Pre-existing conditions coverage

[bluesman]

He literally cannot answer the question. He is literally too stupid to engage in debate.

If you ever watch higher level debates, the one thing you would never see from a good debater is a personal insult. However, when it comes to weak debaters, they always go to the personal insult. It is correctly considered a sign of weakness and shows an inability on the part of the stumped personal attacker to attack arguments.

The constitution doesn't say anything about airplanes. Does that mean the FAA is unconstitutional?

You literally are too stupid to engage.

If you are going to make insults your main thing, then you should at least be creative about and not repeat the same thing over and over. Asking to find a "clause in the constitution" that allows for a "mandate" is about as smart as looking for a clause about airplanes.

I pointed out that when writing for the majority, John Roberts stated "...the mandate imposes a tax on people who do not buy health insurance, and that tax is something that Congress can impose using its constitutional taxing power". Basically he said the mandate is constitutional and gave his reasoning. Therefore, it is an ignorant question to ask me to "find a clause in the constitution" about a mandate. There are all kinds of things that aren't specifically listed in the constitution but that doesn't make them unconstitutional. If you have an argument with Republican John Roberts' reasoning, then maybe you should write him a letter. Since you can't come up with any sort of reasoning or logic to counter what he said, then you can just tell him he is "stupid".


Seriously, top debaters don't focus on personal attacks. Ever. Smart people just don't do that. It is not honorable to simply insult someone every time you get stumped. Of course the personal attackers would rather attack the argument but since they can't they get frustrated and just start with name calling and insults. That is really a crap thing to bring to the forum and is also disrespectful to the other members as well as the people who volunteer their time and efforts to make this a decent place. Also it give visitors the impression that there are dip-shits running amok in here. Please try and do better.

 

[auditor0007]

This is one of the most popular provisions in an otherwise despised law, Obamacare. It polls consistently well. And it sounds good: Insirance companies cannot deny coverage for pre existing conditions. Right?
But why would they deny coverage to begin with?
When they are forced to issue policies to people with pre existing conditions, who pays for the higher risk the company incurs by insuring them?
I realize these are beyond Stage One questions so the leftists here wont have a clue what I mean. But maybe some of the more informed posters can chime in.

The biggest problem with insurance companies denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions was the fact that in many cases, those conditions existed before the person was ever able to purchase insurance. In some cases such as my own, I was denied coverage after having to move to another state, even though I had paid for insurance for all my life. The reason for mandating coverage is so that everyone is in the pool and pays into that pool. Saying that insurance companies must insure those with pre-existing conditions if they have never paid in puts a strain on everyone who has been paying in. That is why the mandate is necessary. Otherwise too many people would just wait until they got sick. Of course it's not that easy. Even now, you must purchase a policy within a given time frame pretty much like open enrollment with your employer. If you miss the open enrollment period, you cannot get a policy until the following year, so if you get cancer or something goes wrong during that time, you will be without coverage.

That doesnt answer the question.
Why were you denied coverage to begin with after you moved?

As it is, people will wait until they get sick to buy coverage. That has been the experience in MA.

Because they don't want to deal with the risk involved with insuring anyone who isn't in great health. This is why allowing private insurance companies to pretty much run our healthcare system is idiotic. Until the ACA was passed, insurance companies were blatant in trying to remove people from their policies by cancelling them if they became too big of a risk.

 

[The Rabbi]

If you ever watch higher level debates, the one thing you would never see from a good debater is a personal insult. However, when it comes to weak debaters, they always go to the personal insult. It is correctly considered a sign of weakness and shows an inability on the part of the stumped personal attacker to attack arguments.

The constitution doesn't say anything about airplanes. Does that mean the FAA is unconstitutional?

You literally are too stupid to engage.

If you are going to make insults your main thing, then you should at least be creative about and not repeat the same thing over and over. Asking to find a "clause in the constitution" that allows for a "mandate" is about as smart as looking for a clause about airplanes.

I pointed out that when writing for the majority, John Roberts stated "...the mandate imposes a tax on people who do not buy health insurance, and that tax is something that Congress can impose using its constitutional taxing power". Basically he said the mandate is constitutional and gave his reasoning. Therefore, it is an ignorant question to ask me to "find a clause in the constitution" about a mandate. There are all kinds of things that aren't specifically listed in the constitution but that doesn't make them unconstitutional. If you have an argument with Republican John Roberts' reasoning, then maybe you should write him a letter. Since you can't come up with any sort of reasoning or logic to counter what he said, then you can just tell him he is "stupid".


