• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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

  • Total voters
    24
I think it would be more efficient to let insurance companies be very lightly regulated on their criteria for insurance. They should be able to discriminate on your current health condition, lifestyle, location, age,etc when they determine your premiums. This will make the insurance market much more efficient. I think the government should provide a option to those who cannot afford insurance due to a pre-existing condition. So in a perfect world I would not support the pre-existing condition mandate.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
A national healthcare service that is funded through taxpayer dollars and sliding scale co-pays.
Click to expand...
What then of the arguement I've heard that the competition in our current system is part of it's strength?

Do you consider that an invalid argument?

Or what?
 
drz-400 said:
I think it would be more efficient to let insurance companies be very lightly regulated on their criteria for insurance. They should be able to discriminate on your current health condition, lifestyle, location, age,etc when they determine your premiums. This will make the insurance market much more efficient. I think the government should provide a option to those who cannot afford insurance due to a pre-existing condition. So in a perfect world I would not support the pre-existing condition mandate.
Click to expand...

have no problem some of this, life style and age can determin premiums and certain things definitely should but I dont agree with location? explain
also when talking about something like this "etc" doesnt cover it, there are certain things that should NEVER have an impact on such things.

and I possible imagine how it would make the insurance market "much more efficient" unless you define efficient as lots of money for the insurance companies and lesser service coverage and quality of care for its customers.

Im not saying you meant any of this im simply asking because since currently the insurance companies LOVE to figure out how to not pay what makes you think with "very light regulation" they would change this attitude?
 
The Mark said:
What then of the arguement I've heard that the competition in our current system is part of it's strength?

Do you consider that an invalid argument?
Click to expand...

Yes, it's an invalid argument because there is no meaningful competition, especially as far as pricing is concerned. With insurance, most healthcare providers cost the same-- and the reality of competition between health insurance companies is that most people only have the option of using the insurance their employer chooses for them.
 
O_Guru said:
have no problem some of this, life style and age can determin premiums and certain things definitely should but I dont agree with location? explain
Click to expand...

Perhaps the person wishing to have health insurance lives in an area that has high medical costs. That person will be more expensive to insure. Insurance companies should be able to discriminate upon these grounds.

also when talking about something like this "etc" doesnt cover it, there are certain things that should NEVER have an impact on such things.
Click to expand...

Since I am making very general statements, I am sure you could find one thing they should never use, though I cannot think of one right now. Whatever variable an insurance company wants to use to justify raising or lowering its rates should in general be used. Insurance companies hedge against risk and uncertainty, and they will be able to do this better with more lax regulation in this regard.

and I possible imagine how it would make the insurance market "much more efficient" unless you define efficient as lots of money for the insurance companies and lesser service coverage and quality of care for its customers.
Click to expand...

You are looking at it from a single point in time. So long as our insurance markets remain competitive, insurance companies will not simply reep the benefits. Why do you think we pay actuaries so much money? They want to find the lowest rate at which the insurance company can make money, or else the competition will take away their customers. If the insurance company can make more money by discriminating against those with pre-existing conditions, this will eventually lead to lower premiums.

Im not saying you meant any of this im simply asking because since currently the insurance companies LOVE to figure out how to not pay what makes you think with "very light regulation" they would change this attitude?
Click to expand...

In this regard, I agree with you. We need to keep insurance companies honest. Insurance needs to be insurance. If you already have insurance they need to pay for what they said they would.
 
drz-400 said:
Perhaps the person wishing to have health insurance lives in an area that has high medical costs. That person will be more expensive to insure. Insurance companies should be able to discriminate upon these grounds.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong but I cant imagine anywhere in america where these cost are so different where this would be justified and not already covered by local coast of living, not saying you are wrong i just dont know and seems like a very weak reason but again I guess such a case could be out there just seems doubtful.



drz-400 said:
Since I am making very general statements, I am sure you could find one thing they should never use, though I cannot think of one right now. Whatever variable an insurance company wants to use to justify raising or lowering its rates should in general be used. Insurance companies hedge against risk and uncertainty, and they will be able to do this better with more lax regulation in this regard.
Click to expand...

totally disagree they should not be able to use and varible they choose, that could easily get discrimitory and allow them to screw customers worse.

