O_Guru
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 5, 2010
- Messages
- 758
- Reaction score
- 155
- Location
- Pittsburgh, PA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Again looking for honest GREY talk, not bias spin and partisan hate/ talking points.
I of course love the no more preexisting conditions clause, its the right, proper and fair thing to do without a doubt it just needs "some" guidelines. Which OF COURSE is the magic trick I just dont understand those that are 100% against it so id like everyone's insight no matter your stance.
yes i know I am making the poll cut and dry and there should probably be a "in the middle" or "other" option but i want to force people to pick and then defend their side and not cop out. Usually people make a more honest choice when forced.
You are either for it or against it, of course you can add to it, reasons for and how far you will go or reason against because you think its all to risky.
I think its wrong if there is no mandate. It would put a burden on the insurance companies that they could not afford. If the mandate holds through the court challenge, I have no problem with it.
I do not support eliminating preexisting conditions as a governing factor on health insurance.
It's blindingly obvious to me that any self-respecting business person, were they running a health/medical insurance company, would be derelict of their goal to make a profit did they allow any and all persons to purchase a plan, despite any pre-existing conditions.
A pre-existing condition, depending on the details of the insurance plan, would potentially mean guaranteed costs that the insurance company would have to pay – while at the same time only reaping the income of the payments the person made.
It’s basically like an car insurance company allowing someone to purchase full replacement car insurance for their car – After they’ve had a crash.
It makes no sense in terms of good business.
Hell, its insurance fraud.
I do not support eliminating preexisting conditions as a governing factor on health insurance.
It's blindingly obvious to me that any self-respecting business person, were they running a health/medical insurance company, would be derelict of their goal to make a profit did they allow any and all persons to purchase a plan, despite any pre-existing conditions.
A pre-existing condition, depending on the details of the insurance plan, would potentially mean guaranteed costs that the insurance company would have to pay – while at the same time only reaping the income of the payments the person made.
It’s basically like an car insurance company allowing someone to purchase full replacement car insurance for their car – After they’ve had a crash.
It makes no sense in terms of good business.
Hell, its insurance fraud.
I agree!
Though I feel that SOME pre-existing conditions should still be quantified as such - such as a life-time smoker who develops lung cancer and then seeks out insurance or treatment.
Or a patient who is obese purely for the fact that they overindulge and have no desire to diet or exercise - that, also, should be pre-existing.
all in all - I think, if we're bent on encouraging people to BE healthier - we should do exactly that. Reward the good, negate the bad.
agreed
Do you have any provisions that you wouldn’t cover?
This is the hard part for me, how to determine what should be covered and what shouldn’t.
I agree to a point that you should NOT be rewarded if you choose to hurt yourself and you never paid insurance or mostly didnt
what about a women who works 40 years, smokes, get laid off, out of work for a year, started developing a cough in between jobs, finds work again, then 1 month in to her new job they say her cough is throat cancer.
should her new insurance company say no to her?
this is a fantasy story but could easily be reality. Just trying to get a feel on your lines
Tangent: I think the idea of "forcing" people to have health insurance would work, in a twisted way, by making sure everyone is insured from birth, and thus no pre-existing conditions are possible...Unless it's a birth defect, I suppose...hmm.
It won’t work without it being a single (or maybe a couple-few?) giant health insurance company(s), however, because likely smart companies would market their “low, low” prices to the more likely to be healthy, thus gaining an income with little in costs – whereas those less forward-thinking companies would have to accept people with pre-existing conditions, those likely to be unhealthy later, etc. Only with one or a few really large companies, large enough to have an income base capable of supporting everyone who was a deficit cost, would be capable.
In short, basically government-provided health insurance. :doh
But that smacks of authoritarian government, along with many other things. And many of the negative things I’ve heard about such things make at least partial sense to me.
But I can’t say I understand the whole thing, since I don’t… :mrgreen:
This is just how things appear from my angle.
In short, you can’t remove pre-existing conditions as a factor without also turning it into a single-payer government health care system – the two seem connected in my mind.
/shrug
I think its wrong if there is no mandate. It would put a burden on the insurance companies that they could not afford. If the mandate holds through the court challenge, I have no problem with it.
Smoking increases the risk - thus - it should be classified as pre-existing.
:shrug: Sucks for her but no one told her smoking was good and that smoking wouldn't cause cancer. She chose to ignore the warnings - and thus already accpted the price.
Now, pre-existing shouldn't be EXCESSIVE in amount - the idea isn't to DETER them from getting insurance at all. It's to merely make them a little more responsible for what they've decided to do to theirself since they're taking *out* immediately rather than putting *in* to the insurance pool.
But that always gets into tricky-situations. *how* do you determing it's becaues of a bad habit or lack of personal oversight? I'm sure that it's natural for someone to engage in a bad habit - and suffer a consequence that isn't related to it.
Where would one draw the line?
But this is also why I don't support insurance being *tied* to your job - If someone gets insurance they should be able to keep it even if they're laid off - maybe be given a grace period so they can switch over within an allotted amount of time.
Afterall- she, employed all those years (if she had insurance) paid INTO it that whole time - she should be able to still keep it and use it and maybe transfer those benefits over somehow.
That's the part about insurance that I *don't* like - the fact that *you could* pay into it endlessly, use it only very little, and then still lose it when you change employment. . . thus -all that 'investment' (using the word out of context) should still net you a benefit.
I'm not clear on what I think myself, so I couldn't tell ya'...So to be clear you are fine with eliminating preexisting conditions as long as there’s limits or no.
Hmm...I was speaking from a purely business perspective - the value of a life vs. that of property didn't enter into the equation, as I understand it.Also the car insurance isn’t accurate in my opinion at all.
health/life and property are different and so is negligence or fault etc in car insurance.
That’s one reason I think job-connected insurance should possibly be eliminated.Me hitting in to a truck because of ice and wanting insurance isn’t the same as me switching jobs or maybe being laid off for a while, having a heart attack and then when I get work that insurance company saying we can’t cover you for anything or anything we could possible link to your heart or surgery or medicine, etc., etc.
Part of this is the economy issues, dollar value decreasing, etc.While I agree with you 100% in some principles I think guidelines definitely need made. and while I’m for profit and business maybe the system that "I" thought worked better years ago with the CEO making like 500K a year with other employees making less and getting very could care at good prices should have stayed around instead of a lot of current systems where the CEO make 50million a year, gets a 50million dollar bonus and admin clerks now make the 250000 while giving worse care at higher prices.
Lost track, not sure what you’re referring too here…Now of course I dolled that story up a whole bunch but I do believe the watered down version of the fantasy above is a main factor of the healthcare slowly getting worse.
Indeed.last 2 times I switch jobs (2 years ago and 3 more before that) I had to feel out papers on my ASTHMA lmao of course its preexisting dummies I was born with it but I literally had to fight to get them to cover visits and my meds THAT IS BS! Now luckily for me I won but many aren’t that lucky.
I think it would be nice, but I'm not sure whether it is economically feasible.
So what replaces it?Health insurance is still insurance; you can not expect insurance companies to pay claims on events that the insured knew would come to pass.
The problem with our healthcare industry is the fact that insurance is used to pay for it. That's not what insurance is for, that's not how insurance works, and the only way for insurance to be profitable under such a system is to deny care. Any healthcare system that relies heavily on insurance to cover costs is inherently and fatally flawed.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?