Why should pre-existing conditions be covered by INSURANCE.

[Kasierith]

I am curious how would that work on a system that covers pre-existing conditions.
No one (healthy) would buy insurance. When someone gets sick, then they would go buy insurance with pre-existing condition.
Covering pre-existing, means only sick people will have insurance. Why would a healthy person buy insurance under such system???

It's a lot cheaper to go to a doctor's visit that your insurance covers completely, get assessed for at risk for a heart attach, and then then be on generic statins and aspirin and Lisinopril with yearly checkups, even for decades, than have a single heart attack. Active coverage encourages people to use services that can get them treatment before a problem becomes evident via massive heart attack. Same thing with osteroperosis, intestinal bleeds, cancer, diabetes, COPD, blood pressure, thyroid issues.. an entire field of medicine called ambulatory Care where a patient is well enough to be walking around but the idea is to keep them that way

[d00mGuArD]

Because, and get this, the cost of health insurance would still be lower than paying for the cost of healthcare out of pocket. You do realize that healthcare is expensive as all hell, right? The unhealthy people who are actually costing more will always be a minority, so you have 100's of millions of healthy people offsetting the cost of 10's of millions of unhealthy people who are pulling out more, but each individual healthy person wouldn't see much of an increase because of that. Most people don't get cancer in their lifetime, most people don't get ALS, most people don't get Diabetes, most people don't get an autoimmune disease. Yet most people do get yearly checkups, most people do get some form of dental work done every year, most people do get some form of prescription filled, most people do have blood work done. If you don't have insurance then you're paying on average $199 for a checkup each year, $300 for a dental visit twice a year (and that's not including fillings (about $100 per), crowns (about $1300 per), root canals (about $1400 per)), and blood work costs from $100 to $3000 depending on the test. Assuming nothing goes wrong whatsoever with your health and you strictly pay for just the yearly checkup, twice yearly dental exam, and the average cost of blood work one a year ($1600) then you're paying a little under $200 a month for healthcare; whereas, 85% of people on obamacare pay less than $100 per month after subsidies.

It's a lot cheaper to go to a doctor's visit that your insurance covers completely, get assessed for at risk for a heart attach, and then then be on generic statins and aspirin and Lisinopril with yearly checkups, even for decades, than have a single heart attack. Active coverage encourages people to use services that can get them treatment before a problem becomes evident via massive heart attack. Same thing with osteroperosis, intestinal bleeds, cancer, diabetes, COPD, blood pressure, thyroid issues.. an entire field of medicine called ambulatory Care where a patient is well enough to be walking around but the idea is to keep them that way

I agree with you both. However with such system, I would buy insurance for 1 month per semester, or maybe one month per year.
Surely with a tiny bit of planning, everything can be squeezed in those 1-2 months/year. Do all checkups/blood works etc. Then... drop insurance.
More people would soon realize how much cheaper this option is, and insurance system would collapse, no?

[FuxieDK]

"Why is God beautiful??"

Why make troll bait threads about non-existing fantasy being OUTSIDE the RPG forum?

God is not more real, than the invisible pink unicorn on my shoulder.

[Vynny]

I agree with you both. However with such system, I would buy insurance for 1 month per semester, or maybe one month per year.
Surely with a tiny bit of planning, everything can be squeezed in those 1-2 months/year. Do all checkups/blood works etc. Then... drop insurance.
More people would soon realize how much cheaper this option is, and insurance system would collapse, no?

Charge per year. Problem solved. Besides that though, the most costly things when it comes to healthcare are the unexpected things. My brother hurt his shoulder and the surgery cost him some $5000 out of pocket because the injury was sustained while not on insurance. Also, most health insurances have a stipulation that you can't make certain types of claims until you've been a member for a certain number of months to dissuade people from hopping on and off.

Anyways, this was actually the point of Obamacare's requirement forcing everyone to have health insurance. If some people gaming the system to reap the most benefit ruins it for everyone else then you just say "no, you're not allowed to do that" and enforce it. And people can say all they want that they don't wanna be forced, but everyone else doesn't want to pay higher costs because some assholes are contributing less while taking just as much as most other people do i.e. paying for only 1 or 2 months of health insurance while getting the same yearly checkups and coverage that most people do while paying for a year of health insurance. On a side note, I personally find it funny that people who often inform left wingers that nothing is truly free and that someone else has to foot the bill don't understand that the money they're saving by gaming the system has to be made up somewhere and that someone else has to inevitably foot the bill.

[ati87]

Charge per year. Problem solved. Besides that though, the most costly things when it comes to healthcare are the unexpected things. My brother hurt his shoulder and the surgery cost him some $5000 out of pocket because the injury was sustained while not on insurance. Also, most health insurances have a stipulation that you can't make certain types of claims until you've been a member for a certain number of months to dissuade people from hopping on and off.