Now mind you I have no problem with a person who smokes 5 packs a day and drinks a 5th a day who sky dives and rock climbs :) paying increased fees just saying this area should definitely be regulated



drz-400 said:
You are looking at it from a single point in time. So long as our insurance markets remain competitive, insurance companies will not simply reep the benefits. Why do you think we pay actuaries so much money? They want to find the lowest rate at which the insurance company can make money, or else the competition will take away their customers. If the insurance company can make more money by discriminating against those with pre-existing conditions, this will eventually lead to lower premiums.
Click to expand...

not in our current system, currently people dont have many choices at all, if health insurance became like car insurance where I can go online and basically have people bid for my services then MAYBE but currently no, I still dont see that making it effecient for CUSTOMERS at all going off the history of isnsurance companies. Nor do I want alot of people to be stuck without health care, I want whats best for the people and whats fair. Yes I could provide great cheap healthcare if theres 400million people to provide for and I disqualify 300million of them but that doesnt FIX anything



drz-400 said:
In this regard, I agree with you. We need to keep insurance companies honest. Insurance needs to be insurance. If you already have insurance they need to pay for what they said they would.
Click to expand...

I figured you did I just dont see how we keep them honest with very little regulation
 
O_Guru said:
totally disagree they should not be able to use and varible they choose, that could easily get discrimitory and allow them to screw customers worse.

Now mind you I have no problem with a person who smokes 5 packs a day and drinks a 5th a day who sky dives and rock climbs :) paying increased fees just saying this area should definitely be regulated
Click to expand...

Well, at least you see were I am coming from as far as pre-existing conditions, even though we disagree.

not in our current system, currently people dont have many choices at all, if health insurance became like car insurance where I can go online and basically have people bid for my services then MAYBE but currently no, I still dont see that making it effecient for CUSTOMERS at all going off the history of isnsurance companies. Nor do I want alot of people to be stuck without health care, I want whats best for the people and whats fair. Yes I could provide great cheap healthcare if theres 400million people to provide for and I disqualify 300million of them but that doesnt FIX anything
Click to expand...

I agree. We need more competition in our health insurance industry. That is why in my ideal reform I would favor allowing for pre-existing conditions to be discriminated on, while providing people with a government run insurance option. Not only would it make keep insurance companies honest, it will make more competition within the industry. It would also allow for near universal coverage, which for a modern nation like the united states I support. I would not support de-regulating the insurance industry as such without adding some sort of public insurance option for those that would then find it difficult to finance their health care.
 
Last edited:
If you have a pre existing condition, and if the insurance companies are allowed to exclude those conditions, then you can't get health insurance, correct?

That being the case, the only alternative currently is to have a job that provides health care. If you don't have/lose your job, and can't afford to take care of that condition, whatever it is, then you're out of luck.

Talk about death panels.
 
The Mark said:
So what replaces it?
Click to expand...

insurance that functions as insurance; just as auto insurance does. there is no better reason for health insurance to cover your biannual checkup than there is for your auto insurance to cover your gas-tank fillups.
 
Dittohead not! said:
If you have a pre existing condition, and if the insurance companies are allowed to exclude those conditions, then you can't get health insurance, correct?

That being the case, the only alternative currently is to have a job that provides health care. If you don't have/lose your job, and can't afford to take care of that condition, whatever it is, then you're out of luck.

Talk about death panels.
Click to expand...

which is why we need to get away from employer-provided health insurance and provide the same tax benefits for individuals who purchase it.
 
O_Guru said:
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.
Click to expand...

If people CHOOSE for whatever reason to NOT get insurance than how is it logical to suddenly say Oh...crap...now I have condition X...I better get insurance and the company HAS to pay for it.

I can see the pre-existing condition clauses ONLY if the individual has been carrying insurance and transfers to another carrier...and then there should be SOME form of cooperative compensation from the insurance companies.
 
cpwill said:
which is why we need to get away from employer-provided health insurance and provide the same tax benefits for individuals who purchase it.
Click to expand...
That sounds like, basically, high (or not so high) - deductible health insurance.

Wherein you pay up to X dollars yourself, and then the insurance kicks in.

Best kind, IMO.

Of course, I haven't been to a doctor in years...
 
I voted right of course because thats what the poll dictates.
preexisting conditions are definitely wrong and totally abused but with that sad I wouldnt want ZERO cases of them, they do serve a purpose but it has to be regulated so getting rid of them and working backwards to see which should actually hold up seem the right and fair thing to do to me.
 
The Mark said:
That sounds like, basically, high (or not so high) - deductible health insurance.