Seriously, top debaters don't focus on personal attacks. Ever. Smart people just don't do that. It is not honorable to simply insult someone every time you get stumped. Of course the personal attackers would rather attack the argument but since they can't they get frustrated and just start with name calling and insults. That is really a crap thing to bring to the forum and is also disrespectful to the other members as well as the people who volunteer their time and efforts to make this a decent place. Also it give visitors the impression that there are dip-shits running amok in here. Please try and do better.

You prove yourself literally too stupid to debate again.
I didnt ask where i the COnstitution health care comes. Although it's a valid question.
I did point out Roberts is in error because the tax imposed by Obamacare is illegal under our Constitution.

 

[The Rabbi]

The biggest problem with insurance companies denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions was the fact that in many cases, those conditions existed before the person was ever able to purchase insurance. In some cases such as my own, I was denied coverage after having to move to another state, even though I had paid for insurance for all my life. The reason for mandating coverage is so that everyone is in the pool and pays into that pool. Saying that insurance companies must insure those with pre-existing conditions if they have never paid in puts a strain on everyone who has been paying in. That is why the mandate is necessary. Otherwise too many people would just wait until they got sick. Of course it's not that easy. Even now, you must purchase a policy within a given time frame pretty much like open enrollment with your employer. If you miss the open enrollment period, you cannot get a policy until the following year, so if you get cancer or something goes wrong during that time, you will be without coverage.

That doesnt answer the question.
Why were you denied coverage to begin with after you moved?

As it is, people will wait until they get sick to buy coverage. That has been the experience in MA.

Because they don't want to deal with the risk involved with insuring anyone who isn't in great health. This is why allowing private insurance companies to pretty much run our healthcare system is idiotic. Until the ACA was passed, insurance companies were blatant in trying to remove people from their policies by cancelling them if they became too big of a risk.

Do car insurance companies want to deal with people with less than perfect driving records?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

That doesnt answer the question.
Why were you denied coverage to begin with after you moved?

As it is, people will wait until they get sick to buy coverage. That has been the experience in MA.

Because they don't want to deal with the risk involved with insuring anyone who isn't in great health. This is why allowing private insurance companies to pretty much run our healthcare system is idiotic. Until the ACA was passed, insurance companies were blatant in trying to remove people from their policies by cancelling them if they became too big of a risk.

Do car insurance companies want to deal with people with less than perfect driving records?

Sure, if they can make the math work. If you call to get insurance on a car you've already wrecked, because you want them to buy you a new one, you will make their day as they laugh their ass off.

 

[Zoom-boing]

New drivers should get the exact same coverage and pay the exact same amount as those who have a 20+ year good driving record.

'Cause gosh, that's fair.

Right?

 

[The Rabbi]

Because they don't want to deal with the risk involved with insuring anyone who isn't in great health. This is why allowing private insurance companies to pretty much run our healthcare system is idiotic. Until the ACA was passed, insurance companies were blatant in trying to remove people from their policies by cancelling them if they became too big of a risk.

Do car insurance companies want to deal with people with less than perfect driving records?

Sure, if they can make the math work. If you call to get insurance on a car you've already wrecked, because you want them to buy you a new one, you will make their day as they laugh their ass off.

So the answer is yes. They write high risk policies because the increased premiums off set the increased risk.
So the next question is, WHy don't we see the same thing happen in health insurance?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Do car insurance companies want to deal with people with less than perfect driving records?

Sure, if they can make the math work. If you call to get insurance on a car you've already wrecked, because you want them to buy you a new one, you will make their day as they laugh their ass off.

So the answer is yes. They write high risk policies because the increased premiums off set the increased risk.
So the next question is, WHy don't we see the same thing happen in health insurance?

Because one cancer patient, one liver transplant, can wipe all the profits that would have been made from 1,000 healthy people. Even if you can do the math, and with illnesses like that you really can't, almost no one could afford the policy if anyone was stupid enough to offer it. It's Anti-Capitalist to even try such a thing. It's like Life Insurance past 60. Forget it, you can't afford it and in general, we won't write it. It's not for sale at any price.

Capitalism doesn't have a solution in this case. It's not supposed to.

 

[The Rabbi]

Sure, if they can make the math work. If you call to get insurance on a car you've already wrecked, because you want them to buy you a new one, you will make their day as they laugh their ass off.

So the answer is yes. They write high risk policies because the increased premiums off set the increased risk.
So the next question is, WHy don't we see the same thing happen in health insurance?

