Should "Pre-Existing" conditions be covered under regular health insurance? (premium, death)

[lifelongMOgal]

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?............

I think insurance companies should offer the option of such coverage plans in a special pool with the fees to reflect the higher costs that accompany such risk. If a person does not want the higher fee they could opt out of pre-existing condition coverage.

Choice and competition will bring down insurance costs. Getting government out of healthcare delivery and payment business will bring down the cost of healthcare.

[t206]

Originally Posted by JetJockey

And why would people pay for pre natal insurance? Especially considering many parents wouldn't know their children are affected until years later. I was born with a genetic disorder but wasn't diagnosed until I was 11.... So prenatal insurance wouldnt have mattered. My parents had health insurance, but it wasn't great... Especially when your child has a medical problem that's expensive to treat.

I don't have all the answers...just trying to fish around for alternatives or better ideas.

I guess I threw the term "pre-natal" out there to identify the fact that you would begin paying such a premium from the time that the pregnancy was recognized....but it could continue as some sort of additional coverage up to a certain age where the majority of "pre-existing" conditions are determined?

[MadeInAmerica]

I do not agree with allowing the government to force anything onto people or businesses. The market is far better at providing cost effective solutions without force. It will NEVER be perfect, but the system will minimally fall into a cycle of innovation and improvements without massive subsidies and corrupt regulations that kill the free entry into the market of legitimate, small practices.

Those with pre-existing conditions would have better options, and those who don't would have better alternatives as well.

[t206]

Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal

I think insurance plans should offer the option of such coverage in a special pool with the fees to reflect the higher costs that accompany such risk. If a person does not want the higher fee they could opt out of pre-existing condition coverage.

Agreed...I like that concept, I'm sure there are lots of details and exceptions that would need to be considered, but it seems like a the most reasonable approach.

[t206]

Originally Posted by MadeInAmerica

I do not agree with allowing the government to force anything onto people or businesses. The market is far better at providing cost effective solutions without force. It will NEVER be perfect, but the system will minimally fall into a cycle of innovation and improvements without massive subsidies and corrupt regulations that kill the free entry into the market of legitimate, small practices.

Those with pre-existing conditions would have better options, and those who don't would have better alternatives as well.

Same here, I am not sure if I was clear in my initial post, but definitely not suggesting mandates or anything like that from the Federal Government to require any of what I suggested.

[Rhenzanite]

Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal

I think insurance companies should offer the option of such coverage plans in a special pool with the fees to reflect the higher costs that accompany such risk. If a person does not want the higher fee they could opt out of pre-existing condition coverage.

Choice and competition will bring down insurance costs. Getting government out of healthcare delivery and payment business will bring down the cost of healthcare.

And how would you determine how much more one should pay? Should it be based on the disorder? Should a person who is in cancer remission pay far more because they might relapse? There's a lot that goes on with pre existing conditions that I don't think many people understand. Or rather, they think they understand but in actuality have no idea.

[11thHour]

Yes, most definitely.

[lifelongMOgal]

Originally Posted by JetJockey

And how would you determine how much more one should pay? Should it be based on the disorder? Should a person who is in cancer remission pay far more because they might relapse? There's a lot that goes on with pre existing conditions that I don't think many people understand. Or rather, they think they understand but in actuality have no idea.

I would leave that to the number's crunchers and those with the actual history of what pre-existing conditions cost in terms of coverage. Wouldn't you?

[t206]

Originally Posted by JetJockey

And how would you determine how much more one should pay? Should it be based on the disorder? Should a person who is in cancer remission pay far more because they might relapse? There's a lot that goes on with pre existing conditions that I don't think many people understand. Or rather, they think they understand but in actuality have no idea.

There are plenty of statistics and underwriters to figure out the COST of having to provide coverage for these types of conditions. My assumption is that premiums would be based on the average cost to provide coverage for all of these more frequently occurring conditions, and the premiums would be balanced over that group of participants.

[Rhenzanite]

Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal

I would leave that to the number's crunchers and those with the actual history of what pre-existing conditions cost in terms of coverage. Wouldn't you?

So, getting my life sustaining medication would be put in the hands of some accountant who has probably never heard of my disorder? Kind of like it is right now... So basically nothing would change except people like me, who need the most help usually, would be paying loads more.