Consequences of prohibiting the consideration of pre-existing conditions?

Discussion in 'Healthcare/Insurance/Govt Healthcare' started by Supposn, Mar 25, 2010.

  1. Supposn
    Offline

    Supposn Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Messages:
    872
    Thanks Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Ratings:
    +31
    It’s been argued that mandating insurance purchasing would increase the proportion of healthier persons in the insured pool. This would mitigate Insurers additional per capita expense for accepting and retaining clients that will generate excessive disbursements for medical expenses.

    Healthy people cannot be offered insurance prices that will fully reflect their lesser demand for medical services to whatever extent we subsidize the greater expenses due to less healthy insured people.

    Financially penalizing companies with 50 or more employees that do not subsidize their employees insurance will also be a less effective motivator if the penalty is much less than the per capita cost of purchasing insurance. For individual purchasers it is of even less of a motivator (and it may be deemed unconstitutional). Financial penalties being unpopular with voters and campaign contributors may always remain at ineffective levels.

    The laws have been drafted with the hope of modifying existing financial behavior, (i.e. the prohibition of discrimination due to age and existing or probable future medical condition).

    Historically we have experienced administrations that were less concerned with the median wage and living standards. During their durations of greater laissez faire or “benevolently neglectful”, our existing laws were less diligently enforced and/or interpreted to be of less advantageous to lower income earners. We have failed to install sufficient legal safeguards and to that extent there’s likely to be future periods when those in power will be less populous and more regressive.

    A medical insurer will profit more if those who are or if accepted would be unprofitable clients would choose to obtain insurance from a competing insurer (rather form their company). Medical insurers will always skirt the legal limits to keep the older and/or less healthy persons from joining or remaining within their pool of insured clients. During periods of less populous and more regressive government administrations, they can be expected to cross those legal lines with impunity.

    Respectfully, Supposn
     
  2. Supposn
    Offline

    Supposn Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Messages:
    872
    Thanks Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Ratings:
    +31
    Only a government administered insurance plan, or some sort of assigned risk distribution of higher risk clients, or eternal diligent government monitoring and enforcement of strictly drafted insurance regulations could eliminate or mitigate medical insurers inducement to keep the older and/or less healthy persons from joining or remaining within their pool of insured clients.

    Among these policies, I’m least confident of complete dependence upon eternal diligent government monitoring and enforcement of strictly drafted insurance regulations.

    Respectfully, Supposn
     
  3. rightwinger
    Offline

    rightwinger Paid Messageboard Poster Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    120,522
    Thanks Received:
    19,879
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    NJ & MD
    Ratings:
    +45,531
    You can't anticipate cancer. You can't anticipate heart disease or diabetes and a thousand other ailments. Why should you be denied coverage for something out of your control?

    If a kid beat cancer when he was 14 ...should he be denied insurance for the rest of his life?



    Some people buy health insurance and never use it.........some use much more than they pay for.

    I'd rather be in the first group
     
  4. sparky
    Offline

    sparky VIP Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Messages:
    3,327
    Thanks Received:
    324
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    paradise
    Ratings:
    +341
    bull

    they've just made being born American the biggest pre-existing condition in history here

    ~S~
     
  5. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    Hopefully those who use more than their share will be eternally grateful to those who pay more than their share. They owe them their lives.
     
  6. rightwinger
    Offline

    rightwinger Paid Messageboard Poster Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    120,522
    Thanks Received:
    19,879
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    NJ & MD
    Ratings:
    +45,531
    Yes, they do owe us their lives and I'm sure they are very grateful they have insurance
     
  7. JimH52
    Offline

    JimH52 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    19,308
    Thanks Received:
    3,103
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    US
    Ratings:
    +8,300
    I just don't see why all the crying and belly acheing about this law. I think government should take into consideration the welfare and well being of its citizens. Presidents since Richard Nixon have sought as much. The GOP is going to lose if they make this an issue in November.
     
  8. Skull Pilot
    Offline

    Skull Pilot Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Messages:
    31,833
    Thanks Received:
    4,503
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +10,113
    So the government forcing me to pay more than i have to for insurance and having the fucking IRS crawl even further up my ass is good for my well being?

    If it's so good then you can volunteer to pay more and have extra IRS agents gang bang you.
     
  9. Charles Stucker
    Offline

    Charles Stucker Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2009
    Messages:
    2,071
    Thanks Received:
    225
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +225
    You can anticipate the probability of members of certain groups getting cancer, having heart disease or developing diabetes.
    Smokers are far more likely to get cancer, thus they have a higher expected cost than non-smokers and should, fairly, pay more to be insured against cancer.
    Overweight people are also more apt to develop health problems. So they should pay more for coverage.

    Denying the Insurance company the right to distinguish between the expected cost of different policies will result in either very high prices for those with healthy lifestyles or bankrupt companies. There is a concept caller personal responsibility which the overweight, lazy, smokers and drinkers pretend is elitist.
     
  10. Supposn
    Offline

    Supposn Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Messages:
    872
    Thanks Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Ratings:
    +31
    Right Winger, I’m not opposed to prohibiting discrimination due to pre-existing or current medical conditions.

    What I wrote was unless we take some further steps, eventually commercial insures will again practice the prohibited discrimination acts, or they’ll severely increase their insurance prices or they will be forced out of the medical insurance business.

    I iterate that only a government administered insurance plan, or some sort of assigned risk distribution of higher risk clients, or eternal diligent government monitoring and enforcement of strictly drafted insurance regulations could eliminate or mitigate medical insurers inducement to keep the older and/or less healthy persons from joining or remaining within their pool of insured clients.

    Among these policies, I’m least confident of complete dependence upon eternal diligent government monitoring and enforcement of strictly drafted insurance regulations.

    Respectfully, Supposn
     

Share This Page