• 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
Yes, a whole slew does get coverage. Another whole slew doesn't. Being disabled is not a qualification for health care.
Wait, you're claiming Medicaid doesn't cover people with disabilities?
27% of the population is *already* treated on someone's dime other than theirs, and likely other than yours. Not enough??

Either because his employer's insurance only allows cobra for a limited time, or because the cost was prohibitive.
Cobra can't be denied by the employer, if he's worked 30 years, he can freaking afford it, or he can gamble. His call, not yours, not mine.

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.
There are so many free health care opportunities in the U.S. it's nuts. You have to research to find them, imagine that.
And you still haven't admitted that someone who worked for 30 years can afford to pay a single doctor consultation visit to work out his drug needs considering that he's already been prescribed.

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.
But in your claim he couldn't afford a single, inexpensive doctor visit to get on different meds. Or, pay for Cobra, that covered his pre-existing. You're not making any sense.

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.
This makes no sense. Healthcare costs rise over time. What are you not getting here? If the average person can't afford it, it's not something the average person should purchase.

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.
What does this have to do with pre-existing and Mr. Smith being a poor example? Go off on tangents if you like, I don't have the time to join you in the witch hunt.

It's all ****ing fun and games if you can force someone else to pay for your half-baked ideas isn't it.
 
Wait, you're claiming Medicaid doesn't cover people with disabilities?

No, it covers the poor.

27% of the population is *already* treated on someone's dime other than theirs, and likely other than yours. Not enough??

I'm not sure just how to answer that one. Are you saying that those who can't pay shouldn't have medical care at all?

Cobra can't be denied by the employer, if he's worked 30 years, he can freaking afford it, or he can gamble. His call, not yours, not mine.

His call was to gamble, or perhaps his Cobra coverage ran out. Either way, he has no real coverage.

There are so many free health care opportunities in the U.S. it's nuts. You have to research to find them, imagine that.

Imagine that. Since you say that there are so many free health care opportunities, perhaps you could back that up. There is no such thing as free health care, except perhaps for Medicaid, which isn't free, but is paid for by you and I.

And you still haven't admitted that someone who worked for 30 years can afford to pay a single doctor consultation visit to work out his drug needs considering that he's already been prescribed.

Of course he can, but it will take a lot more than a consultation. Further, remembe that he is making perhaps a third of what he made at the Widgetcorp. Still, our Mr. Smith will probalby be OK, so long as he doesn't suffer a stroke in the next ten years.

But in your claim he couldn't afford a single, inexpensive doctor visit to get on different meds. Or, pay for Cobra, that covered his pre-existing. You're not making any sense.

I am making perfect sense. Cobra only lasts for a while, and is very expensive. Sure, he can go to a doctor, take less expensive meds, and hope for the best. That is the scenario, in fact.

This makes no sense. Healthcare costs rise over time. What are you not getting here? If the average person can't afford it, it's not something the average person should purchase.

Healthcare costs rise over time, and have risen far faster than the rate of inflation for many years now. That rise is putting the squeeze on employers and slowing the recovery. The burden of health care needs to be lifted from the backs of employers. That alone would do more than any tax cut or stimulus plan to get the economy going and people hired again.

Doing without health care is not an option. I sense that you are very young, and haven't had to face health issues as yet. Trust me, you will.

What does this have to do with pre-existing and Mr. Smith being a poor example? Go off on tangents if you like, I don't have the time to join you in the witch hunt.

I'm not sure just what point you're making here. There are thousands of Mr. Smiths all over the country just now.

It's all ****ing fun and games if you can force someone else to pay for your half-baked ideas isn't it.

So, now you've run out of arguments, which isn't surprising.

One alternative would be for insurance corporations to bid not for individual coverage, but for group coverage. Currently, the only way to get group coverage is to reach the age of 65 or to work for an employer that provides coverage. Further, the individual is at another disadvantage in that the money paid for health insurance is post tax.

One alternative would be for the governemnt to form groups and allow the companies to compete for their business. They could, for example, cover everyone in a particular geographic area, all for the same fee and without consideration of pre existing conditions. Another good idea would be to allow purchasers of individual policies to do so with pre tax dollars.