Because one cancer patient, one liver transplant, can wipe all the profits that would have been made from 1,000 healthy people. Even if you can do the math, and with illnesses like that you really can't, almost no one could afford the policy if anyone was stupid enough to offer it. It's Anti-Capitalist to even try such a thing. It's like Life Insurance past 60. Forget it, you can't afford it and in general, we won't write it. It's not for sale at any price.

Capitalism doesn't have a solution in this case. It's not supposed to.

Because cancer and liver failure are the only pre-existing conditions, right? Why don't you ask Kiwiman how his liver transplant is going, since he was denied coverage based on PECs?

No, the answer is that companies are not allowed to price higher risk into their policies. Those rules are set by state commissioners, and now the federal government. Were they allowed to, and sell policies across state lines, they would be able to mitigate the risk through larger pools and higher premiums and people could get covered.
Once again, government is not the solution to the problem. Government is the problem.

 

[auditor0007]

That doesnt answer the question.
Why were you denied coverage to begin with after you moved?

As it is, people will wait until they get sick to buy coverage. That has been the experience in MA.

Because they don't want to deal with the risk involved with insuring anyone who isn't in great health. This is why allowing private insurance companies to pretty much run our healthcare system is idiotic. Until the ACA was passed, insurance companies were blatant in trying to remove people from their policies by cancelling them if they became too big of a risk.

Do car insurance companies want to deal with people with less than perfect driving records?

Car insurance and health insurance are not the same in many cases. Many people develop pre-existing conditions through no fault of their own. I have a genetic mutation that caused my body to absorb to much iron (hemochromatosis) that led to my cirrhosis. Not my fault. Those who drive like idiots chose to be bad drivers and should be charged more for their insurance. Again, two completely different things.

It's funny how so many people think it's a great idea to not insure those who have health problems or that we should make them pay three times as much as everyone else. Of course, that all changes when they become sick themselves and start understanding the ramifications.

 

[The Rabbi]

Because they don't want to deal with the risk involved with insuring anyone who isn't in great health. This is why allowing private insurance companies to pretty much run our healthcare system is idiotic. Until the ACA was passed, insurance companies were blatant in trying to remove people from their policies by cancelling them if they became too big of a risk.

Do car insurance companies want to deal with people with less than perfect driving records?

Car insurance and health insurance are not the same in many cases. Many people develop pre-existing conditions through no fault of their own. I have a genetic mutation that caused my body to absorb to much iron (hemochromatosis) that led to my cirrhosis. Not my fault. Those who drive like idiots chose to be bad drivers and should be charged more for their insurance. Again, two completely different things.

It's funny how so many people think it's a great idea to not insure those who have health problems or that we should make them pay three times as much as everyone else. Of course, that all changes when they become sick themselves and start understanding the ramifications.

A person who was rear ended 3 times in a year will pay more for car insurance than someone who wasn't. It isnt a question of blame, it is a question of statistics.
Car insurance and health insurance are identical in their dynamics and purpose. Same with life insurance. It sucks your genetics are the way they are. No, it isn't your fault. It isn't anyone else's either. But that doesnt change the fact you are more likely to submit a claim on your medical insurance and thus present higher risk.

 

[auditor0007]

Do car insurance companies want to deal with people with less than perfect driving records?

Sure, if they can make the math work. If you call to get insurance on a car you've already wrecked, because you want them to buy you a new one, you will make their day as they laugh their ass off.

So the answer is yes. They write high risk policies because the increased premiums off set the increased risk.
So the next question is, WHy don't we see the same thing happen in health insurance?

Because the average American cannot afford $1500 per month for health insurance, and the more health issues you have, the less likely it is that you are even working full-time. While it is true that some people make bad choices and have no one to blame but themselves for their poor health, that is not always the case.

 

[The Rabbi]

Sure, if they can make the math work. If you call to get insurance on a car you've already wrecked, because you want them to buy you a new one, you will make their day as they laugh their ass off.

So the answer is yes. They write high risk policies because the increased premiums off set the increased risk.
So the next question is, WHy don't we see the same thing happen in health insurance?

Because the average American cannot afford $1500 per month for health insurance, and the more health issues you have, the less likely it is that you are even working full-time. While it is true that some people make bad choices and have no one to blame but themselves for their poor health, that is not always the case.

You know it would be $1500/mo because? Well you don't. You made the figure up completely.
Most health issues in this country are self inflicted from: bad diet, lack of exercise, excessive drinking, smoking. If we cut out those factors there would be no health care issues to speak of.

 

[Darkwind]

Care to explain why you can make this statement about the ACA.

Because Democrats don't believe that you are smart enough to handle yourself. Only they are. And that control freak mentality has gone straight to the top.