Anyways, this was actually the point of Obamacare's requirement forcing everyone to have health insurance. If some people gaming the system to reap the most benefit ruins it for everyone else then you just say "no, you're not allowed to do that" and enforce it. And people can say all they want that they don't wanna be forced, but everyone else doesn't want to pay higher costs because some assholes are contributing less while taking just as much as most other people do i.e. paying for only 1 or 2 months of health insurance while getting the same yearly checkups and coverage that most people do while paying for a year of health insurance. On a side note, I personally find it funny that people who often inform left wingers that nothing is truly free and that someone else has to foot the bill don't understand that the money they're saving by gaming the system has to be made up somewhere and that someone else has to inevitably foot the bill.

Health-insurance doesn't have a hup on rules (wouldn't work anyway) because most people have are mandated to have healthcare insurance.

The only insurance that have prevention of hopping in and out are those that are voluntary insurances like life insurance, they have a huge payout but for relative little cost if you die within months after paying in to the system.

[oxymoronic]

Well here is the core of your issue, You seem to believe this when its not true.

when you get older and pay insurance for yourself you can ask the agent. then tell him your views so he can have a good laugh...

[springdarkjack]

Going back to the OP because there is a long string of giant posts:

1. The objects protected under health insurance are not inanimate like cars and houses. We have put a value on human life with our system and that doesn't seem correct. Making health a commodity was a really bad move from the beginning.
2. Theoretically, a car accident and house fire are preventable circumstances. A lot of pre-existing conditions are not because we still don't know the cause. A smoker pays more for healthcare because they are at a higher risk for lung cancerm but some people who get lung cancer have never smoked.

[purebalance]

Health care is not a "business". Making it a for profit business is morally wrong, and makes the people who put that system in place murderers.

Except it is here.... also it is not a right. I don't know where this whole health care is a human right came from, but it's ridiculous. It's a business because we have people working in the system that should be making more than someone at McDonalds.

- - - Updated - - -

Well here is the core of your issue, You seem to believe this when its not true.

Except it is true.

[Akainakali]

Problem with US healthcare lies in a much simpler thing. The system really isn't the main problem. Not to say it is perfect but it certainly isn't why it fails as badly as it does. The problem is in most other western nations costs are controlled by the government. So when you go to the hospital for example you don't pay 10000 dollars for the trip, 100 bucks for each bandage, 5000 for a cast, 4000 for the shot they gave you, and 6000 for the bottle of pills you left with after only having a broken leg. With controlled costs suddenly a lot of the problems evaporate in just about any system. In a control cost environment the insurance market would be much cheaper and affordable by just about anyone. It would be much more supportable by the government as well. Which is why it works in other places and fails completely here in the US.

But in the US the big business of medicine controls a lot of the aspects of government. Its money machine has become so big and so powerful that the option that fixes the whole mess to begin with is totally blocked by greedy fucking assholes that pay and own most of the government.

Well there is another factor in those prices.

It's how hospitals pay for the services they are obligated to provide to people who can't afford to pay for them. Which is one of the reasons why opposition to Obamacare or single payer healthcare it's so utterly stupid.

WE ARE ALL ALREADY PAYING FOR THE HEALTHCARE OF PEOPLE.

It's just in one of the stupidest and most inefficient ways conceivable, one that causes the maximum amount of suffering and pain for people who can't afford it and go bankrupt or wind up hounded by debt collectors.

Seriously folks, you either need go with some sort of system of public health care and fund the dammed things properly.

Or you should be forced to watch people dying from lack of healthcare, you think it's so awful to have to contribute to.

[Breccia]

It makes no sense to me

It makes no sense to anyone in the world who has universal health care. Sadly, in the US, it's pretty much insurance, or nothing. Only 14% of Americans even know how a HSA works and only 8% have them. Paying for things like pregnancy or surgery with cash is...laughably rare.

I agree that, as a generic concept, it makes as much sense as buying car insurance after you hit a tree. BUT, if that's how the auto industry had always been run, it'd make more sense. Also, you don't die if you don't have a car, no matter what teenagers say.

[Frosteye]

People with pre-existing conditions shouldn't be excluded from health insurance -- however I do think they need to pay higher premiums since they will be utilizing services more than someone without such conditions.

If someone seeks auto insurance with crashes on their record, they have to pay higher premiums since they're a higher risk.

As long as the date that they receive medical services is within the period that they are paying premiums they should be able to be covered though. You can't have a surgery, purchase insurance afterwards, and expect to have it cover you retroactively. That would be like getting into a car crash without having insurance, and expecting an insurance company to cover you.

[I Push Buttons]

when you get older and pay insurance for yourself you can ask the agent. then tell him your views so he can have a good laugh...