Whatever is done, it needs to cover everyone, take the burden of health care from the employers, and reduce costs.

And yes, cover everyone means cover pre existing conditions as well.
 
Last edited:
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.

plenty of people would be willing to insure them; just to varying degrees not for the condition they already have. that - properly speaking - is not health insurance; it is merely pre-paying health care. but there remain other alternatives. Medishare, for example, is a Christian cost-sharing pool.

the fact remains, though, that pre-existing conditions are things that have already happened, and are therefore not subject to the economics of insurance. like the oft-cited example, it's akin to trying to get auto insurance after the wreck.
 
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.

it's a problem with no perfect solutions, that's to be sure. however, surely it seems like the best of a series of imperfect answers is to provide a means for low-cost insurance (so that the young, healthy, and poor aren't impoverished by it) that still keeps the market mechanisms necessary to drive down costs and doesn't require coercion. such a program would encourage the young into insurance before they ever gained such conditions; as well as providing a real incentive for people to make the changes in their life that they should for health. (are you obese? do you smoke? drink constantly? now it's going to cost you).
 
it's a problem with no perfect solutions, that's to be sure. however, surely it seems like the best of a series of imperfect answers is to provide a means for low-cost insurance (so that the young, healthy, and poor aren't impoverished by it) that still keeps the market mechanisms necessary to drive down costs and doesn't require coercion. such a program would encourage the young into insurance before they ever gained such conditions; as well as providing a real incentive for people to make the changes in their life that they should for health. (are you obese? do you smoke? drink constantly? now it's going to cost you).

Correct, there is no perfect solution.

The system we have now is not sustainable. Annual cost increases in the double digits can't be sustained over the long term. Employers are finding group coverage unaffordable, and individuals who have issues can't get coverage, sometimes not at any cost.

So what is the imperfect solution that is better than the current situation? First, costs have to be controlled, second everyone has to be able to get affordable care, and finally, employers have to have that burden lifted.

One way would be to establish groups that can buy into an insurance plan that is not employer based. If premiums were paid pre tax, most people could afford them and pre existing conditions wouldn't be so much of an issue.

Another way would be for the government to provide a taxpayer subsidized catastrophic care plan that would cover all Americans.

I'd like to see them take Medicare, and make some changes:

First, instead of paying 80% of everything as they do now, pay 100% after a hefty deductible. That way, the patient has to take some responsibility, but no one would have to go bankrupt paying medical costs.

Second, gradually lower the age of eligibility until everyone can buy in to the program.

Perhaps we could lower costs to the point of paying out 7 to 12 percent or so of GDP, like most modern nations, instead of 17%.

We might even do better than the nations that provide for most or all costs with such a program.

But, alas, that can't happen as long as the insurance lobby is there calling the shots. never mind.
 
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.

OK, and its blindingly obvious to me that it would be good business to dump toxic waste into the reservoir and hire hitmen to murder our rivals. But we, as a society, have decided that there are some things that cant be justified just by saying ¨its good business.¨

This seems to fall firmly into that category. OK, so it makes business sense to use preexisting conditions. So what? Why does that mean it should be legal? Im afraid Im not following your logical train of thought here.

(Sorry for my typing. Im using a weird Brazilian keyboard in Rio and Im kinda drunk right now.)
 
I think pre-existing conditions should be handled as such:

No one should be able to buy insurance for the sole purpose of using the insurance to pay for one condition and then cancelling the plan.

The best way to handle this is to allow insurance companies to put a 12 month pre-existing condition clause in their plans. Then, allow customers to switch plans with no pre-existing condition clause. This allows for portability, allows for people to have useful insurnance and allows insurance companies to maintain viability.
 
OK, and its blindingly obvious to me that it would be good business to dump toxic waste into the reservoir and hire hitmen to murder our rivals. But we, as a society, have decided that there are some things that cant be justified just by saying ¨its good business.¨

This seems to fall firmly into that category. OK, so it makes business sense to use preexisting conditions. So what? Why does that mean it should be legal? Im afraid Im not following your logical train of thought here.

forcing insurance agencies to accept anyone with preexisting conditions will destroy the insurance industry so that the rest of us will either be forced into bankruptcy in order to gain what coverage is left, or simply do without.

clearer now? :)
 
Correct, there is no perfect solution.

