• 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!

Should insurers have to cover people with pre-existing conditions?

Should insurers have to cover people with pre-existing conditions?

  • Total voters
    63
Greenbeard

Greenbeard

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2013
Messages
20,177
Reaction score
21,522
Location
Cambridge, MA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
One would think this question was answered in the affirmative nearly a decade ago, but the GOP and the Trump administration have been working for a year and a half to reverse this requirement (despite mealy-mouthed protestations to the contrary).

First last year through their widely reviled "reform" bills that went down in flames, despite Trump's Rose Garden party for the House bill.

Experts: Pre-existing coverage in House GOP bill would fall far short
How the Senate's Health-Care Bill Would Cause Financial Ruin for People With Preexisting Conditions

Having failed in Congress, Trump turned to the regulatory apparatus this year:

Trump’s quiet campaign to bring back preexisting conditions
The Trump administration is quietly dismantling the Affordable Care Act, taking a series of regulatory steps that will make it easier for insurance companies to sell plans that exclude patients with preexisting conditions or don’t cover basic services like maternity care, mental health treatment, and prescription drugs.
Click to expand...

And now this week they're urging the courts to do the deed for them.

Trump administration move could take away coverage for preexisting conditions
In a court filing late Thursday, the Trump administration is specifically urging the Texas federal court to strike down two provisions from the ACA: one that requires insurers to cover people with pre-existing conditions, and the other that prevents insurers from charging individuals a higher premium because of their pre-existing condition.
Click to expand...

So apparently the question is back in the political conversation: should people with pre-existing conditions be protected?
 
One can only hope this puts a death knell to his presidency, because it will surely result in the real-life deaths of those he's sworn to protect.
 
Greenbeard said:
One would think this question was answered in the affirmative nearly a decade ago, but the GOP and the Trump administration have been working for a year and a half to reverse this requirement (despite mealy-mouthed protestations to the contrary).

First last year through their widely reviled "reform" bills that went down in flames, despite Trump's Rose Garden party for the House bill.

Experts: Pre-existing coverage in House GOP bill would fall far short
How the Senate's Health-Care Bill Would Cause Financial Ruin for People With Preexisting Conditions

Having failed in Congress, Trump turned to the regulatory apparatus this year:

Trump’s quiet campaign to bring back preexisting conditions


And now this week they're urging the courts to do the deed for them.

Trump administration move could take away coverage for preexisting conditions


So apparently the question is back in the political conversation: should people with pre-existing conditions be protected?
Click to expand...

If they had the policy before the condition then yes. If they didnt then no.
 
PirateMk1 said:
If they had the policy before the condition then yes. If they didnt then no.
Click to expand...

Why?


If a person changes a job and as such changes health insurance provider why punish the new provide and make them cover someone and only a select group, only because they had insurance with a different company before
 
Greenbeard said:
So apparently the question is back in the political conversation: should people with pre-existing conditions be protected?
Click to expand...

Yes, we need to protect people with pre-existing conditions, but NO the private insurance industry should not have to do so.

First, as I understand it, only the short-term policies, which only run one year, will be able to discriminate against pre-existing conditions. However, regular policies are STILL available so, in reality, no one is going to go without the ability to obtain coverage.

Second, in my opinion, we have to move away from private insurance if we're going to offer more complete care.

Pull all the subsidies away from the private insurers and use them in a single-payer plan for any American who chooses to sign up.
 
This question, as with all others in our system returns to the old adage; the golden rule: 'those with the gold will rule."


I was going to list all that I could think of, but it will be a shorter list if one was to list an issue that doesn't have a lobby and millions of dollars pushing legislation......
 
Greenbeard said:
One would think this question was answered in the affirmative nearly a decade ago, but the GOP and the Trump administration have been working for a year and a half to reverse this requirement (despite mealy-mouthed protestations to the contrary).

First last year through their widely reviled "reform" bills that went down in flames, despite Trump's Rose Garden party for the House bill.

Experts: Pre-existing coverage in House GOP bill would fall far short
How the Senate's Health-Care Bill Would Cause Financial Ruin for People With Preexisting Conditions

Having failed in Congress, Trump turned to the regulatory apparatus this year:

Trump’s quiet campaign to bring back preexisting conditions


And now this week they're urging the courts to do the deed for them.

Trump administration move could take away coverage for preexisting conditions


So apparently the question is back in the political conversation: should people with pre-existing conditions be protected?
Click to expand...


I think the people who answered yes to the poll question fail to understand what insurance is.Insurance is there in case something happens.Like auto insurance in case you crash into someone's car, home insurance in case you house catches fire, life insurance for when you die or renters insurance in case someone breaks into the place you are renting steals your property and so on. As far as I know you can not walk into any car insurance office on the planet with a crashed car an expect to walk out with new insurance and that crashed car paid for by the insurance company. You can not wait until your home burns down and then buy home owners insurance, nor can you die and then your spouse buys life insurance on you and the same thing with all other types of insurance. But yet people think you should be able to get medical insurance with an already existing medical condition and have that condition taken care of.
 