So he can have a good laugh at you assuming he's there to help you and not to make money? Yeah probably.

[Akainakali]

People with pre-existing conditions shouldn't be excluded from health insurance -- however I do think they need to pay higher premiums since they will be utilizing services more than someone without such conditions.

If someone seeks auto insurance with crashes on their record, they have to pay higher premiums since they're a higher risk.

As long as the date that they receive medical services is within the period that they are paying premiums they should be able to be covered though. You can't have a surgery, purchase insurance afterwards, and expect to have it cover you retroactively. That would be like getting into a car crash without having insurance, and expecting an insurance company to cover you.

Thing is health issues can happen to people for reasons they have absolutely no control over. I spent several weeks in the hospital for a condition, the primary risk factor for which is alcohol consumption.

Thing is I don't drink alcohol. Never have, always hated the stuff. What exactly was I supposed to do to avoid that then? It came completely out of the blue, no real warning. I'd always basically been healthy up until then.

My condition lead to me becoming diabetic at which point before Obamacare, I could NOT purchase health insurance for an unreasonable price. Diabetes is a manageable condition, but if it's untreated has a lot of very expensive complications.

I have a friend who's diabetic, who admittedly didn't take good care of himself and that lead to complications that had him spending something like a quarter of a year in hospital. That likely cost more than he's made in his entire life.

This is one of the things you have to consider. There's a lot of conditions, that if treated and managed, while not cheap, are generally FAR less expensive than the complications you can get if they go untreated or inadequately treated.

So you have a choice to either pay now, pay a LOT more later or of being willing to watch people die in the streets in front of you.

Far too many people in the US, seem all to willing, if not actually eager to see the latter. Presumably they also think it's never going to happen to them or anyone they care about.

Good luck with that.

[breadisfunny]

Except it is here.... also it is not a right. I don't know where this whole health care is a human right came from, but it's ridiculous. It's a business because we have people working in the system that should be making more than someone at McDonalds.

- - - Updated - - -



Except it is true.

yeah it's absurd for people to want to be able to live and not have to live in squalor to do so.

[Rasulis]

It makes no sense to anyone in the world who has universal health care. Sadly, in the US, it's pretty much insurance, or nothing. Only 14% of Americans even know how a HSA works and only 8% have them. Paying for things like pregnancy or surgery with cash is...laughably rare.

I agree that, as a generic concept, it makes as much sense as buying car insurance after you hit a tree. BUT, if that's how the auto industry had always been run, it'd make more sense. Also, you don't die if you don't have a car, no matter what teenagers say.

My wife and I primarily use our HSA account as another tax free retirement investment vehicle. I would think that anybody that can afford to max out their HSA account every year would not have much of an issue paying $6,000 medical deductible per year.

- - - Updated - - -

People with pre-existing conditions shouldn't be excluded from health insurance -- however I do think they need to pay higher premiums since they will be utilizing services more than someone without such conditions.

If someone seeks auto insurance with crashes on their record, they have to pay higher premiums since they're a higher risk.

As long as the date that they receive medical services is within the period that they are paying premiums they should be able to be covered though. You can't have a surgery, purchase insurance afterwards, and expect to have it cover you retroactively. That would be like getting into a car crash without having insurance, and expecting an insurance company to cover you.

How much more are we talking about? My wife has Chiari Malformation which is hereditary. The symptoms first appeared in 2007, although the illness was not diagnosed until 2012. Prior to that, all the doctors were blaming the symptoms on fibromyalgia. To make long story short, by the time ACA became effective, we were paying Pacific Health Care $2,500 per month for health insurance. If it wasn’t for ACA, our premium would have likely kept going up and up and up.

[Floopa]

Pre-existing conditions which cannot be fixed through natural remedies should be covered. Part of the issues burdening the NHS currently are people living way longer and obesity. Personally this is why I fucking hate fat people. I see 0 reason why fat people should be covered. Walk to work, ride a bicycle, run on the spot. Part of why I imagine America has a hard time accepting universal healthcare is also aging populations and obesity, who in their right mind is going to want to pay additional tax to help a fat cunt keep on eating food or an 80 year old stay on life support? The latter is heartless, but it's the truth.

[ro9ue]

1. If we had a pure capitalist free market, your original assessment makes sense. Insurance companies would be able to freely do business with whomever they choose. However, thankfully, we don't. A pure, unregulated, free market would be disastrously overrun with corruption.

2. ...And more importantly, health is a different type of issue in comparison to your faulty analogy. We're dealing with life or death, and not possessions that are easily replaceable.

[Samesnotatroll]

The neo liberal project is to turn every aspect of human life into a commodity. It is fundamentally inhuman.

You'll fully support monthly oxygen bills.