Do you consider health insurers' rejecting people with "pre-existing conditions" to be "discrimination?"

Question

This isn't like asking an auto insurer to take on, or not charge more for, people who have been in accidents in the past.

This is more like getting into a car accident and then applying for car insurance and asking the insurance company to pay for the accident that already happened.

It's not a risk of loss, it's a loss.

That's not what insurance is.

Insurance is the pooling of risk. The actuarial tables say that out of 100,000 people, X% will get cancer, Y% will develop some other malady, etc...., and the premium rates are designed to ensure a modest operating profit if something slightly over the actuarial risks occur.

A pre-existing condition means that person is 100% likely to have the problem thus incur the costs. A few of those really throws off the model - 28 out of 1,000 is very different from 30 out of 1,002, when you consider that the premiums paid by everyone are supposed to offset the high costs incurred for the handful that do become ill.

Thus if you're already sick, what you seek isn't insurance in case you become sick - you aren't seeking to transfer a low risk that you'll become sick in exchange for a low premium.

It's like walking into a casino with your own cards, putting down an Ace and a Queen and saying you hit 21.

Mark are you new to Y/A? The choice here is among soapbox sermons, questions about government cheese, fistfights between politicians, questions about what you'd say to Jimmy Carter, and posts quoting the Koran being deleted for being anti-Islamic...

"I dont know what you are implying. Do you think people should have to pay out of their own pockets for their health needs??"

Well, who else is going to pay for them????

Why do you think you have the right to make other people pay for you?

Imagine, what a novel concept, people paying their own way......

Answer 1

No!

Answer 2

It certainly is "discrimination," but not in the sense that you probably mean it--in a sense similar to discriminating against people on the basis of color. It is discrimination of the good vs. the bad risk.

However, even if insurance companies have a justification for not taking on this risk, we need to find a way to insure the uninsurable.

The only way that I can see to do that is for people with pre-existing conditions to go on Medicaide, in which case they would be supported by the taxpapers, or for the government to force the insurance companies to take on this risk, and perhaps offer tax incentives or subsidies for doing this.

This is, from a business standpoint, pretty painful stuff.

But we can't have universal health insurance without pain. That's why we don't have it now.

Most Americans are in favor of it, but as soon as anyone comes up with a viable program, they scream bloody murder.

Answer 3

yeah, i see what your saying. They are not seeking insurance in case of something.

But, do you really think people can pay for all these ridiculous medical bills???

I have sleep apnea. I require the use of a breathing machine to help me sleep. When i had health insurance to pay for this, it was only a few bucks for the replacement parts for my machine. The parts include my mask, the hose, the straps to keep the mask on my face, the water tank, and filters.

Now I had to switch health insurance because i turned 23 and i couldnt be under my fathers insurance anymore. I had to go through my school insurance. They do not pay for sleep apnea problems, so i have to pay out of my own pocket for these parts.

All together, to replace my parts it costs 350 bucks. I have to do this every 3 months.

I also hurt both my shoulders and wrist and went to see the school orthopaedic. After all the xrays and appointments, i would have owed about 2500 bucks. My insurance paid for most, but i still had to pay about 700 bucks.

Luckily i still live at home at the moment, otherwise that would have wiped out my whole bank account.

I dont know what you are implying. Do you think people should have to pay out of their own pockets for their health needs??

Answer 4

I believe that everyone in general has the right to be medically insured. If I'm not mistaken, democratic countries' constitutions state that no one should be denied of medicare if they have proof of citizenship. So, what I'm saying is this, no one should be rejected even if they have pre-existing conditions. Even the homeless have a right to treatment in case of ailment or injury just like those who are financially well-off.
Here in Quebec, people are covered by Medicare so if they have the need for medication, they pay less for it than if they are not insured.

Answer 5

You're exactly right, and that's why America needs a nationalized health system like that enjoyed by all of the other industrialized democracies. These companies are in business to make money, not take care of people in need. Our health care system rewards companies that reject sick people and leave them to suffer and die. After all the Almighty Dollar is much more important than human lives, right?

Answer 6

The concept of insurance is gambling. It was invented by very famous gamblers, Loydds of London.

When you buy health insurance, you are betting you are going to get sick. The insurance company is betting you are going to be well.

If you are already sick, you don't have anything to gamble with so why would anyone take the bet?

Answer 7

As a disabled person I understand your question very well. Most big insurance companies do not turn you down. What they do is insure you, except for the preexisting condition. After 2 years (for most insurers) you become fully insured. Check with an independent insurance agent for details.

Answer 8

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

But I do agree with having the pre-existing condition clauses in insurance. It is to protect the companies from high risk cases. I like your analogy for a car accident.

Answer 9

See angelina jolie's hot sex scene in "original sin"

Answer 10

So, you're not really asking a question as much as pulling out a soapbox and delivering a sermon?

Not that I disagree with your synopsis, just thought I'd point that out


Edit- no, not new, just like to point out the obvious. Thanks for the laugh!.