Why on Earth should Insurance companies have to cover pre-existing conditions?

[Little-Acorn]

Some people seem to have a very strange view of what insurance companies do. They point to the problem of people who have a pre-existing condition, trying to sign up for new insurance, only to find the insurance companies won't pay for the the treatment for that pre-existing condition.

Of course they won't. That's not what insurance companies do. Whoever said they did?

Insurance is a gambling game where you bet on what will happen in the future. You "bet" that you will get sick or injured, and the company "bets" that you won't. If you get sick or injured, the company pays you the stipulated amount (paying for a portion of your medical treatment etc.), and if you don't, you pay them (premiums). The purpose is to shield you from the "shock" of suddenly and unexpectedly getting hit with huge medical bills... which is why you agreed to the contract.

A pre-existing condition cannot be insured against. It's like betting on the outcome of a horse race that's already been run - there is no "chance" involved, and no "unexpectedness" to the outcome (any more). Or like trying to get car insurance after wrecking your car.

Insurance companies are in the business of selling security - the assurance that you won't be suddenly bankrupted by huge medical bills, rehab bills etc. in the future. They do it by insuring huge numbers of people and getting them to each pay relatively small amounts (their premiums) each. They and their clients all know that most of them will never incur the huge medical bills they are worried about. But since no one knows which few people WILL incur them, they are all happy to pay the premiums, for the knowledge they won't have to pay the huge amounts if they turn out to be the unlucky ones.

Insurance companies sell safety from FUTURE possible disasters. And that's all they sell. Asking them to cover pre-existing conditions, is like asking a submarine designer to design a supersonic jet - it's got nothing to do with his business or his area of expertise, and he never volunteered to design jets in the first place, for good reason.

If you want to set up some kind of universal pool to pay for pre-existing conditions, fine, go ahead. But why drag insurance companies into it? It's got nothing to do with their areas of expertise, and they never volunteered to do it in the first place - for good reason.

 

[konradv]

That's why we need single-payer. Check out the Canadian system. It's a good example.

 

[TNHarley]

That's why we need single-payer. Check out the Canadian system. It's a good example.

I could agree to something that worked best for everyone. That is why I am against obamacare, or Romneycare for that matter.

 

[Staidhup]

It will soon be the law of the land. One can only surmise that by not reading the bill prior to passage was a horrible mistake, but then again, was it, or was it designed to be the final solution all along, one government controlled insurance company.

 

[healthmyths]

I agree re the op ed. But by the same token, if you get diagnosed with a 'condition' after you have signed up with the insurance company, they shouldn't be able to start changing the rules to suit...

AND THEY CAN'T unless they find you have LIED for example said you weren't a smoker and then you get cancer and they find out oh.oh...

AND people are so ignorant about insurance companies as to WHY THEY HAVE to make a profit which averages about 4.6% BEFORE Taxes is because state insurance regulations require RESERVES which only come from PROFITS!!!

NO reserves can be created unless there are profits and states require if you sell insurance you can pay the claims!!!

 

[Occamstazer]

Single payer system offering a basic level of care regardless of income or health condition. Upgrade to a health insurance plan if you can afford it.

Be willing to accept the possibility it may come down to paying for it in taxes to the government rather than in premiums to insurance companies.

Some anti-government types will be hatin' on this idea.

Fuck 'em, I say.

 

[konradv]

That's why we need single-payer. Check out the Canadian system. It's a good example.

I could agree to something that worked best for everyone. That is why I am against obamacare, or Romneycare for that matter.

Canadian system works pretty well. They're more satisfied with it than Americans have been under our system. Still to be determined if we'll like ACA. The major problem with the situation, as I see it, is that we've still got insurance companies involved. When you have a situation where everybody's going to eventually need benefits, it's going to be rife with corruption when the profit motive's on the line.

 

[candycorn]

332-206. He he he.

 

[TruthSeeker56]

It will soon be the law of the land. One can only surmise that by not reading the bill prior to passage was a horrible mistake, but then again, was it, or was it designed to be the final solution all along, one government controlled insurance company.

"Final solution".

Isn't that what Adolph Hitler called the holocaust?

 

[TNHarley]

That's why we need single-payer. Check out the Canadian system. It's a good example.

I could agree to something that worked best for everyone. That is why I am against obamacare, or Romneycare for that matter.

Canadian system works pretty well. They're more satisfied with it than Americans have been under our system. Still to be determined if we'll like ACA. The major problem with the situation, as I see it, is that we've still got insurance companies involved. When you have a situation where everybody's going to eventually need benefits, it's going to be rife with corruption when the profit motive's on the line.

There is something that tears me on the issue.. Gov't cant run shit
I like the idea of EVERYONE having coverage(as long as they pay for it) but, damn man, they just cant seem to run anything. I am all for small gov't, but somethings the gov't has to run. The healthcare thinggy is just scarey. What if a gov't started a one-payer and sold it privately with guidelines?

 

[jillian]

You pay for insurance
And pay for insurance
Then when you need it, they drop you

Insurance companies set prices based on risk. The possibility of someone having an illness are already factored into that cost

Why should insurance companies be unjustly enriched?

 

[TNHarley]

332-206. He he he.

Damn strait! Oh.. Look at my sig

 

[konradv]

I could agree to something that worked best for everyone. That is why I am against obamacare, or Romneycare for that matter.