The system we have now is not sustainable. Annual cost increases in the double digits can't be sustained over the long term. Employers are finding group coverage unaffordable, and individuals who have issues can't get coverage, sometimes not at any cost.

So what is the imperfect solution that is better than the current situation? First, costs have to be controlled, second everyone has to be able to get affordable care, and finally, employers have to have that burden lifted.

One way would be to establish groups that can buy into an insurance plan that is not employer based. If premiums were paid pre tax, most people could afford them and pre existing conditions wouldn't be so much of an issue.

Another way would be for the government to provide a taxpayer subsidized catastrophic care plan that would cover all Americans.

I'd like to see them take Medicare, and make some changes:

First, instead of paying 80% of everything as they do now, pay 100% after a hefty deductible. That way, the patient has to take some responsibility, but no one would have to go bankrupt paying medical costs.

Second, gradually lower the age of eligibility until everyone can buy in to the program.

Perhaps we could lower costs to the point of paying out 7 to 12 percent or so of GDP, like most modern nations, instead of 17%.

We might even do better than the nations that provide for most or all costs with such a program.

But, alas, that can't happen as long as the insurance lobby is there calling the shots. never mind.

if you did this at the state level i wouldn't mind; but i still don't find it in Congress' enumerated powers. the problem is you have just created a powerful incentive for politicians to seek excuses to be consantly lowering the deductible for select groups; and we are left off worse than where we started.
 
cpwill;105917 3481 said:
if you did this at the state level i wouldn't mind; but i still don't find it in Congress' enumerated powers. the problem is you have just created a powerful incentive for politicians to seek excuses to be consantly lowering the deductible for select groups; and we are left off worse than where we started.

It probably would be better done at the state level. That way, we'd have 50 different versions and be able to compare them. As for the "enumerated powers" that has never stopped Congress from doing anything yet, has it?
 
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 have a duty only to myself. Anyone who tries to tell me otherwise is guilty of theft.
 
I have a duty only to myself. Anyone who tries to tell me otherwise is guilty of theft.
No man is an island entire of itself; every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
well as any manner of thy friends or of thine
own were; any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
John Donne
 
John Donne

Well that's very pretty. But that doesn't make it necessarily true. My duty is to myself and myself includes my morals. If I choose to help out my neighbor then it is on me. If I choose not to, then it is on me. To keep what I said in context, what I responded to was claiming that we all have a duty to each other. Perhaps we do morally, based on my own morals. But if you do not according to your morals, then we should not force it upon each other. Let freedom reign.
 
I don't mind the clause too much. I do think that there needs to be limits set. As it stands now the pre-existing condition could mean anything, even a broken leg. I would prefer that it be limited to things that can take years to take care of.
 
Insurance companies should absorb the expense of pre-existing condtions, but only if the Govt underwrites it by making ALL of us purchase medical insurance...

I know too many people who have money for a collection of tech toys and services, more money for dining out, and more car/house than they need, but somehow can't find a few bucks for at least a major medical policy...
 
Insurance companies should absorb the expense of pre-existing condtions, but only if the Govt underwrites it by making ALL of us purchase medical insurance...

I know too many people who have money for a collection of tech toys and services, more money for dining out, and more car/house than they need, but somehow can't find a few bucks for at least a major medical policy...

You can't have these things, like not excluding pre-existing conditions, without having a way to pay for it. The public has get beyond their disconnect.
 
Insurance companies should absorb the expense of pre-existing condtions, but only if the Govt underwrites it by making ALL of us purchase medical insurance...

which is 1. unconstitutional and 2. increases the problem of skyrocketing costs and 3. serves as a massive transfer of wealth from the poor to the upper middle class.

I know too many people who have money for a collection of tech toys and services, more money for dining out, and more car/house than they need, but somehow can't find a few bucks for at least a major medical policy...

sounds like they have what they value.
 