Wherein you pay up to X dollars yourself, and then the insurance kicks in.

Best kind, IMO.

Of course, I haven't been to a doctor in years...
Click to expand...

for most folks that probably would be best. HSA's have proven fantastic where implemented.
 
Why is it an insurance companies responsibility to pay for a pre-existing condition and not the family of that person?

If all pre-existing conditions are accepted by insurance companies, then after a short time, there will be no insurance companies so nobody will have coverage.

Will that be OK?
 
cpwill said:
which is why we need to get away from employer-provided health insurance and provide the same tax benefits for individuals who purchase it.
Click to expand...

That would be a good first step. It woudn't do anything for people with health issues, however. No one would be willing to insure them and cover their health problems.
 
Dittohead not! said:
That would be a good first step. It woudn't do anything for people with health issues, however. No one would be willing to insure them and cover their health problems.
Click to expand...
Where does the money come from to help them, if they don't help themselves though?
Are you saying we should force other people to pay for the INSURANCE they themselves never bothered to fund?
 
Mach said:
Where does the money come from to help them, if they don't help themselves though?
Are you saying we should force other people to pay for the INSURANCE they themselves never bothered to fund?
Click to expand...

Not everyone has had the chance to fund their health care. Some are born with health issues. Some experience serious accidents. Do you think we should just let them fend for themselves?

If you have a serious illness or accident, lose your job, lose your health care, just tough shydt. Suck it up. If you die, you die for the good of society.

Sure, that's the way to go, sure.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Not everyone has had the chance to fund their health care. Some are born with health issues. Some experience serious accidents. Do you think we should just let them fend for themselves?
Click to expand...
Don't we already have free care for the disabled and for orphans, etc? You're trying that tired old fraud of using those that are really in need, that are already covered, to argue for something significantly more expansive and costly.

If you have a serious illness or accident, lose your job, lose your health care, just tough shydt. Suck it up. If you die, you die for the good of society.
Click to expand...
Not really, it's not societies burden or societies boon. I don't exist for the pleasure of society.
 
Mason66 said:
Why is it an insurance companies responsibility to pay for a pre-existing condition and not the family of that person?

If all pre-existing conditions are accepted by insurance companies, then after a short time, there will be no insurance companies so nobody will have coverage.

Will that be OK?
Click to expand...

Nobody wants ALL pre-existing condition to go away but MOST diffently should, and you saying there would be no insurance companies is nothing more than a guess, and my own guess is, if they used they obnixous profits to supply a better and quality product they would be just fine.

With that said Im by no means against profit but to ir fairly so your company provides a good product insted of the screw jobs they like to do.

For example CEO or BCBS got paid 13mil for ONE years service, ONE!! So its total BS that they try to say asthma is a preexcisting condition and other shady stuff.

Whats just as bad, avg worker there makes 32K WTH!!!!! lol
Thats not right either, why would it be so terrible for that company to get together, pay their workers on avg about 40-50K a year, have the CEO make 1million a year and provide a better product?

Now I know what im talking about would be too much goverment control if they forced that and I wouldnt want them to FORCE it, but this is the reality we face and what large companies do and its sad.

What happen to the days where a company CEO made 500K to a million a year, workers made good money had good benifits and they made a GREAT RELIABLE product that lasted?

Now the CEO has to make 25million a year, give himself a 25million dollar bonus, pay his employess like crap and make the worst product possible but just good enough that they convince us its great because theres nothing to compare it to because most things suck nowadays lol

Just a sad sad world.

13million dollars A YEAR for being a health insurance CEO lmao, yeah they are in real danger of going broke.

Like I said I want the free market etc but that dont make it right, and when companies CRY and WHINE about money I just laugh at their lies.

Oh well hopefully the new regulations help.
 
Mach said:
Don't we already have free care for the disabled and for orphans, etc?

Orphans, yes, if they're in the foster child system. Disabled, no.

Mach said:
You're trying that tired old fraud of using those that are really in need, that are already covered, to argue for something significantly more expansive and costly.
Not really, it's not societies burden or societies boon. I don't exist for the pleasure of society.
Click to expand...

You're assuming that those really in need are already covered, and that the poor are the issue. That is not so.

Here's an example:

Mr. Smith has worked for the Widget Corporation for thirty years now, since the age of 25. He has always been covered by their group plan, so his high blood pressure has never been an issue. The meds are costly, but are covered. The doctor is able to stabilize him and make sure he doesn't have a stroke or heart attack.

