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.
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.....
And what about those who are born with certain conditions? They're always going to have them, and you can hardly expect a child to pay for their own insurance. I deal with patient advocacy for rare genetic disorders and it can be very difficult to manage your health when you're born with a pre existing condition.
They could have simply "fixed" health insurance by providing some sort of pre existing pool for these folks instead of trying to revamp the entire thing. Government sells flood insurance to folks who get flooded all the time why not health insurance to those with a pre existing condition that aren't covered? That would be too simple though. Gotta redo it all with a bill nobody had the time to read.
Some religious folks believe that their god has a plan for their life. This plan may include things like cancer or paralysis. Since these things were preordained, people who hold this religious belief should be allowed to buy insurance and pay into the system, however, if they become sick or injured and need to collect their benefits the benefits should be denied and all of their payments returned to them.
And what about those who are born with certain conditions? They're always going to have them, and you can hardly expect a child to pay for their own insurance. I deal with patient advocacy for rare genetic disorders and it can be very difficult to manage your health when you're born with a pre existing condition.
No, not at all is any of the argument to have a child pay for insurance...I dont think that anyone regardless of their stance on health care would expect a minor to pay for it.
Agreed that kids born with certain conditions are a special exception to the scenario I laid out. I dont have a good answer for that...other than maybe something where parents can pay for some sort of pre-natal insurance that would also be meant to cover that scenario? Assuming the vast majority of children are born without any conditions like that, so you premiums paid into the program for those who have no issues should be enough to cover the unfortunate ones born with some sort of problem?
Absolutely. Unlike car or home insurance, health care is a basic human necessity.
Water is a basic human necessity too, but for the most part we are all required to provide this on our own, no?
For those who cant (and I mean extreme exceptions) there are programs in place. I'm focused on the vast majority of the population that is competent and able to work for a living.
No, not at all is any of the argument to have a child pay for insurance...I dont think that anyone regardless of their stance on health care would expect a minor to pay for it.
Agreed that kids born with certain conditions are a special exception to the scenario I laid out. I dont have a good answer for that...other than maybe something where parents can pay for some sort of pre-natal insurance that would also be meant to cover that scenario? Assuming the vast majority of children are born without any conditions like that, so you premiums paid into the program for those who have no issues should be enough to cover the unfortunate ones born with some sort of problem?
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.
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.
I don't have a 100% answer, but I have some thoughts.
