Should an insurance company be allowed to deny you service because you have a pre-existing condition?
Like you already had the insurance and then they discovered you had pre existing conditions or deny you acceptance into the insurance because of a pre-existing condition
I have been many times. But didn't Obama say his insurance wouldn't? Does it?
Yes, but they shouldn't be able to drop you for developing a condition while under their coverage.
No. Yay for Obamacare!
A resounding and loud NO, I hope all those that said yes, are never put into that position, and thanks to Obamacare you probably won't.
Healthcare should be about health, not profits, and I'm glad the government, has made it easier, and more affordable for more to get access to healthcare. I applaud Kasich for being one of the only Republican governors to say YES to expanding medicare and medicaid in their state, thereby saving lives, if only Rick Scott and others would catch on. More people have insurance now than before, how can anyone say that that's a bad thing?
I have individual health insurance, and have to sign up each year. If I could be excluded because of pre existing conditions, I would not be able to purchase health care.
Are you confusing health care with health insurance? Those are two entirely different industries.
If your purchasing a health *care* product or service, then most likely you are already injured or sick. That shouldn't be the case with insurance.
No, I'm talking about health insurance. I pay $1270/month - it has doubled under Obamacare. I have to renew or get new insurance near the end of each year.
Ok, that's what I thought. Just making sure.
I would hope not. I'd be royally screwed otherwise.
Of course. Just as you have a right to not subscribe to their service.
The American experiment being undone piecemeal by whiners.
And the whiners are enabled by those with exalted visions doing so much harm in the name of good.
It's has nothing to do with being good. Welfare was designed for Democrats to enslave minorities because they're still pissed they lost the Civil War.
You're talking about the generals. I'm speaking of the foot-soldiers.
No, and since it is the law they can't. Thank you, Obama.
To be accurate, the insurance company would not allow the person access to insurance pool of people without pre-existing conditions. Insurance is to spread risk over a large group of similar characteristic people.
It is difficult enough to predict the indemnity on a large homogenous group without the factor of pre-existing illnesses. Most carriers would not even create a group with pre-existing conditions as the premium cost for the group made it an I marketable product.
But you're free to start a company and show how it should be done.
This question touches on the biggest problem with the structure of healthcare in the US.
1. Insurance is a trade off between a small known loss to the insured against a large uncertain, unlikely loss to the insurer. If you have preexisting conditions, there's not much in the way of uncertainty. There will be big losses, yet the insurer will not be able to accurately price for it.
2. For the most part, health insurers are not able accurately price, therefore what happens is low risk people effectively subsidize high risk people.
3. For almost all other insurances, it's a product people don't want to buy and a product they especially don't want to use (who wants to die or be in an accident?). That is not the case for health insurance, people have insurance companies cover routine trips to the dentist or the doctor... What risk is my insurer covering in that situation?
In effect, "health insurance" is more toward prepaid services and a healthcare payment system.
Correct. There is a difference between health insurance and health care. The ACA blurs this distribution with forcing the "insurance" product to provide regular health care costs.
Should the bundling of health care costs in with health insurance continue, the structural price will simply contain the same cost the insured would have paid out of pocket for their health care.
This bundling also has the effect of increasing the frequency of health care visits. The side effect is to place a higher demand for service providers. This puts demand push inflationary pressures on the cost of health care.
Of course. Any business should be able to deny service to anyone
I am the person with two very serious preexisting rare disorders with no cure. I also have loved ones, and friends whom are sick as well. Currently there is no cure for my disorders, but I can be treated through extensive surgeries to avoid permanent damage. I'm not even 30 years old, yet I have fought for my life on multiple occasions. Had my mothers company been able to deny me coverage through her insurance, I would most likely have permanent brain damage, be deaf, blind and paralyzed. Today I am able to function like normal and be myself. It has been a long road and it will continue to be, but if I were ever denied insurance it could permanently effect my life forever. I didn't choose to be sick, but it's my life. People that are for insurance denying help to those that are sick, I urge you to imagine if you were me. Even if only for a minute. Imagine it being someone you love dearly. You may change your outlook, you may not. I just wanted to give you the chance to understand.
