Should "Pre-Existing" conditions be covered under regular health insurance? (Congress, health care system)

[alphamale]

At a premium.

But I don't think an insurer should be mandated to accept everyone.

[gvsteve]

Originally Posted by Glitch

Absolutely not. If insurance companies are required to include pre-existing conditions, then (as you already pointed out) it ceases to be "insurance." People would have to be complete morons to by an "insurance" policy before they needed one if it includes pre-existing conditions. Instead, people will buy an insurance policy only after they become sick or injured. Then once they are well, immediately cancel the policy.

Requiring pre-existing condition coverage will bankrupt the health insurance industry, which I am certain is the true goal of these Neo-Progressives.

None of this is a financial problem for health insurance companies when you account for the individual mandate in the recent healthcare bill.

[t206]

Originally Posted by gvsteve

None of this is a financial problem for health insurance companies when you account for the individual mandate in the recent healthcare bill.

Which places it squarely on the shoulders of the tax payer, no?

[gvsteve]

Originally Posted by t206

Which places it squarely on the shoulders of the tax payer, no?

Everyone has a risk of getting hurt/sick to the point they can't afford to pay for it. And so everyone should share the risk of paying for those that unfortunately get sent to the hospital.

It's the entire theory behind insurance, and the more people you spread the risk over, the better things work for everyone.

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by t206

I'm sure this will be quite controversial, so all the more fun to strike up a conversation about it. I don't have a 100% answer, but I have some thoughts.

The question:
Should a pre-existing condition be covered as part of regular health insurance plans?

The facts:
The concept of insurance is that it is a way to financially hedge yourself against an unexpected occurrence such as breaking a leg or getting struck by lightning. For things like home owners and car insurance, you couldn't get insurance to pay for physical damage that already exists...aka, a "pre-existing" condition.

Part of the problem with "pre-existing" conditions is that the concept only exists because we are forced to change insurance providers if/when we change jobs.

My thoughts:
Personally I don't think they should be covered as part of a regular insurance plan because I think that may be part of what causes insurance to be so expensive overall. I wonder if the market place could come up with some insurance product that is targeted at those with pre-existing conditions, or that you somehow pay into separately from regular insurance that can only be used once certain ailments are diagnosed like cancer, diabetes, or other commonly identified "pre-existing" conditions?

I also think that shifting insurance from being something that most employers provide, to something that individuals shop for and purchase on their own would go a LONG way in changing this situation.

I'm sure others have different thoughts and ideas, or would just like to chime in and call me evil or crazy.....

That isn't a bad idea. A product that simply removes the problem of pre-existing conditions by insuring the person under a plan that protects them from being unable to obtain insurance or through transitions, etc... if they happen to have one or one is found.

I think for it to be practical though, it would have to be a universal policy through a 3rd party which would negotiate with medical insurers to treat pre-existing covered policy holders as if they had no pre-existing condition. The insurance company may have to cover some costs in the process (to appeal to the medical insurer), but it sounds like a "capitol" idea!

You could get subscribers who have no conditions to sign up and pay a monthly fee for this protection. Then like any other insurance, you weight the costs on the numbers game of how many policy holders you have and how many would statistically need a return on the policy. Could be a great way for a company to make money and provide a great insurance service. My guess is due to the very specific nature of this type of protection, you could sell the policy pretty cheap.

This would allow people who can't afford normal insurance to pay out of pocket for most expenses and then still be able to pick up insurance for the rare or uncommon conditions.

I never looked into though, but can't you get a medical insurance policy that ONLY covers such already? I know you can broker a deal for the specific types of coverage you desire, I wonder if you can simply ask for this and call it done? hmmm

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by gvsteve

Everyone has a risk of getting hurt/sick to the point they can't afford to pay for it. And so everyone should share the risk of paying for those that unfortunately get sent to the hospital.

It's the entire theory behind insurance, and the more people you spread the risk over, the better things work for everyone.

So why doesn't the government pay for all types of insurance?

[pollyrobin]

Originally Posted by gvsteve

Everyone has a risk of getting hurt/sick to the point they can't afford to pay for it. And so everyone should share the risk of paying for those that unfortunately get sent to the hospital.

It's the entire theory behind insurance, and the more people you spread the risk over, the better things work for everyone.

No - that's the theory behind universal health care/single payer. Don't confuse a mandate for one to buy a private
product/contract from a private for profit company with
the latter. It really bothers me when folks do that...

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by gvsteve

None of this is a financial problem for health insurance companies when you account for the individual mandate in the recent healthcare bill.

You mean the unconstitutional mandate that 22 States have filed a suit against and will be stripped from the bill by the Supreme Court before the 2012 election next year?

Good luck with that fantasy.

The Affordable Care Act is toast. The federal government never had the authority to enact such a law to begin with, and now the courts will remind them of their abject stupidity just in time for the 2012 election.

[workingclasshero]

Originally Posted by northstar22

Life-saving medical treatment is not a "service," it's a human right, and it needs to be available to all people at no cost.

Edit: yes, I know we ultimately pay the cost through taxes, and that's fine. I mean "at no out-of-pocket cost to the individual."

changing the goal posts?????


you started (and I was answering )

Originally Posted by northstar22
If you don't have health insurance, you can't get adequate health care. That's why it matters.

I'm not a liberal.

and I answered:

not true at all

open up the yellow pages..look up physician..then go

you can get the greatest care...its a service...just PAY for the service YOU GOT

now you want to CHANGE THE GOAL POSTS to

Life-saving medical treatment

[t206]

Originally Posted by northstar22

Edit: yes, I know we ultimately pay the cost through taxes, and that's fine. I mean "at no out-of-pocket cost to the individual."

So lets be blunt. What is more important:

1. A sick person getting lifesaving care, paid for by others, "at no out-of-pocket cost" to them.

or

2. Me as an individual being able to retire and live the rest of my life without fear of being destitute by using my own hard earned and smartly saved/invested money instead of being forced to pay for multiple other peoples health care?