Yukon Cornelius, on 19 June 2012 - 07:26 PM, said:
correct but why does most of the research etc go to the ones that are not really needed.... because they make the most money.
its funny they will cover a pill to help some old man get a peace of ass but they will not cover a person with cancer because it is a pre- existing condition.
Do you have a link that shows there is more research spent on Viagra, etc. than on cancer treatments? I sure have not been able to find anything to support this claim of yours.
And insurance would not pay for either scenario you pose if the person was diagnosed prior to getting insurance. And none of those conditions preclude someone from being able to get insurance, they will just pay more for being higher risk and those conditions identified before one gets insurance are the responsibility of the individual.
I for one have no issue with insurance companies denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, or at the very least not covering said conditions. It;s the only logical thing for them to do. Lack of insurance does not preclude someone from receiving medically neccessary treatment. Yes, they will be on the hook for the expenses, but that is the risk they accepted by not getting insurance. And for those that do not have an employer sponsored plan, there are a ton of individual plans available. And for those that truly can not afford an individual plan, there are governemnt sponsored options available.
So, in the confines of our current system, one quickly runs out of excuses for not having any form of coverage.
Is it an ideal system - perhaps not. Do I think a more socialized approach could be better? Possibly. I've presented earlier in the thread a couple of ideas that I had that is closer to a blend of the two. In theory, it would drive down costs for a non-employer-sponsored plan as individuals would be part of group plans, thus minimizing the risk to the insurance company of individual plans.