Why Should

[WillowTree]

an insurance company be forced to give coverage for a pre existing condition?

 

[Thinman]

They can deny coverage to anyone they want and that's the way it should be. Banks deny loans, resturants deny service, any single individual can deny anything they want and we are going to isolate insurance companies this right? If so, what's next? Oh..... That's right, individuals will be denied the right to not have health care coverage.

 

[xsited1]

an insurance company be forced to give coverage for a pre existing condition?

Because Obama said so and he used to be a Community Organizer.

 

[California Girl]

an insurance company be forced to give coverage for a pre existing condition?

I'm on the fence over pre-existing conditions. While I agree that private companies have the right to turn people down. On the other hand, it is morally reprehensible to leave people without protection through no fault of their own. I happen to think we need to think creatively about how we solve this one. It may be that companies could be required to cover a certain percentage of those people and that their premiums are subsidized in some way - that may mean that everybody picks up a portion. I would be comfortable with that. I would not be comfortable with paying for those who choose not to have insurance. And I do believe that people should not be forced to have insurance.

We have to balance freedom with humanity.

 

[driveby]

an insurance company be forced to give coverage for a pre existing condition?

I'm on the fence over pre-existing conditions. While I agree that private companies have the right to turn people down. On the other hand, it is morally reprehensible to leave people without protection through no fault of their own. I happen to think we need to think creatively about how we solve this one. It may be that companies could be required to cover a certain percentage of those people and that their premiums are subsidized in some way - that may mean that everybody picks up a portion. I would be comfortable with that. I would not be comfortable with paying for those who choose not to have insurance. And I do believe that people should not be forced to have insurance.

We have to balance freedom with humanity.

I'm on the fence too but for these assholes to say they want reform for that reason is a lie. Even if insurance companies covered this, Obama and the kooks would still jam this kind of legislation down our throats ........

 

[California Girl]

an insurance company be forced to give coverage for a pre existing condition?

I'm on the fence over pre-existing conditions. While I agree that private companies have the right to turn people down. On the other hand, it is morally reprehensible to leave people without protection through no fault of their own. I happen to think we need to think creatively about how we solve this one. It may be that companies could be required to cover a certain percentage of those people and that their premiums are subsidized in some way - that may mean that everybody picks up a portion. I would be comfortable with that. I would not be comfortable with paying for those who choose not to have insurance. And I do believe that people should not be forced to have insurance.

We have to balance freedom with humanity.

I'm on the fence too but for these assholes to say they want reform for that reason is a lie. Even if insurance companies covered this, Obama and the kooks would still jam this kind of legislation down our throats ........

Yea, I agree. But a lot of people are desperate.... the unemployed, those with pre-existing conditions, etc. I can understand their enthusiasm to get some help. The problem is that they are prepared to sacrifice everyone else for their needs. That is not right. But we cannot continue to allow this thing to go un-dealt with.

This should have been sorted out decades ago. Administration after administration ignored it... There has to be a sensible, straightforward way forward that does not result in everyone losing for the sake of the few.... but we really need to help those few.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

an insurance company be forced to give coverage for a pre existing condition?

because they are a regulated industry?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I'm on the fence over pre-existing conditions. While I agree that private companies have the right to turn people down. On the other hand, it is morally reprehensible to leave people without protection through no fault of their own. I happen to think we need to think creatively about how we solve this one. It may be that companies could be required to cover a certain percentage of those people and that their premiums are subsidized in some way - that may mean that everybody picks up a portion. I would be comfortable with that. I would not be comfortable with paying for those who choose not to have insurance. And I do believe that people should not be forced to have insurance.

We have to balance freedom with humanity.

I'm on the fence too but for these assholes to say they want reform for that reason is a lie. Even if insurance companies covered this, Obama and the kooks would still jam this kind of legislation down our throats ........

Yea, I agree. But a lot of people are desperate.... the unemployed, those with pre-existing conditions, etc. I can understand their enthusiasm to get some help. The problem is that they are prepared to sacrifice everyone else for their needs. That is not right. But we cannot continue to allow this thing to go un-dealt with.