Unfortunately for Mr. Smith, the Widget Corporation went out of business, and so he had to go to work for the Jiffy Mart for no benefits. He has a savings account, and owns a house. He is far from destitute.

He goes to Insuracorp to purchase an individual policy. They sell him one, but exclude anything relating to his pre existing condition, his blood pressure.

Mr. Smith can now hope that he can make it for another ten years (until he qualifies for Medicare) without suffering a stroke or heart attack. He can cut back on every possible expense. He can buy cheaper blood pressure meds, hoping they will work, but can't afford to see a doctor to find out.

There are a lot of Mr. Smiths around. If they make it to Medicare, they're OK. If not, then they are going to lose everything. So, that's not your concern, not until you become a Mr. Smith.

What are you going to do then?
Click to expand...
 
Dittohead not! said:
Not everyone has had the chance to fund their health care. Some are born with health issues. Some experience serious accidents. Do you think we should just let them fend for themselves?

If you have a serious illness or accident, lose your job, lose your health care, just tough shydt. Suck it up. If you die, you die for the good of society.

Sure, that's the way to go, sure.
Click to expand...

What part of 'insurance' do you not get? Insurance is precisely what it is...you pay in advance 'just in case'. The situation you describe is a bitch but it is absolutely NOT the responsibility of ANY insurance carrier to cover people that will not or cannot cover themselv es in advance. Sorry...life sucks sometimes...grab a bucket.

The absolute reality is that if you are facing life threatening illnesses take your ass to a public (not private) hospital. Will it kick your ass financially? Perhaps. Perhaps you will have to declare bankruptcy. Fine...thats an option.

What you want is to be able to drive a car, wreck it, then have the insurance company pay for it, even though you didnt bother carrying insurance. Its bull****
 
Dittohead not! said:
Orphans, yes, if they're in the foster child system. Disabled, no.
Click to expand...
Wikipedia disagrees, a whole slew are getting coverage:
Government programs directly cover 27.8% of the population (83 million),[53] including the elderly, disabled, children, veterans, and some of the poor, and federal law mandates public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay.
Click to expand...

They sell him one, but exclude anything relating to his pre existing condition, his blood pressure.
Click to expand...
Why didn't he get on Cobra?
U.S. Department of Labor - Find It By Topic - Health Plans & Benefits - Continuation of Health Coverage – COBRA

He can buy cheaper blood pressure meds, hoping they will work, but can't afford to see a doctor to find out.
Click to expand...
Worked for thirty years and can't afford a few hundred for a consultation? If he went to a clinic or free provider (possibly a longer line/wait list?) he could get the consultation for free.

So, that's not your concern, not until you become a Mr. Smith.
Click to expand...
Worked for thirty years and needs me to pay for his insurance because he can't be bothered with Cobra and decided not to to save up for a rainy day...I mean, 30 years and 0 planning? Your example is making my case....
 
Last edited:
Mach said:
Wikipedia disagrees, a whole slew are getting coverage:
Click to expand...

Yes, a whole slew does get coverage. Another whole slew doesn't. Being disabled is not a qualification for health care.

Mach said:
Why didn't he get on Cobra?
Click to expand...

Either because his employer's insurance only allows cobra for a limited time, or because the cost was prohibitive.

Mach said:
Worked for thirty years and can't afford a few hundred for a consultation? If he went to a clinic or free provider (possibly a longer line/wait list?) he could get the consultation for free.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a "free provider." The only free care is at the emergency room, and that is only free if you simply don't pay your bill.

Mach said:
Worked for thirty years and needs me to pay for his insurance because he can't be bothered with Cobra and decided not to to save up for a rainy day...I mean, 30 years and 0 planning? Your example is making my case....
Click to expand...

You seem to have forgotten that he did have a savings account, and did purchase an individual policy. It is not a case of individual irresponsibility.

As for the "it's insurance" argument above, that's the problem: It is insurance. Unfortunately, insurance is not what is needed. What is needed is a system that (1) covers everyone, even those with "pre existing conditions", and (2) doesn't keep raising costs to the point that the average person can't afford health care.

Medical bills are the #1 cause of individual bankruptcy in the US. It doesn't have to be that way, but it is that way. Further, we pay more than any other nation for health care. That is simply not sustainable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom