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.
Yes. Assuming they are insured before the conditions are discovered. My insurance covers my kids once they're 10 days old. Before that, the risk is mine because I chose to have them. If it turns out they're healthy, they're added. If not, it was my risk not theirs.
The point is that it is NOT the insurance company's fault someone develops a condition like this. They did nothing to cause the condition. Why should they be required to pay for the condition?
Life is not risk free.
Your insurance must suck - 10 days old really? Insurance should pay for illness because that is what they DO. Their profit isn't risk free either .
If you don't like mandating insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, then you'd better promote moving toward government run health care. Without a completely government run system, many people have no access to insurance without the pre-existing condition coverage--they can't buy it at any price. That's why the mandate is in the affordable care act--to even out the risk for private insurance companies. Working through private insurers is the market oriented approach, and if you don't even support that as a conservative, then you're living in the wrong country--I think you'd be more comfortable in a third world country--maybe SOMALIA. Glad to help you pack your bags, because I'm sick of the whining.
This comes down the the basic definition of insurance. When an insurance company is forced to accept new applicants with pre-existing conditions that they are expected to pay for, they cease to be an insurance company.
So I had broken leg, it's better now, am I no longer insurable because I have a preexisting condition?
So I had broken leg, it's better now, am I no longer insurable because I have a preexisting condition?
That's not at all what's being said, and you know it.
You have no insurance. You fall, and break your leg. As you wait for the arrival of paramedics, you call to purchase an accident policy. Do you expect the policy to pay for the expenses related to that broken leg?
Little Acorn, I think you make a good case for single payer national healthcare. You're right, why should private companies shoulder that liability. Also, why should they be allowed to make a profit off people's sickness?
Healthcare should be a not for profit business. I'm not against doctors making big dough, but the rest of it should be nationalized.
How exactly does that work, being "not for profit?" BTW, insurance companies profit off of people not being sick, those who are sick are the ones who drain their profits, so let's use the expression correctly.
That's not at all what's being said, and you know it.
You have no insurance. You fall, and break your leg. As you wait for the arrival of paramedics, you call to purchase an accident policy. Do you expect the policy to pay for the expenses related to that broken leg?
That is a different issue from forever denying someone insurance b/c of a health condition, and you know it.
That's not at all what's being said, and you know it.
You have no insurance. You fall, and break your leg. As you wait for the arrival of paramedics, you call to purchase an accident policy. Do you expect the policy to pay for the expenses related to that broken leg?
You are not following the full conversation, I started a new conversation, and asked for us to first define what a preexisting condition is, and when can an insurance company use it to deny you or me insurance, and Sam says there is no need to define what the hell we are all discussing.
It's useless to have a discussion about some undefined, and arbitrary phrase, because then none of us know exactly what each other are basing our arguments on. Hence my hyperbole, I'm trying to make the point, how can we discuss this topic if we have not even established that a broken leg is, or is not a "preexisting condition."
It appears the Cons are the real "Let them die" Death committee people. Pre-existing conditions is a term created by insurance companies to allow them to legally get out of having to cover some one who seeks insurance.
Would you be willing to make a bet with me like this. I will bet you the Ravens will win the Super Bowl that was just played and by 3 points. Let's say we bet $100,000.00. Would you take the bet? Why not?
You are not following the full conversation, i asked for us to define what a preexisting condition is, and when can an insurance company use it to deny you or me insurance, and Sam says there is no need to define what the hell we are all discussing.
It's useless to have a discussion about some undefined, and arbitrary phrase, because then understand of us know exactly what each other are basing their arguments on. Hence my hyperbole, I'm trying to make the point, how can we discuss this topic if we have not even established that a broken leg is, or is not a "preexisting condition."
A preexisting condition is an illness or injury that you have had in the past that could affect you in the future.
Would you be willing to make a bet with me like this. I will bet you the Ravens will win the Super Bowl that was just played and by 3 points. Let's say we bet $100,000.00. Would you take the bet? Why not?
Ah yes, insurance companies are in the business to make money, not protect people. That is where we as a country should tell them no.
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.