Canadian system works pretty well. They're more satisfied with it than Americans have been under our system. Still to be determined if we'll like ACA. The major problem with the situation, as I see it, is that we've still got insurance companies involved. When you have a situation where everybody's going to eventually need benefits, it's going to be rife with corruption when the profit motive's on the line.

There is something that tears me on the issue.. Gov't cant run shit
I like the idea of EVERYONE having coverage(as long as they pay for it) but, damn man, they just cant seem to run anything. I am all for small gov't, but somethings the gov't has to run. The healthcare thinggy is just scarey. What if a gov't started a one-payer and sold it privately with guidelines?

In the Canadian system the government doesn't run health care, it just pays for it. That's much different from the British system, which I don't support.

 

[jillian]

That's why we need single-payer. Check out the Canadian system. It's a good example.

I could agree to something that worked best for everyone. That is why I am against obamacare, or Romneycare for that matter.

When the heritage foundation devised the health reform laws, conservatives loved it as people "accepting personal responsibility".

Why not now?

 

[TNHarley]

You pay for insurance
And pay for insurance
Then when you need it, they drop you

Insurance companies set prices based on risk. The possibility of someone having an illness are already factored into that cost

Why should insurance companies be unjustly enriched?

Thats why I was ALL for healthcare reform before this ACA BS. They could do what they wanted! It reminds me of the corporation 3M. I deal with them daily as I am in the Traffic and safety business. If you were to call and complain, they will say"then buy from somewhere else" The only other company that sells a federal mandated reflective sheeting is Nikkolite and they suck. And they know that

 

[PoliticalChic]

That's why we need single-payer. Check out the Canadian system. It's a good example.

I could agree to something that worked best for everyone. That is why I am against obamacare, or Romneycare for that matter.

Canadian system works pretty well. They're more satisfied with it than Americans have been under our system. Still to be determined if we'll like ACA. The major problem with the situation, as I see it, is that we've still got insurance companies involved. When you have a situation where everybody's going to eventually need benefits, it's going to be rife with corruption when the profit motive's on the line.

If you advocate we in the United States completely abandon the free market model that has worked for over 200 years in favor of a socialist health care system, you need to hear about Shona Holmes experience with the government health care system in Canada.
Holmes (see video below) was diagnosed with brain cancer, with her vision deteriorating rapidly, but was placed on the treatment waiting lists common to health care in socialist countries. While the average wait time for many procedures can run 18 months or more, Holmes actually made out pretty good by only having to wait 6 months for surgery for her brain tumor.
Rather than wait like a good little subject, she came to the States and got the health care she needed within three weeks. You know, the United States health care system liberals claim is so broken it must be replaced with a government system…you know, kinda like the one in Canada.
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/where-can-americans-go-for-treatment-under-govt-health-care/

 

[TNHarley]

Canadian system works pretty well. They're more satisfied with it than Americans have been under our system. Still to be determined if we'll like ACA. The major problem with the situation, as I see it, is that we've still got insurance companies involved. When you have a situation where everybody's going to eventually need benefits, it's going to be rife with corruption when the profit motive's on the line.

There is something that tears me on the issue.. Gov't cant run shit
I like the idea of EVERYONE having coverage(as long as they pay for it) but, damn man, they just cant seem to run anything. I am all for small gov't, but somethings the gov't has to run. The healthcare thinggy is just scarey. What if a gov't started a one-payer and sold it privately with guidelines?

In the Canadian system the government doesn't run health care, it just pays for it. That's much different from the British system, which I don't support.

So is it just a tax that gets taken out of payroll or something?

 

[kwc57]

You pay for insurance
And pay for insurance
Then when you need it, they drop you

Insurance companies set prices based on risk. The possibility of someone having an illness are already factored into that cost

Why should insurance companies be unjustly enriched?

Well, they are a for profit company. Let's relate it to car insurance. You don't have car insurance. You wreck your car. You go buy an insurance policy in the hopes they will fix your damaged car. That is the expectation of covering pre-existing conditions.

 

[Occamstazer]

I could agree to something that worked best for everyone. That is why I am against obamacare, or Romneycare for that matter.

Canadian system works pretty well. They're more satisfied with it than Americans have been under our system. Still to be determined if we'll like ACA. The major problem with the situation, as I see it, is that we've still got insurance companies involved. When you have a situation where everybody's going to eventually need benefits, it's going to be rife with corruption when the profit motive's on the line.

There is something that tears me on the issue.. Gov't cant run shit
I like the idea of EVERYONE having coverage(as long as they pay for it) but, damn man, they just cant seem to run anything. I am all for small gov't, but somethings the gov't has to run. The healthcare thinggy is just scarey. What if a gov't started a one-payer and sold it privately with guidelines?

Yes, but it didn't worked out very well when health care was turned over to the insurance companies in the form of HMO's, PPO's and their other managed care scams. All in an effort to keep down health care costs. Here we are today with the highest health care costs in the world and premiums none but the twenty somethings and wealthy can afford.

I highly doubt the government could do worse, to be honest. You'd probably disagree.

 

[TNHarley]

That's why we need single-payer. Check out the Canadian system. It's a good example.

I could agree to something that worked best for everyone. That is why I am against obamacare, or Romneycare for that matter.

When the heritage foundation devised the health reform laws, conservatives loved it as people "accepting personal responsibility".

Why not now?

I honestly don't know much about that. Besides, I cant speak for all conservatives. I am just one person silly Jilly
And besides that I am not a "normal" conservative. I have my own beliefs, not what someone tells me to think or feel