The list of preexisting conditions that insurance companies used to use was large. That requirement for insurance companies to cover those with them is literally how some people are alive.

How some people could show such little empathy for their fellow Americans is beyond me. So much for "prolife."
 
if we're going to deliver health care via private insurance, then yes, they should have to cover preexisting conditions, though i'd prefer Medicare for all.
 
Phys251 said:
The list of preexisting conditions that insurance companies used to use was large. That requirement for insurance companies to cover those with them is literally how some people are alive.

How some people could show such little empathy for their fellow Americans is beyond me. So much for "prolife."
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with empathy, and everything to do with how insurance works.
 
Until we have actual universal healthcare then yes, they should. And yes, I know that isn’t how insurance works. But health insurance is screwed up as it is.
 
Only at a higher cost, so it can offset the gamble they undertake.
 
Phys251 said:
So much for "prolife."
Click to expand...

Pro-life is the opposition legal abortion or more specifically the opposition to elective abortion. It has nothing to do with preventing the deaths of everyone else. Just like how Pro-choice is the support for legalized abortion. It has nothing to do with supporting someone being allowed the choice to own gun, the choice to do recreational drugs or any other choices.
 
Fletch said:
It has nothing to do with empathy, and everything to do with how insurance works.
Click to expand...

So you're okay with people literally dying because they have no coverage.

You have no empathy. Nothing good can come from that.
 
Greenbeard said:
One would think this question was answered in the affirmative nearly a decade ago, but the GOP and the Trump administration have been working for a year and a half to reverse this requirement (despite mealy-mouthed protestations to the contrary).

First last year through their widely reviled "reform" bills that went down in flames, despite Trump's Rose Garden party for the House bill.

Experts: Pre-existing coverage in House GOP bill would fall far short
How the Senate's Health-Care Bill Would Cause Financial Ruin for People With Preexisting Conditions

Having failed in Congress, Trump turned to the regulatory apparatus this year:

Trump’s quiet campaign to bring back preexisting conditions


And now this week they're urging the courts to do the deed for them.

Trump administration move could take away coverage for preexisting conditions


So apparently the question is back in the political conversation: should people with pre-existing conditions be protected?
Click to expand...

They will have too. As DNA repositories become more wide spread, you will be rated surreptitiously anyway. The way to cover preexisting conditions is to be upfront and add $100 per person per year instead of trying to bull**** ratepayers thinking it’s “free”. Tell ratepayers the cost and tell them they are paying it and tell them why. Stop treating the population like children. We are not stupid.
 
jamesrage said:
Pro-life is the opposition legal abortion or more specifically the opposition to elective abortion. It has nothing to do with preventing the deaths of everyone else. Just like how Pro-choice is the support for legalized abortion. It has nothing to do with supporting someone being allowed the choice to own gun, the choice to do recreational drugs or any other choices.
Click to expand...

Prolife-ism that ends upon birth isn't pro-life. It's hypocrisy. This discussion which we should not be having is an example of that.
 
itsforthekids said:
Then it wouldn't be insurance.
Click to expand...

It isn't insurance anyway. If health insurance were true insurance, then it would work like every other insurance plan. You would be insured to the economic value of your life. If your medical bills exceeded that economic value, then you would be considered a total loss. Your economic value would be low as a child, peak in your 40s, and decline after that. For example, a 42 year old corporate attorney might be valued at 4 million, and thus could incur 4 million dollars worth of medical bills before being considered a total loss. However, an 80 year old would have very little economic value, and thus might be considered a total loss after only 20k in medical bills.

That is how real insurance works. Moreover, smokers, the obese, anyone with any kind of serious genetic condition, and so on could forget about ever getting health insurance if it worked like "real insurance". They would be the kind of risk to an insurer that a guy with 5 DUIs is to an auto insurer and thus would be uninsurable. That is how real insurance works.
 
Greenbeard said:
One would think this question was answered in the affirmative nearly a decade ago, but the GOP and the Trump administration have been working for a year and a half to reverse this requirement (despite mealy-mouthed protestations to the contrary).

First last year through their widely reviled "reform" bills that went down in flames, despite Trump's Rose Garden party for the House bill.

Experts: Pre-existing coverage in House GOP bill would fall far short
How the Senate's Health-Care Bill Would Cause Financial Ruin for People With Preexisting Conditions

Having failed in Congress, Trump turned to the regulatory apparatus this year:

Trump’s quiet campaign to bring back preexisting conditions


And now this week they're urging the courts to do the deed for them.

