View Poll Results: Do you think no more preexisting conditions is right or wrong?

Voters
40. You may not vote on this poll
  • Right

    19 47.50%
  • Wrong

    21 52.50%
Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 113

Thread: Do you think no more preexisting conditions is right or wrong?

  1. #11
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    09-10-16 @ 06:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,433

    Re: Do you think no more preexisting conditions is right or wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by O_Guru View Post
    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
    Smoking increases the risk - thus - it should be classified as pre-existing.
    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.
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

  2. #12
    Educator O_Guru's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Last Seen
    01-06-13 @ 06:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    758

    Re: Do you think no more preexisting conditions is right or wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    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.

    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…

    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
    hmmm interesting, cant say im in favor of it but what if profit was limited would you support that? like 50 million dollar a year salaries with 50million doallar bonuses to ONE person is a no go.

    Like I said dont think I would be for it but I do think thats wrong also

    what happened to the days of getting paid like a fat cat AND providing a great product that people loved and worked

    just seems now the mentallity is get paid like s super triple fat LIGER and provide the worst possible product that you make the people think they love as long as you can
    PURE STUPIDITY 1.) Glenn Beck doesnt lie. 2.) Obama is Jesus like 3.) Sara Palin is so smart & shes a great speaker. 4.) Obama does just about everything perfect. 5.) Fox doesn' t lean right 6.) Pro-Choice is no different than Pro-Slavery 7.) MSNBC doesn't lean left. 8.) What TSA does is no different than sexual assault & child porn.

  3. #13
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: Do you think no more preexisting conditions is right or wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by megaprogman View Post
    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.
    Mega, you and I agree an awful lot of the time; but not here.

    To you and others who disagree with a mandate and say insurance companies can't operate under that constriction, I remind you that the already do. Every employer group policy in existence covers pre-existing conditions. And the insurance companies are doing just fine, thank you.

    The burden of "no insurance with pre-existing conditions" is being felt by those poor saps who don't have insurance through their employers and must purchase it on an individual basis.

    And guess who many (most) of those people are? Small business owners. It's a killer for encouraging people to strike out on their own and create jobs...even if the job they create is only for themselves.
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  4. #14
    Educator O_Guru's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Last Seen
    01-06-13 @ 06:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    758

    Re: Do you think no more preexisting conditions is right or wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aunt Spiker View Post
    Smoking increases the risk - thus - it should be classified as pre-existing.
    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.
    again very good for the last part about paying all those years then getting screwed
    I dont think that lady should be denied by hey thats just me, i dont deny her because she was a contributor like you said. Now having said that her cost and premies should have been higher over the years because she smokes and that does seem justified to me.

    also FYI
    there is agrace period but I dont think its regulator but i cant say I know all those rules because I dont
    PURE STUPIDITY 1.) Glenn Beck doesnt lie. 2.) Obama is Jesus like 3.) Sara Palin is so smart & shes a great speaker. 4.) Obama does just about everything perfect. 5.) Fox doesn' t lean right 6.) Pro-Choice is no different than Pro-Slavery 7.) MSNBC doesn't lean left. 8.) What TSA does is no different than sexual assault & child porn.

  5. #15
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,626

    Re: Do you think no more preexisting conditions is right or wrong?

    Absolutely support the no pre-existing condition mandate. This already occurs, as Maggie said, when an employer switches health plans, so insurance companies already deal with it. Also, totally rejecting this gives insurance companies the possibility of rejecting coverage for someone with a genetic disorder. Now, I think some of the obscure scenarios mentioned in this thread need to be addressed, but in general, insurance companies do whatever they can to NOT pay. If unilaterally, given this kind of option, they will use it as a loophole to deny MORE claims.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  6. #16
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:51 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Do you think no more preexisting conditions is right or wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by O_Guru View Post
    So to be clear you are fine with eliminating preexisting conditions as long as there’s limits or no.
    I'm not clear on what I think myself, so I couldn't tell ya'...

    Quote Originally Posted by O_Guru View Post
    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.
    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.
    As I see it, from a purely business angle, the two are very similar

    Quote Originally Posted by O_Guru View Post
    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.
    That’s one reason I think job-connected insurance should possibly be eliminated.

    Because if you get laid off, it doesn’t cover you.

    If, on the other hand, there were some kind of “co-op” health plan in each (going of PA’s system here) Township, Municipality, Town, City, etc…

    With a system to transfer coverage between areas if you move, without losing coverage… In other words, a decentralized version of government healthcare, preferably without the government being in charge.

    Quote Originally Posted by O_Guru View Post
    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.
    Part of this is the economy issues, dollar value decreasing, etc.

    But I agree in some respects.

    Quote Originally Posted by O_Guru View Post
    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.
    Lost track, not sure what you’re referring too here…

    Quote Originally Posted by O_Guru View Post
    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.
    Indeed.

    In a purely business sense, best IMO would be all pre-existing conditions allowed, but the price of the insurance would go up depending on the severity, probability of further issues, etc….

    This would mean someone with multiple illnesses/conditions would have to pay far more, of course.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  7. #17
    Educator O_Guru's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Last Seen
    01-06-13 @ 06:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    758

    Re: Do you think no more preexisting conditions is right or wrong?

    Thanks everyone glad I got some honest talk, not much yet but it was good reading people not claiming its ALL THE DEVIL or is ALL PERFEC SUNSHINE AND RAINBOWS!
    PURE STUPIDITY 1.) Glenn Beck doesnt lie. 2.) Obama is Jesus like 3.) Sara Palin is so smart & shes a great speaker. 4.) Obama does just about everything perfect. 5.) Fox doesn' t lean right 6.) Pro-Choice is no different than Pro-Slavery 7.) MSNBC doesn't lean left. 8.) What TSA does is no different than sexual assault & child porn.

  8. #18
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,157

    Re: Do you think no more preexisting conditions is right or wrong?

    I think it would be nice, but I'm not sure whether it is economically feasible.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  9. #19
    Educator O_Guru's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Last Seen
    01-06-13 @ 06:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    758

    Re: Do you think no more preexisting conditions is right or wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    I think it would be nice, but I'm not sure whether it is economically feasible.
    I think it would be easily with regulation. If you regulate abuse and have regulations on some things that can be considered not covered I think it be fine.
    PURE STUPIDITY 1.) Glenn Beck doesnt lie. 2.) Obama is Jesus like 3.) Sara Palin is so smart & shes a great speaker. 4.) Obama does just about everything perfect. 5.) Fox doesn' t lean right 6.) Pro-Choice is no different than Pro-Slavery 7.) MSNBC doesn't lean left. 8.) What TSA does is no different than sexual assault & child porn.

  10. #20
    Educator Jucon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    04-22-14 @ 07:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    787

    Re: Do you think no more preexisting conditions is right or wrong?

    The way I see it there are two options when it comes to pre-existing conditions:
    1. If Insurance companies can't deny people coverage for pre-existing conditions, then people need to be required to buy health insurance.
    2. If insurance companies can deny people coverage for (or substantially increase the prices for insurance because of) their pre-existing conditions, then people should not be required to buy health insurance.

    I'd prefer the first option, personally.

    You can't keep insurance companies from denying coverage AND not require people to buy insurance. Otherwise, what would keep someone from waiting until they get cancer or diabetes and THEN get health insurance? They can't be denied coverage.

    And maybe if they had insurance sooner they could have gone to the doctor sooner and avoided risking their life?
    "There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, it to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution." —John Adams

Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •