Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Insurance company used to deny people for everything. Pre- existing condition should be very serious health problem, like cancer, diabetes, etc..
There are some existing conditions that are minor like allergies, not life threatening.
I know when I applied for health insurance, they were being picky.
Perhaps high risk pool, should be for very serious problem. Not minor problem. Pregnancy is not a or existing condition. Same like allergies. Maybe, have tiers of pre-existing condition and charge accordingly.
Also people with existing health insurance should never be denied because of continuous coverage. It should be 3,5, 10 years. I don't care, pick a number and give people credits for being insured longer than 1 year.
I think the caveat with pre-existing conditions is the tendency for some people to wait until they are sick and needed the health insurance to sign up for it, and assuming they didn't need the insurance for chronic or ongoing illnesses or conditions, some of them might drop the insurance till they needed it again. If people wait till they're sick to enroll in health insurance, the insurance pool is made up mostly of sick folks, which drives up the cost to that insurance company big time.
I've seen several ways in which pre-existing conditions were handled by insurance companies, other than just denying insurance totally to someone with such a condition. Some employers' insurance policies covered new employees after a waiting period, but excluded coverage of pre-existing conditions for these employees for a period of time ( I've seen 6 months to two years depending on the employer). I've not seen what's happened for individual policies, likely prior to Obamacare the individual might be denied insurance, or at least a pre-existing condition not covered at all. Supposedly after Obamacare, pre-existing conditions could not be a reason for denial of coverage, but I've heard comments here and there that insurance companies may still do so.
I would imagine that coverage of a preexisting condition will necessitate a much higher premium rate to the insured, that's at least one of the reasons for the significant rise in insurance premiums after the Obamacare mandate to cover preexisting conditions. I don't think even if Obamacare is repealed this would change, it costs more to cover sick people, especially if you can't spread the cost around to people who aren't sick because they aren't there. So preexisting conditions = higher premiums and costs, no matter what.
I had also been told, back in the day before Obamacare, that insurance companies would usually cover preexisting conditions for a patient if he/she had evidence of "continued ( and continuous) coverage. Meaning that if someone switched from one policy to another policy, and didn't have a lapse in coverage, the new policy would cover the preexisting condition. I never saw this in action, but if it's true, this might take care of those folks who drop their insurance after they've had their "preexisting condition taken care of ( meaning those folks who enroll only when they need the insurance).
Anyway, I don't see any replacement for Obamacare doing away with preexisting
condition coverage, but how we make that cost effective, I don't know.
50 states with 50 different rules and regulations. Many states chose not to define " condition" and left it up to insurers to define any condition they chose not to insure. Cancer, Heart Disease and HIV/AIDS were common exclusions. Some insurers excluded Diabetes which has been diagnosed in 30 million US people.
Some states defined a " lookback period" and some did not.
A pre-existing condition would be cancer survivors, people with diabetes and high blood pressure. It sounds like you think it means you apply for insurance once you get sick. With that in mind, do you still feel the same way? Should a cancer survivor be denied insurance because they battled and survived? I doubt you think they should just die.
Also, the Affordable Care Act was a Republican invention. It's interesting that they hated it once a black man passed it. But, we all saw how that went... It needs work and it is far from perfect but I'd like to see a better replacement before anyone talks about repealing it and kicking 20 million people off from healthcare.
Those with (pre)existing medical conditions should indeed pay a higher premium for coverage. It is only logical, and is exactly the way auto and home insurance is calculated. You wouldn't expect State Farm to reimburse you for accident repairs unless you have a policy in place. To apply for coverage after a crash would be turned down of course.
Health insurance is a concern for all, but the way Obama and his minions forced it on the American people without concensus was bound to fail. It will soon be repealed and replaced with a more equitable mechanism. Especially for those that will actually be footing the bill for the controversial solution.
Your last paragraph with reference to a black man doesn't help your cause.
How do the premiums compare with those high risk pools compared to the general pool?
Same way premiums work for anything more costly to insure. Consider the example of two different 1,200 sq ft homes, one in an area that makes it worth $120,000 and the other in an area in which the value is $800,000. Which is more costly to insure?
Same way premiums work for anything more costly to insure. Consider the example of two different 1,200 sq ft homes, one in an area that makes it worth $120,000 and the other in an area in which the value is $800,000. Which is more costly to insure?
The size of your home and location, thus value, are personal choices.
The size of your home and location, thus value, are personal choices.
No one chooses Leukemia or ALS or ...........
No one chooses to have exceptional artistic or athletic ability, either. Is it fair that entertainers and pro athletes earn millions of dollars while others are earning only minimum wage? No. There are no equal outcomes. Life isn't fair. And that applies to many more areas than just health care. Deal with it. /shrug
The size of your home and location, thus value, are personal choices.
No one chooses Leukemia or ALS or ...........
The issue isn't about "choosing" to be ill. Americans don't become diseased in any greater numbers as a percentage of the total population than we did 50 or 100-years ago. If anything, because of better personal habits, we are healthier and live longer than ever.
The problem is technology and medical advancements have excelled in recent years and with good results.
Who will pay for these amazing treatments? Who is actually going to foot the bill?
About a decade ago, I began hearing the refrain that unlimited medical treatments are somehow a new "right".
This newfound philosophy basically went unchallenged. Treatments costing the same as a new Rolls-Royce are now a "right"?!!
If someone has leukemia should their treatment be paid for by someone else? What if the patient was 31 (or 59), destitute, and had a history of drug abuse. Further, generally unhealthy, infected teeth, and heart disease. Should someone shell-out $200,000 for this patient's treatment? How about $400,000?
The older patient with the higher tab was my brother. He had a scar that went from his nuts to his chest. He was delerious for a week after being cut on so extensively. He lived another 7-months.
We are convinced he would have lived longer without such traumatic surgery. The nearly $400,000 bill was paid by medicaid and much was just written-off by the various providers. The $400,000 was real money. The money was wasted because there was no concern for whether the costs of his treatments were logical, given his general health.
Very sad, but I'm sure it happens hourly in the medical world. I miss him very much.
The treatments are now here, but can cost astronomically. That's the unintended consequence of technology.
Is anyone worth a $million-dollar operation? How about $2-million?
We don't get to pretend anymore that it's just a figure on a bill.
Naturally, someone with means is more likely to see a doctor on a regular basis and has an incentive to take good care of themselves. The patient with means has insurance and understands the importance of it.
But if the destitute patient that has paid little or nothing into the system gets his/her treatment for free, why shouldn't the person of means also get that advantage? After all they are the ones actually paying the bills!
Society has to answer these questions, but the questions are never asked because they are controversial and we end up in some obtuse argument about income inequality.
The marketplace can absorb these terrific hospital bills as long as Economics 101 is allowed to work.
Allow emotions to take over and look at what we get.
We have an opportunity to fix this complicated problem. This time we need to listen to the right people.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