Not sure which statement you are talking about. The first 5 refer to car insurance through the State, not ACA through the federal govt.

A. RE the mandate as treating citizens as criminals to be fined

The ACA mandates take away liberties without due process as required after a crime.
We used to have liberty to either buy insurance or pay for health care other ways, all by free choice.
Now we face tax penalties if we don't buy insurance, and aren't allowed other choices for paying for health care.
We haven't committed any crime and have not been proven by due process to have ill intent not to pay,
but are already treated as less than equal citizens by fining us where we used to have freedom to pay by free choice.

If you consider beliefs in free market as violated by this bill,
and "right to health care" as a belief, then the federal govt is essentially
fining people on the basis of creed; rewarding and favoring those who
believe in "right to health care through federal govt" and punishing
those who believe in free market systems, and even forcing us to
pay fines into a system we don't believe in! I believe that is unconstitutional.

B. as for Democrats "not believing" it is more like "not trusting"
Democrats trust women with the choice of abortion and don't want federal govt
regulating that, much less "penalizing" that choice

But for the choice of paying for health care, they don't trust citizens to pay their costs.
So much they are willing to PENALIZE citizens for not buying insurance as the only option.

Then they defend this mandate, saying it is going to cut costs anyway and save lives.
But when the same arguments are given for PROLIFE arguments to save lives,
SUDDENLY the Democrats scream that the principle of FREE CHOICE is more important
and we should trust people to make the right choices.

C. this is further insulting when it is OKAY for DEMOCRATS to contradict their
own "prochoice" principles for political agenda, but then opponents jump all over Hobby Lobby for contradictions that are minor in comparison.

So they believe their views are superior and right, and others are wrong.
They overlook their own contradictions, but condemn others for less.

NOTE: I think this is because these liberals derive their defenses not from consent or the Constitution, but from political party. So they rely on these tactics to defend their positions.

Well said!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So the answer is yes. They write high risk policies because the increased premiums off set the increased risk.
So the next question is, WHy don't we see the same thing happen in health insurance?

Because the average American cannot afford $1500 per month for health insurance, and the more health issues you have, the less likely it is that you are even working full-time. While it is true that some people make bad choices and have no one to blame but themselves for their poor health, that is not always the case.

You know it would be $1500/mo because? Well you don't. You made the figure up completely.
Most health issues in this country are self inflicted from: bad diet, lack of exercise, excessive drinking, smoking. If we cut out those factors there would be no health care issues to speak of.

Sounds like government intervention time then eh? Make this whole issue go away because no one would get sick. Ban junk food, TV, booze, and smokes, and watch healthcare nirvana arise.

 

[The Rabbi]

Because the average American cannot afford $1500 per month for health insurance, and the more health issues you have, the less likely it is that you are even working full-time. While it is true that some people make bad choices and have no one to blame but themselves for their poor health, that is not always the case.

You know it would be $1500/mo because? Well you don't. You made the figure up completely.
Most health issues in this country are self inflicted from: bad diet, lack of exercise, excessive drinking, smoking. If we cut out those factors there would be no health care issues to speak of.

Sounds like government intervention time then eh? Make this whole issue go away because no one would get sick. Ban junk food, TV, booze, and smokes, and watch healthcare nirvana arise.

I realize your first impulse is always to reach for the hob nailed boots. But I'm simply stating fact here. Of course if you incentivize people by making them pay for their own decisions then they wont make as many bad ones. Obamacare does the opposite of that: it actually encourages people to engage in behavior that worsens their health because there is no financial penalty for it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If someone is born with an illness, how they can get coverage for it? Everyone should have coverage, no matter if they have a pre existing illness or not.

That's fine, so long as others are not forced to foot the bill.

That means the sick person would have to pay for their own coverage when its not their fault they have a pre existing condition.

Of course it does.
Why should someone else have to pay for that coverage? How is it their fault?

 

[Darkwind]

There is no reason insurance companies would refuse people with pre-existing conditions.

Very true, unless they are then required to PAY for treatment of those pre-existing conditions. In that case, there is every reason for them to refuse. Starting with, "We are not in the business of paying for things that have already happened, just as we are not in the business of arrangine the order of the TV shows on your local cable service. It's not what we do, not what we ever claimed to do, and had absolutely no relation to anything we do."

Provided they could charge appropriately for it.

That would be a one-time charge, for the full amount the treatment (and any followups) cost.


Exactly correct.

Exactly wrong. They don't pose any risk at all. Instead, they present the 100% certainty that full payment is required.

