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.
Our government has forced hospitals since 1986 to provide treatment to people regardless of 'citizenship, legal status or ability to pay'. So requiring insurance companies to insure people with pre-existing conditions seems quite fair.
For instance, you just find out that you have a terminal illness, but never invested in life insurance.
Should the insurer be mandated to insure you?
If the government wants to take care of this, the government should provide the insurance. Insurance companies are in business to make a profit. They are not in business to provide charity. If you want to set up charities to insure those with pre-existing conditions, go right ahead but insurance companies should not be forced to take those with preexisting conditions, unless premiums are set accordingly, any more than life insurance companies should be forced to offer life insurance to the terminally ill.
Waiting until you have a condition to get insurance is as dumb as waiting until you're dying to buy a life insurance policy. The time to buy insurance is before you have the condition. I do realize that some people are born with conditions. This is where those charities would come in.
Location: Just transplanted to FL from the N GA mountains
3,997 posts, read 4,141,865 times
Reputation: 2677
Quote:
Originally Posted by cruitr
Our government has forced hospitals since 1986 to provide treatment to people regardless of 'citizenship, legal status or ability to pay'. So requiring insurance companies to insure people with pre-existing conditions seems quite fair.
For instance, you just find out that you have a terminal illness, but never invested in life insurance.
Should the insurer be mandated to insure you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by maf763
I don't think so. It would seem like a ridiculous proposition, unlike the mandate for health insurers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphamale
Why the difference?
I agree with maf763. Life insurance isn't as important to an individual's health and well being as health insurance. Going without it doesn't put lives at risk.
Being able to receive medical treatment at a reasonable cost is not something that should be left entirely to market forces. It's something that even poor, helpless, and indigent people should have (to some degree) , even if they can't pay for it. Health care is (and ought to continue being) a somewhat unique industry in this respect.
Life insurance, on the other hand, is frivolous in comparison. It is not something most people need, it is mainly something upper-middle class men buy because their wives guilt them into it.
Our government has forced hospitals since 1986 to provide treatment to people regardless of 'citizenship, legal status or ability to pay'. So requiring insurance companies to insure people with pre-existing conditions seems quite fair.
What a great idea. I can now not worry about paying into life insurance for the next 50 years and just take out life insurance when I know I am going to die. Brilliant, will save me heaps of money. And who cares that the insurers won't be getting my payments for those 50 years to offset costs to pay out other claims. I'm sure that if the insurers register as churches then they should be able to shuffle along with donations. This is the sort of entitlement mentality that got the US into trouble in the first place. BTW the insurers can't print money like the Government can so pray tell how, in your considered opinion, are these companies going to stay in business?? Oh wait I know, a bail out by taxing the rich. If you don't take out insurance prior to getting sick then bad luck dude, you are dumb. It would be like being allowed to bet on a game after its over and you already know the score, exactly like it, it would be cheating.
Location: Just transplanted to FL from the N GA mountains
3,997 posts, read 4,141,865 times
Reputation: 2677
Quote:
Originally Posted by cruitr
You lost me on that one...
The original post is in regards to LIFE insurance. Not health. The question is should the government force insurance companies to insure peoples LIVES? If I have no life insurance and am diagnosed tomorrow as terminal in say less than 6 months... can I then go out take out 100K policy and pay 6 months premiums?
What you and all the other anti-health-care posters ignore is that the issue is not insurance, the issue is the method of financing our health care system to provide decent health care to everybody.
I get that you don't think we should provide health care to everybody, but making specious analogies doesn't help your argument.
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.
