• 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

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.
 
Nobody chooses to suffer from a medical condition, many of which are inherited, or otherwise gained through no fault of the sufferer. Insurance companes may not insure "burning houses", but a person is not a building, they are a part of a family, a society, which has a duty of care to its membership.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
agreed
do you have any provisions that you wouldnt cover?
this is the hard part for me, how to determine what should be covered and what shouldnt.
 
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 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.

True. We need either the mandate or something like the public option. There is a connection between what a majority want and what's needed to make it happen.
 
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.
 
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.

so to be clear you are fine with eliminating preexisting conditions as long as theres limits or no.

also the car insurance isnt accurat in my opinion at all.
health/life and property are different and so is neglegence or fault etc in car insurance.

me hitting in to a truck because of ice and wanting isnurance isnt 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 cant cover you for anything or anything we could possible link to your heart or surgery or medicine etc etc

while I agree with you 100% in some prinicibles I think guidlines definitely need made. and while im for profit and buisness maybe the system that "i" thought worked better years ago with the CEO making like 500K a year with other employess 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 clearks now make the 250000 while giving worse care at higher prices

now of course i dolled that story up a whole bunch but I do belive the watered down version of the fantasy above is a main factor of the healthcare slowly getting worse.

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 preexsisting 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 luckl=ily for me I won but many arent that lucky.
 
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.

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
 
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.

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 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.
: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.
 
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

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 :(
 
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.
 
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.

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 ;)
 
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.
 
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'...

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

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.

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.

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…

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.
 
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!
 
I think it would be nice, but I'm not sure whether it is economically feasible.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
I voted right, but with conditions. For some reason I never like the options people give in polls :p

Under my ideal system the government would handle healthcare for those who just need healthcare. Basically: the government provides your care, for whatever ailment you have. For those that want additional luxuries, such as a... room with a flat screen television for example, they can opt into private insurance, where I don't mind if they don't cover preexisting conditions, because you can still opt for government care if you want.

If the status quo is essential, then yes, I am for excluding preexisting conditions.
 
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.
So what replaces it?
 
The ultimate insurance includes everyone, in order to spread the risk farthest, and is paid for by everyone to spread the cost.
 
Its obvious to me that insurance companies and profits have no business in a man's health care.
So, we keep the "preexisting conditions" and oust the insurance companies..
How do the Amish handle this??
In lieu of continued study and debate, I think that the entire nation should adopt the Massachusetts example.
States Rights?
 
Back
Top Bottom