This should have been sorted out decades ago. Administration after administration ignored it... There has to be a sensible, straightforward way forward that does not result in everyone losing for the sake of the few.... but we really need to help those few.

your alarm is typical of right wing lunacy: unwarranted and silly.

other nations cover such things and they have equal to better health care delivery, and cost burdens than the US does.FRONTLINE: sick around the world: five capitalist democracies & how they do it | PBS


try educating yourself on this before posting inane alarms.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

an insurance company be forced to give coverage for a pre existing condition?

I'm on the fence over pre-existing conditions. While I agree that private companies have the right to turn people down. On the other hand, it is morally reprehensible to leave people without protection through no fault of their own. I happen to think we need to think creatively about how we solve this one. It may be that companies could be required to cover a certain percentage of those people and that their premiums are subsidized in some way - that may mean that everybody picks up a portion. I would be comfortable with that. I would not be comfortable with paying for those who choose not to have insurance. And I do believe that people should not be forced to have insurance.

We have to balance freedom with humanity.

you can't have it both ways. the only sustainable model is one where everyone has insurance.

 

[California Girl]

I'm on the fence too but for these assholes to say they want reform for that reason is a lie. Even if insurance companies covered this, Obama and the kooks would still jam this kind of legislation down our throats ........

Yea, I agree. But a lot of people are desperate.... the unemployed, those with pre-existing conditions, etc. I can understand their enthusiasm to get some help. The problem is that they are prepared to sacrifice everyone else for their needs. That is not right. But we cannot continue to allow this thing to go un-dealt with.

This should have been sorted out decades ago. Administration after administration ignored it... There has to be a sensible, straightforward way forward that does not result in everyone losing for the sake of the few.... but we really need to help those few.

your alarm is typical of right wing lunacy: unwarranted and silly.

other nations cover such things and they have equal to better health care delivery, and cost burdens than the US does.FRONTLINE: sick around the world: five capitalist democracies & how they do it | PBS


try educating yourself on this before posting inane alarms.

I'm not alarmed. You're an asshole. Just sayin'.

 

[California Girl]

an insurance company be forced to give coverage for a pre existing condition?

I'm on the fence over pre-existing conditions. While I agree that private companies have the right to turn people down. On the other hand, it is morally reprehensible to leave people without protection through no fault of their own. I happen to think we need to think creatively about how we solve this one. It may be that companies could be required to cover a certain percentage of those people and that their premiums are subsidized in some way - that may mean that everybody picks up a portion. I would be comfortable with that. I would not be comfortable with paying for those who choose not to have insurance. And I do believe that people should not be forced to have insurance.

We have to balance freedom with humanity.

you can't have it both ways. the only sustainable model is one where everyone has insurance.

There is no point responding to you. You're an asshole.

 

[csbarry]

an insurance company be forced to give coverage for a pre existing condition?

I'm on the fence over pre-existing conditions. While I agree that private companies have the right to turn people down. On the other hand, it is morally reprehensible to leave people without protection through no fault of their own. I happen to think we need to think creatively about how we solve this one. It may be that companies could be required to cover a certain percentage of those people and that their premiums are subsidized in some way - that may mean that everybody picks up a portion. I would be comfortable with that. I would not be comfortable with paying for those who choose not to have insurance. And I do believe that people should not be forced to have insurance.

We have to balance freedom with humanity.

Good show!

 

[American Horse]

an insurance company be forced to give coverage for a pre existing condition?

I'm on the fence over pre-existing conditions. While I agree that private companies have the right to turn people down. On the other hand, it is morally reprehensible to leave people without protection through no fault of their own. I happen to think we need to think creatively about how we solve this one. It may be that companies could be required to cover a certain percentage of those people and that their premiums are subsidized in some way - that may mean that everybody picks up a portion. I would be comfortable with that. I would not be comfortable with paying for those who choose not to have insurance. And I do believe that people should not be forced to have insurance.

