If an insurance company covers a pre-existing condition, is it really insurance?

Discussion in 'Business & Economics' started by Oystein, Feb 26, 2017.

  1. Oystein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    890
    If a health insurance company covers a pre-existing condition, is it really insurance?

    I can understand why health insurance companies don't cover pre-existing conditions: I think it would a no-win situation for them. First off, is this true? And if so then why doesn't the US government step in and pick up these people (with pre-existing conditions)? Sure it would take tax money to do this. People with pre-existing conditions that are picked up by this government pool would have to pay a premium to the government that would be consistent with the insurance companies for a normal person -- maybe even significantly more. The government payouts would then also be consistent with (and no more than) what an insurance company would pay out for a client that all-of-a-sudden contracted the condition in question. Also, the gov't would thoroughly vet this pre-existing condition to ensure that the insurance company wasn't trying to sluff off customers onto the government insurance.

    Would this sort of system be too expensive? Too much tax money used? Too hard to oversee?
     
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2017
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    No, forcing insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions is not insurance...it's a credit card in which either the insurance company (as they've found out under Obamacare) or the taxpayers cover the loss. Forced preexisting condition coverage disincentivizes healthy people getting insurance because they can just wait until after they get sick, and this undermines a sustainable insurance pool. For the government to take these on, it would be either just as expensive or just as unsustainable as private insurance. The government would be at an even greater disadvantage, since it couldn't defray its losses over a larger insured pool which includes sufficient healthy people with underutilized policies.

    Short answer...preexisting conditions are expensive to cover, and making them welfare cases would only increase the cost.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Oystein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    890
    This places us back to where ACA is now . . . people either pay for private health insurance, pay for "government pool" health insurance, or pay a penalty.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    Yeah, and when the penalty is significantly lower than the cheapest healthcare plan, for many people it's a no-brainer.
     
  8. Oystein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    890
    That seems to be easily remedied . . . make the penalty significantly more than the cheapest health insurance premium.
     
  9. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    Then you just bankrupt everyone, more people end up on welfare (because after their premiums, their take-home pay isn't worth it), and again, you have a completely unsustainable system.
     
  10. Oystein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    890
    Syne -- Are you in favor of . . .

    "repeal ACA without replace"?
    "repeal ACA and replace"? (if so, with what)
    "Fix ACA"
    other? (Explain)
     
  11. Oystein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    890
    So, I get the feeling you are in favor of "repeal without replacement".
     
  12. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    Yep, the replacement is an unhindered free market with open competition and transparent pricing. There is no other service, other than healthcare, that you have to agree to pay for without any idea of what it may cost you.
     
  13. Oystein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    890
    So. I guess with your fix, Medicaid would pick up those with a health condition that is un-insurable, after they have lost whatever little money they have accumulated.
     
  14. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,839
    Except that isn't the case, not that it matters to you. Preexisting conditions make one more likely to have higher costs. It's not a definitive . Just because someone is overweight or has a family history, it doesn't mean they will incur any additional expenses during the period of insurance. Health insurance for preexisting conditions isn't a credit card. It's insurance. You are entitled to your opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts or your own word definitions.

    No it doesn't. Anyone who waits to get healthcare insurance until after they become ill is a fool. Getting healthcare insurance isn't that easy, and if you had some real life experiences you would know that. If you are sick or injured you want treatment now, not 30 days from now, 6 months from now, or a year from now. When I buy healthcare insurance my premiums are being used to pay for folks with mental illness, birth defects, contraception, and pregnancies all of which aren't applicable to me. Being a male, I seriously doubt I'm going to become pregnant anytime soon.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    But that doesn't disincent me from obtaining health insurance.

    Yes preexisting conditions are expensive to cover. But that doesn't mean they are welfare cases or insuring against those risks will make them welfare cases. That's all grand right wing rhetoric, but that's all it is. It works with the dittoheads. Please explain why you think insuring preexisting conditions would only increase the cost? The cost of what? Please explain in detail. Don't mindlessly repeat partisan talking points as you are wont to do. Make a rational fact based argument comrade.
     
  15. Oystein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    890
    I do believe those people that forego health insurance, if they can afford it, for themselves or their families are damn fools. But the key words here are highlighted. Some folks just can't afford it.
     
    joepistole likes this.
  16. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,839
    You are spot on. If people can afford it they are damn fools to go without it. Affordability is the issue, and that's what the ACA was suppose to do: make healthcare insurance more available and more affordable.
     
  17. Oystein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    890
    I think you can judge a nation by how it treats its less fortunate people. And I don't think the "free market" can do this. If anything, it makes the situation worse.

    Don 't get me wrong. A swing in the opposite direction, towards pure Communism, is also not a viable solution.
     
  18. Oystein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    890
    Health care costs are crazy today. When my wife goes in for a doctor visit, they send her all over town to get various (expensive) tests done. I don't see where the insurance premiums I pay in a year come even close to paying for that one battery of tests.
     
  19. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    If they can afford it, they likely buy a private/work-provided insurance plan that does nothing to add to the ACA insurance pool. And if that is an argument for single-payer, costs will only continue to skyrocket.
    No, you can judge a person by how they treat the less fortunate, because their action is voluntary. But national charity is coercion, and coercion is not moral.

    The free market can lower costs, which does help everyone...including those with preexisting conditions.
     
  20. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,839
    Before Obamacare it wasn't offered to individuals, and when it was offered, it was unafordable. For your edification, not everyone has access to employer provided healthcare even today.

    Contrary to your assertion, single payer systems are the most efficient healthcare systems. The US pays 18% of its income on healthcare. Single payer countries on the other hand pay about 12% of their GDP on healthcare. So your assertion just doesn't stand up to daylight.

    So you think helping fellow Americans is charity? Is it charity when government helps its richest citizens or is it just charity when it helps the poor and the middle class?

    Well, here is the thing, can you point to one successful free market healthcare system? If what you assert were true, you should be able to point on one successful example. But you can't, because it doesn't exist. Free market healthcare systems have gone the way of the dodo bird because they couldn't deliver.
     
  21. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,663
    IMO - Most people aren't really interested in "insurance". What they want is affordable healthcare. Insurance does not equal healthcare.
     
    Syne likes this.
  22. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,839
    Well, that's how people get access to healthcare; it's through healthcare insurance. Most people can't afford to fork out the money to pay the uninsured healthcare prices.
     
  23. Oystein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    890
    Yeah, nowadays, without health insurance here in the US it would cost $10K every time you went in for a visit and had a few tests made.

    But it would be nice to reign in some of these outrageous costs for services and prescriptions.
     

Share This Page