It probably would be better done at the state level. That way, we'd have 50 different versions and be able to compare them. As for the "enumerated powers" that has never stopped Congress from doing anything yet, has it?

once upon a time.....


damn you, 17th Amendment. :shakes fist:



and still now, every once in a blue moon. though it takes the Supreme Court to force the matter. did you know in the Lopez case the Solicitor General actually argued that there was not a single action that the United States Congress could take that it could not justify under the commerce clause?



but yeah, let's let the laboratories of democracy do their job. sometimes, i don't wonder if that isn't what the nationalizers fear.
 
Last edited:
You can't have these things, like not excluding pre-existing conditions, without having a way to pay for it. The public has get beyond their disconnect.

There are far fewer actual poor than we are led to believe.
I have been poor, now I am rich. Like they say, rich is better.
When we were poor, and we paid our bills, and found that there was nothing left over to eat at resturants or buy a new car, we did the responsible things. Too many of today's poor consider themselves entitled to a life style that they can't afford. Well, actually, some of my siblings think the same, and they are at or near retirement age.
I have relatives who have relatives, so to speak, who will live far beyond their means and then PLAN their bankruptcy.
That is the real disconnect, from reality.
 
There are far fewer actual poor than we are led to believe.
I have been poor, now I am rich. Like they say, rich is better.
When we were poor, and we paid our bills, and found that there was nothing left over to eat at resturants or buy a new car, we did the responsible things. Too many of today's poor consider themselves entitled to a life style that they can't afford. Well, actually, some of my siblings think the same, and they are at or near retirement age.
I have relatives who have relatives, so to speak, who will live far beyond their means and then PLAN their bankruptcy.
That is the real disconnect, from reality.

I think living bwyond our means is the American way today, . . .sadly. But there is a mindset that if I can't have the things I should, I'll get things that I can, and pretend I'm better off than I am. When I was poorer, I didn't have auto insurance, health insurance, and missed more than a few payments on things I had. But I had a car (easy loans to get), had a TV, had clothes to wear, food to eat, and I found money for smokes and booze. But it was a struggle, and would have been a struggle without those things.

Anyway, sure, many could be better then they are. I don't disagee.
 
wow more people actually think its OK to deny you because of a pre-existing condition. wtf happened!!?
 
wow more people actually think its OK to deny you because of a pre-existing condition. wtf happened!!?

It's because most people don't understand the healthcare crisis re insurance. Most people get their insurance through their employer...or they or they choose to do without. Those who get their health insurance through their employer, as a general rule, don't have a clue. And I mean that in a sarcastic way, I'm afraid.
 
It's because most people don't understand the healthcare crisis re insurance. Most people get their insurance through their employer...or they or they choose to do without. Those who get their health insurance through their employer, as a general rule, don't have a clue. And I mean that in a sarcastic way, I'm afraid.

Of course, an honorable company providing health care insurance to its employees would never discharge employees if they became too sick to work, thus terminating the insurance.....especially after years of service. Also sarcastic....
 
wow more people actually think its OK to deny you because of a pre-existing condition. wtf happened!!?

people are becoming educated in the failure of left-wing economics. it's a beautiful thing :).
 
wow more people actually think its OK to deny you because of a pre-existing condition. wtf happened!!?

Insurance is a service to protect you from things that might happen. What you are doing, essentially, is betting that the bad thing you are getting coverage for will occur, while the insurance provider is betting that it will not; the odds of those events happening to you are calculated and set the payouts for the bet. The more likely the event and the more insurance coverage, the more you have to pay in premiums. This isn't any more evil than sports betting; it's the exact same process, and it's how insurance works.

A pre-existing condition is not something that might happen. A pre-existing condition is something that has already happened and will continue to happen. Insurance coverage for pre-existing conditions is fundamentally asking a bookie-- a very smart, professional bookie with a team of actuaries-- to bet against a guaranteed outcome. It breaks the way insurance works, which means that companies that sell insurance don't profit, and if they don't profit they cannot continue to provide insurance.

The problem with healthcare in this country is not that people cannot get insurance. The problem with healthcare in this country is that people can't afford it without insurance.
 
Back
Top Bottom