Trump administration move could take away coverage for preexisting conditions


So apparently the question is back in the political conversation: should people with pre-existing conditions be protected?
Click to expand...
I think we have to take a step.back and look at what health insurance was supposed to be. Today it's about covering regular visits as well as emergencies and many other services. This actually is one of the causes of both the rise in premiums and healthcare over all.

Before when insurance was.about covering the unexpected, several people paid in and then when one had something happened that triggered the insurance the money was there to cover it. When you force the system to cover expenses that everyone uses, then that is more money coming out, thus requiring more coming in. A raise in premiums. The regular use of insurance to pay for regular health care, instead of the unexpected, mean more paperwork for the doctor's office, which means more time and workers to do so. A raise in the cost to patients. And if the insurance won't pay, then the doctor's office has to try to collect from the patient, which is more expenses. And if the patient can't pay the doctor still has to pay his staff, so up again go the prices.

Now you add in pre existing conditions. Instead of taking a gamble on how many people will have an unexpected expense, you are throwing in people with assured expenses. That will cause the premiums to go up even more to cover those expenses.

Every time we force insurance companies to add services, we force the premiums to increase as well as cause more expenses throughout health care that have to be paid for.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
Phys251 said:
So you're okay with people literally dying because they have no coverage.

You have no empathy. Nothing good can come from that.
Click to expand...

Jesus, there is just no way to have a rational discussion with some liberals. You guys are all emotion and no reason.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
Until we have actual universal healthcare then yes, they should. And yes, I know that isn’t how insurance works. But health insurance is screwed up as it is.
Click to expand...

Then shouldn't you try calling it something other than insurance? Because as far as I know I can't get in a car wreck and then buy insurance to cover it and its the same with other types of insurance.
 
Phys251 said:
Prolife-ism that ends upon birth isn't pro-life. It's hypocrisy. This discussion which we should not be having is an example of that.
Click to expand...

Pro-life is the opposition to legalized abortion.Not the life of everything else.So no its not hypocrisy. Just like pro-choicers IE abortionists are not hypocrites because many of them do not support our choice to buy a gun.
 
Fletch said:
It has nothing to do with empathy, and everything to do with how insurance works.
Click to expand...

Health insurance by its very nature has never been actual insurance. It doesn't work like any other form of insurance and no one would want it to. See post: https://www.debatepolitics.com/poll...conditions-post1068619627.html#post1068619627

Actually, I would not mind it personally right now if health insurance worked like any other insurance as I am 42 year old that has never smoked, eats a strict whole food diet and have for my entire life, strength train 4 days a week and have my entire adult life, run 30 miles a week and have my entire adult life, have a vo2 max of a college athlete, a resting heart rate in the low 40s, zero preexisting conditions, and high income. Thus I would get cheap health insurance if it worked like every other form of insurance, but most people would not even be insurable. Moreover, no matter how good I kept my health if health insurance worked like every other form of insurance, i would not be insurable in 20 years either.
 
jamesrage said:
I think the people who answered yes to the poll question fail to understand what insurance is.Insurance is there in case something happens.Like auto insurance in case you crash into someone's car, home insurance in case you house catches fire, life insurance for when you die or renters insurance in case someone breaks into the place you are renting steals your property and so on. As far as I know you can not walk into any car insurance office on the planet with a crashed car an expect to walk out with new insurance and that crashed car paid for by the insurance company. You can not wait until your home burns down and then buy home owners insurance, nor can you die and then your spouse buys life insurance on you and the same thing with all other types of insurance. But yet people think you should be able to get medical insurance with an already existing medical condition and have that condition taken care of.
Click to expand...
To go along with this, we seem to expect health insurance to provide for maintenance expenses (because healthy people cost less overall) yet we do not cover car or housing maintenance under the other insurances even though they would cost less over all by that same logic.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
It isn't insurance anyway. If health insurance were true insurance, then it would work like every other insurance plan. You would be insured to the economic value of your life. If your medical bills exceeded that economic value, then you would be considered a total loss. Your economic value would be low as a child, peak in your 40s, and decline after that. For example, a 42 year old corporate attorney might be valued at 4 million, and thus could incur 4 million dollars worth of medical bills before being considered a total loss. However, an 80 year old would have very little economic value, and thus might be considered a total loss after only 20k in medical bills.

That is how real insurance works. Moreover, smokers, the obese, anyone with any kind of serious genetic condition, and so on could forget about ever getting health insurance if it worked like "real insurance". They would be the kind of risk to an insurer that a guy with 5 DUIs is to an auto insurer and thus would be uninsurable. That is how real insurance works.
Click to expand...

And what would be wrong with that? Look at the bright side. It would give big hearted liberals like yourself the opportunity to step in and fill a market need. You could open Souther Democrat Health Insurace Company and offer coverage to everyone with a pre-existing condition. You could corner the market. You'd be a modern day Rockefeller.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom