70 replies to this topic

[Yukon Cornelius]

delusions of grandeur, on 15 June 2012 - 06:34 PM, said:

Why? It's called insurance, as in you've already paid in prior to asking it to pay you back. It's not JG Wentworth's "It's my money and I want it now".  The whole point of why they don't cover pre-existing conditions is because then people wouldn't pay in and just buy it when they need it, bankrupting the insurance companies because no one would buy it when they didn't need it yet. The companies don't have to be greedy to see that this is a failing business model, and they're not charities.

But it isn't like she's being denied insurance as far as I know, they just had the ill-fortune of having a child at a time when not covered, so it won't be covered. Again, it's not an entitlement that you can just claim it when you need it without buying into it prior. That's like never paying your SS tax and then going in later demanding the money you never paid.

Yah I know it is very difficult for those CEO's of non profits to get by on 3 million dollar bonuses but what if say you are born with a condition? By your logic , they have the misfortune  of not being able to get insurance because of the way they were born.

Since when is medical care an entitlement? let the old, stupid and handicapped die, that would eliminate 3/4 of the south.

[gbpfan1231]

Yukon Cornelius, on 16 June 2012 - 09:28 AM, said:

Yah I know it is very difficult for those CEO's of non profits to get by on 3 million dollar bonuses but what if say you are born with a condition? By your logic , they have the misfortune  of not being able to get insurance because of the way they were born.

Since when is medical care an entitlement? let the old, stupid and handicapped die, that would eliminate 3/4 of the south.

I did not see anyone in this topic say that having the misfortune of being born with a condition or having the misfortune of getting some horrible disease should mean that someone can't get insurance.  I would assume 99.9% of this community would gladly help pay money into a system that enables those people to get the care they need.

This topic is not that.  This topic is about someone who made a choice and got pregnant when they did not have insurance - having a child is not cheap so now you just want everyone else to help kick in for that cost (or it sounds like you want the insurance company to just take a big loss because they are evil and make money)?  That is what I think rubs people the wrong way.

[MrTed46]

Yukon Cornelius, on 16 June 2012 - 09:28 AM, said:

Yah I know it is very difficult for those CEO's of non profits to get by on 3 million dollar bonuses but what if say you are born with a condition? By your logic , they have the misfortune  of not being able to get insurance because of the way they were born.

Since when is medical care an entitlement? let the old, stupid and handicapped die, that would eliminate 3/4 of the south.

Whoever said insurance was a non-for-profit business?

So you're saying only pay for insurance when you need it? I'll bring up the same example, you buy a new car and u decline insurance on it, then your car gets stolen and now you want to get insurance on it so you can recover money. Does that make sense to you?

[gbpfan1231]

MrTed46, on 16 June 2012 - 09:44 AM, said:

Whoever said insurance was a non-for-profit business?

So you're saying only pay for insurance when you need it? I'll bring up the same example, you buy a new car and u decline insurance on it, then your car gets stolen and now you want to get insurance on it so you can recover money. Does that make sense to you?

It depends - if the dealer that I bought the new car from is rich then he should pay for my insurance.

[Big Country]

Yukon Cornelius, on 16 June 2012 - 09:28 AM, said:

Yah I know it is very difficult for those CEO's of non profits to get by on 3 million dollar bonuses but what if say you are born with a condition? By your logic , they have the misfortune  of not being able to get insurance because of the way they were born.

Since when is medical care an entitlement? let the old, stupid and handicapped die, that would eliminate 3/4 of the south.

I dont see anyone saying medical care is an entitlement. I see people saying that if you chose to not have insurance, then you are responsible for the costs of medical treatment.

[Yukon Cornelius]

MrTed46, on 16 June 2012 - 09:44 AM, said:

Whoever said insurance was a non-for-profit business?

So you're saying only pay for insurance when you need it? I'll bring up the same example, you buy a new car and u decline insurance on it, then your car gets stolen and now you want to get insurance on it so you can recover money. Does that make sense to you?

I am not saying that at all what I am saying is you should not be turned down if you are born without a spleen.

and HMO's claim to be "not for profit" and file taxes that way.

[Yukon Cornelius]

Big Country, on 16 June 2012 - 10:45 AM, said:

I dont see anyone saying medical care is an entitlement. I see people saying that if you chose to not have insurance, then you are responsible for the costs of medical treatment.

I agree with that but say you have been paying in all your life, change jobs and insurance companies and you find out you only have one kidney , you are denied because of a pre existing condition? HMO's are not about care they are about money.

[Big Country]

Yukon Cornelius, on 16 June 2012 - 01:15 PM, said:

I agree with that but say you have been paying in all your life, change jobs and insurance companies and you find out you only have one kidney , you are denied because of a pre existing condition? HMO's are not about care they are about money.

I'm not 100% certain, but I am pretty sure that one of the benefits of the group policies is that people can't be turned down. It is when people try to get individual plans and have pre-existing conditions that they are denied, and, quite frankly, that is te right thing for the insurance company. They are not there to hand out money.

Now, the person can still receive medical care, it's just they are on the hook for the cost of the care.

Now, if care were nationalized, than I don't think there would be any denial of coverage, as it would now be a right to have coverage.

[MrTed46]

gbpfan1231, on 16 June 2012 - 09:46 AM, said:

It depends - if the dealer that I bought the new car from is rich then he should pay for my insurance.

Great post! It is the mindset of alot of people

[Yukon Cornelius]

MrTed46, on 18 June 2012 - 10:59 AM, said:

Great post! It is the mindset of alot of people

u guys are not following along to well.

[gbpfan1231]

Yukon Cornelius, on 18 June 2012 - 12:54 PM, said:

u guys are not following along to well.

Please enlighten us

[Yukon Cornelius]

This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by gbpfan1231

[MrTed46]

Yukon Cornelius, on 16 June 2012 - 01:11 PM, said:

I am not saying that at all what I am saying is you should not be turned down if you are born without a spleen.

and HMO's claim to be "not for profit" and file taxes that way.

I'm not sure if kids with pre-existing conditions apply to insurance but someone who knows can chime in. I always thought it was the parents who get pre-screened but I may be wrong. Regardless, if YOU were in the business of health insurance, beacause it is a business at this point in time I don't care how people pay "taxes" on it, what would you do in cases like this? Would you cover someone knowing you are taking a loss?

Yes, it's easy to say, OMG how can people refuse people that's not right, but if it was your business what would you say?

I get the argument some are raising on how the system shoudl change, but I am talking about the CURRENT system. It's a business for the most part, the govt tries to help those who can't afford it based on their criteria. Not really saying the CURRENT system is right or wrong, but I can't blame the insurance companies who do pre-screening. If I put food on the table to my family by selling health insurance I would do the same, so I would be a total hypocrite to say otherwise.

[Square]

Big Country, on 16 June 2012 - 03:33 PM, said:

It is when people try to get individual plans and have pre-existing conditions that they are denied, and, quite frankly, that is te right thing for the insurance company.

So if you are part of a group plan, then get some serious illness and are dropped, you now cannot get an individual plan because you have a pre-existing condition?  Does that sound like the correct way for a healthcare system to work?  What if you are a victim of recission?

Quote

A surprising number of patients have been in the middle of costly treatment for a serious disease only to have their policies canceled, sometimes even retroactively, and found themselves responsible for astronomical bills. It’s called rescission.
“It’s a secret program that if you have a serious illness … or are on costly medications, when they get the bills, they go through [your file] and look at your application … and get medical records from the last several years. And if they find an inconsistency in your application, even if it’s an honest mistake, your policy is rescinded,” says Shernoff. “It’s a very harsh punishment visited upon a lot of people.”

I don't think companies should try to profit off of a purposely confusing system of health care.  Maybe insurance companies would better serve the public if they can remain private but be forced to be set up as a non-for-profit organization.

MrTed46, on 19 June 2012 - 08:45 AM, said:

I am talking about the CURRENT system.

The current system is stupid.

If providing quality healthcare for the citizenry doesn't fall under "promoting general welfare", than I don't know what does.  I don't think companies should be allowed to profit on the health (or lack there of) of the citizens.  Entangling business with healthcare is a drag on the economy and hurts the country in several ways.  Insurance should either be completely private and available across state lines (like buying auto insurance or a mortgage) along with state run facilities for base level care or it should be nationalized and all citizens get coverage.

[MrTed46]

Square, on 19 June 2012 - 01:30 PM, said:

The current system is stupid.

Perhaps the current system is "stupid" but I havn't heard a viable alternative yet.

Quote

I don't think companies should be allowed to profit on the health (or lack there of) of the citizens.  

If people did not profit from health do you really think we will be where we are today in terms of medicine, rehabilitation or anything else that falls under the health umbrella? There is money in it, thus comes the research. Very few of these researchers are doing it out of the goodness of their heart...and even if they wanted to do it for free, how will they fund the research? Can't have both.

Quote

Entangling business with healthcare is a drag on the economy and hurts the country in several ways.

How is it a drag on the economy?

[Yukon Cornelius]

MrTed46, on 19 June 2012 - 01:42 PM, said:

If people did not profit from health do you really think we will be where we are today in terms of medicine, rehabilitation or anything else that falls under the health umbrella? There is money in it, thus comes the research. Very few of these researchers are doing it out of the goodness of their heart...and even if they wanted to do it for free, how will they fund the research? Can't have both.

So what exactly are they profiting on? I would love to be an insurance company that only insured peoples homes that never had any damage and or fire and or flooding. would make my share holders happy.

two of the biggest health care related money makers are making a man's penises work and women's boobs bigger. how is that helping the sick? ( well besides tim)

[Big Country]

Yukon Cornelius, on 19 June 2012 - 01:52 PM, said:

two of the biggest health care related money makers are making a man's penises work and women's boobs bigger. how is that helping the sick? ( well besides tim)

And only the first of these is covered by most insurances as it is a medical, and not a cosmetic, type of procedure/treatment.

[wiegie]

MrTed46, on 19 June 2012 - 01:42 PM, said:

Perhaps the current system is "stupid" but I havn't heard a viable alternative yet.

Switzerland's system works pretty well, as does Germany's.

MrTed46, on 19 June 2012 - 01:42 PM, said:

How is it a drag on the economy?

It could easily be argued that it makes it harder for people to switch companies or start up their own firms.  How many people are out there like Seahawks21's wife who end the end choose to not go work for a new firm (or start their own firm) because they are worried about having to give up their healthcare coverage (or have to move into a much more expensive individual plan)?

[Yukon Cornelius]

Big Country, on 19 June 2012 - 04:32 PM, said:

And only the first of these is covered by most insurances as it is a medical, and not a cosmetic, type of procedure/treatment.

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.

[Big Country]

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.

[MrTed46]

Yukon Cornelius, on 19 June 2012 - 01:52 PM, said:

So what exactly are they profiting on? I would love to be an insurance company that only insured peoples homes that never had any damage and or fire and or flooding. would make my share holders happy.

Will you insure a house that is currently taking water or currently on fire while they call you? I don't think I can even call that insurance.

Hey statefarm, my house is on fire before I call the fire dept I want a policy to protect me against this.