Again, it's no different from forcing a fire-insurance company to take on and pay a customer whose house burned down yesterday. That customer certainly needs help. What he doesn't need, is "insurance". And forcing an insurance company, or a bank, or a Boy Scout troop, to pay for his misfortune, is absolutely inappropriate and unfair.


No. Ergo they must go somewhere other than an insurance company, bank, or Boy Scout troop, none of which have ever had anything to do with paying for events that have already happened and involve everything EXCEPT risk.


Because there is no risk. There is everything else: need, fear, shock, and huge loss. But risk, there isn't. So the situation has nothing to do with an insurance company (as you correctly pointed out above, then contradicted yourself in your very next sentence).


No, the issue is that "insuring" PEC isn't risky. And so it has no more to do with insurance companies (which deal ONLY in risk) than it does with my daughter's corner lemonade stand.


Incorrect, as I pointed out above. It involves something that already happened, and so involves no risk at all.

Your weird and bizarre twisting of the word "risk" to try to make pre-existing conditions fit into it, is the source of your problem here.

That's what you get for listening, even briefly, to people like little housepainter, who can only spew out weird distortions and irrelevant talking points on cue, not solve real problems.

Don't feel bad, socialists the world over have been basing most of their existence on bizarre twisting of words like "risk", "fair", "own", and even "is", to fool people into thinking they cover things they obviously don't. Telling the straightforward truth, would leave those socialists with no reason for their existence at all. You are no socialist, but apparently you have allowed your perceptions to be distorted by these liars, enough to accept a piece of their newspeak and adopt one of their lies.

that must be paid for somewhere down the line.

This is obviously true. But dragging insurance companies into it, makes no more sense than dragging the Boy Scouts into it. What you need to do, is find someone for whom it DOES make sense to pay for events that already happened. And you're still at Square One, and will be until you get over your inexplicable obsession with the Boy Scouts paying (or was it insurance companies? same difference).

Obamacare's mandates, as Jillian with her usual obnoxious barely correct distortions mentioned, achieves this by forcing healthy people to over pay for their risk profile to subsidize people who underpay for theirs.

Correct. And you and I both know that that's no more fair than forcing the PTA to pay for them... or an insurance company... or the Boy Scouts.

Not until you get it OUT of your head that insurance companies have ANY responsibility for paying for PEC, will you be able to start solving the problem of who SHOULD pay for them. Until then, you will continue spinning your wheels, and piling injustice upon injustice with ZERO progress.

Well, you asked people to tackle the real questions and discuss the real problems. Careful what you wish for... especially when the problem is a very difficult one, as pre-existing conditions are.

While I agree, I think you are confused on your logic. A pre-existing condition is not 'only' an event that has happened in the past. Even though that can be the case. An example, I have a broken limb from a car accident, and that pre-existing condition will necessitate that I have the bone set and that I get ongoing out-patient treatment. In another scenario, I have diabetes. This is not an event, but an ongoing condition that will require continuous treatment throughout My lifetime. It would be unreasonable to require the insurer to pay for past treatments, and in that sense, your logic is sound. However, after paying for the policy, and as long as I remain current in my policy payments, any future treatment for the condition, if covered, would be charged against the insurer.

So, this means that an insurer who is willing to take on diabetic patients, will formulate future costs to themselves for ongoing treatment and adjust the monthly premium accordingly.

The biggest argument by progressives is that they do not feel they should have to pay huge premiums for their diseases, but that we should all help them pay for these costs. I even heard one ridiculous claim that medical bills were forcing people to lose their homes due to bankruptcy. So, how is it that they handle that? By requiring all of us to pay rather than passing legislation that made it impossible for creditors to seize real property that the individual was dependent upon for survival.

Such is the level of their lack of critical thinking; or the level of their duplicitous nature.

 

[M14 Shooter]

My career as an underwriter for insurance companies and HMO's for 50 years was to deny people with pre-existing conditions. If they were already insured, and the group was not large enough to cover the one million dollar pre-mature baby, then my job was to raise the rates of the group at the annual renewal date so much that they would drop our company, and become some other insurance companies' problem. Only the other companies, being aware of that, demanded the last three years of claims experience before issuing the employer a policy. In that case, the employer usually found a way to remove John Doe from their payroll, along with his premature baby.

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What if it is their fault they have a pre-existing condition? What difference does it make? Lots of things aren't someone's fault. So what? This isn't a morality debate. It's about medical coverage.

Which no company is interested in provided to people who are already sick. You don't insure cars that were already wrecked.

That is why your health care system sucks.

Less to than the idea that the state should force people to pay for goods and services they do not receive.