We have to balance freedom with humanity.

Cali, in an earlier post on this subject I talked about how we could deal with the problem of pre-existing conditions in a sensible practical way.

Among the most important is education. Kids are being told they cannot afford insurance and are being set up to be discouraged before they try.

Part of the solution is an Assigned Risk Insurance Pool. Here in my home state of Indiana 20 year old male can get a decent policy for $52 per month in the regular market, and in the assigned risk pool for pre-existing conditions $205 - $292/month depending on the deductible.

But how do we get out of the high reisk pool? Better that we get them from high school (where they should be better educated [not indoctrinated] on the subject of insurance and it's potentially low cost) and into a position where they buy their own insurance thereby dodging the problem of pre-existing conditions and high rates through-out the rest of their lives. That could be done by making a direct transference from their parent’s policy to their own policy in a smooth transition, getting them into a position of guaranteed insurability from then on if they stayed insured.

If it was done right we could get everyone covered and the stigma of “pre-existing conditions” wouldn’t exist any longer. It could be done with minimal, and to the degree it is needed temporary government interference both with little lasting costs to taxpayers, and few anti-competitive effects because the effects could encourage competionion....not discourage it.

SEE MY POST HERE TO SEE HOW THAT COULD BE DONE.

 

[Diuretic]

an insurance company be forced to give coverage for a pre existing condition?

Because it's an insurance company of course. It's objective is to make money and it can't make money if it has to cover all comers. If that happens then the risk equation goes belly up in the favour of those all comers and the company itself will go broke.

 

[driveby]

an insurance company be forced to give coverage for a pre existing condition?

Because it's an insurance company of course. It's objective is to make money and it can't make money if it has to cover all comers. If that happens then the risk equation goes belly up in the favour of those all comers and the company itself will go broke.

That's the objective, after the companies go broke, everyone runs to daddy Obama......

 

[sparky]

an insurance company be forced to give coverage for a pre existing condition?

I'm on the fence over pre-existing conditions. While I agree that private companies have the right to turn people down. On the other hand, it is morally reprehensible to leave people without protection through no fault of their own. I happen to think we need to think creatively about how we solve this one. It may be that companies could be required to cover a certain percentage of those people and that their premiums are subsidized in some way - that may mean that everybody picks up a portion. I would be comfortable with that. I would not be comfortable with paying for those who choose not to have insurance. And I do believe that people should not be forced to have insurance.

We have to balance freedom with humanity.

seems you've followed no-fault auto insurance

and hey, we're ALL in good hands, right?

~S~

 

[Diuretic]

As for "morally reprehensible", it's irrelevant. Insurance companies shouldn't be forced to take on risks that they don't want.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A lot of bellyaching and no evidence that covering everyone is going to break the bank, the wallet, the government, or far right lunacy. I told you guys this day was coming, you said, "no, it can't possibly happen", and now it is here.

So start organizing for November's election. The people will want to hear how there is a better way to cover all Americans in a reasonable manner. I do see any evidence that gives anyone reason to think the great majority give a flying leap about libertarian economics.

In November, the party that gives the clearest plan and option will win. I hope the GOP comes up with something relevant for the time. We are beyond the days of privatization and deregulation. They are gone for a long, long time.

 

[driveby]

A lot of bellyaching and no evidence that covering everyone is going to break the bank, the wallet, the government, or far right lunacy. I told you guys this day was coming, you said, "no, it can't possibly happen", and now it is here.

So start organizing for November's election. The people will want to hear how there is a better way to cover all Americans in a reasonable manner. I do see any evidence that gives anyone reason to think the great majority give a flying leap about libertarian economics.

In November, the party that gives the clearest plan and option will win. I hope the GOP comes up with something relevant for the time. We are beyond the days of privatization and deregulation. They are gone for a long, long time.

The dems just love "useful idiots" like you ......

 

[Old Rocks]

Hey guys and gals, the next step after we pass the present health care bill.

The Grayson Medicare-For-All Bill | Questions and Observations