the insurance contract. It is the only answer with any degree of certainty.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Slink2 0]

Typical American Corporate greed! If the rich pigs had only seven yachts instead of nine we all could have coverage. It's all political, is driving safer than skydiving? Make the automakers pick up our coverage! You have to drive to survive and that will kill you just as fast as any heavily loaded canopy!Capitalism is Cannibalism!