God bless you.
Here is were Conservative solutions would be for the "safety net" health care be provided through the government. You would not be denied health services. You may not even be responsible for deductibles and co-pays.
Ash: I'm very sorry you have the condition and pray for the best possible result for you.
However, I stand on the opposite side of the "insurance" debate.
What you need is the best possible health care. What none of us need is unaffordable, ineffective insurance we are forced to buy regardless of costs & deductibles. We don't need bankrupt insurance companies. We don't need health care cost rising. We don't need health care limited to the lucky ones that work for big business or big government.
There must be options for people in your situation but not necessarily through traditional employer supported insurance. My opinion is that insurance is the problem, not the solution.
It's one thing to deny service if you own a restaurant or a hair salon, it's another thing to deny service to people who are sick and dying. Where they have to choose between getting expensive treatment or going into debt and bankruptcy.
This is why I believe we need a public option. Obamacare should be repealed and we should have a national health insurance competing with private insurers.
No, but unfortunately, they HAVE to be able to charge you more if you have a chronic or terminal illness that significantly affects your life expectancy. That's simply how insurance works. Too bad for ol' diabetic me...
Allow one to spell it out. The reason buying insurance costs less than paying for treatment is because only a faction of what the insurer pays for your treatment comes from your premiums. The remaining treatment costs comes from premiums that others have paid. This works because not everyone who pays premiums requires treatment. This works because insurance companies deny coverage to those who are certain to need treatment.
Thus endeth the lesson, but one suspects nothing much has been learned.
Any business should be able to deny service to anyone for any reason. It is not only immoral, but intrusive for the government to mandate who you should have to serve.
Why the hell would someone say that it's ok to deny someone insurance?
Because a business should be able to deny service to anyone for any reason. An insurance company is no different. The beauty of the free market is that there is a demand for insurance company to cover pre-existing conditions. In addition, could you imagine the negative PR that a business would receive if a person with cancer was denied service?
So it should be legal for my moms insurance to just drop her right now and just let her die? That's not right.
I'm confused.........please explain why it's a good thing for an insurance company to have the ability to drop people for whatever reason. I'm willing to learn.
If you value corporate profits over human life, it's a no brainier.
Shaw, it didn't say drop, the question asked about deny service which I read as sign up. I believe people shouldn't be able to wait to sign up until they are sick. If they are already sick insurance companies should be able to say no to cover that. These customers costs a lot of money which hurt the people who sign up before they get sick. It's one of the flaws in ObamaCare.
Because the "ok" person understands how insurance functions. Unlike veritas who believes it is all about greed and immorality.
It's a simple issue:
Should insurance companies have the right to deny service to or drop coverage of cancer patients, for example. If you think the rights of business to do whatever in the quest for profit should take precedence over the patient's cancer treatment, fine. It's a judgment call that has no correct or incorrect answer.
Your view depends on your values. Personally, I value the patient's life over the insurance company's profit. Now many will disagree, but let's not pretend we're not making a value judgment.
You sure that you want to make insurance companies sound so charitable? I thought they were greedy corporations?
All for-profit companies exist to make a profit. That's it. That's their purpose. Cancer patients KILL their bottom line. Do you know how expensive that treatment is? Of course their incentive is to provide as little coverage as possible. That's why we need a public option and a greater emphasis on not-for-profit coverage sources.
Actually, it hurts a business to develop a reputation of being uncaring. It's a terrible PR move to deny a cancer patient service.
What? No it's not if everyone does it and it's the status quo. Before the ACA passed, it was extremely common for companies to deny service to people with preexisting conditions.
Now, we just have people losing their healthcare thanks to Obamadoesn'tcare.
So, veritas, is it simply greed that motives an insurance company to not insure a car with existing damage?
Actually 20 million MORE people have healthcare because of the ACA and the uninsured rate has been cut in HALF. You should really diversify your news sources.
The ACA has saved more lives than any piece of legislation in decades. Thanks, Obama.
Thank you so much for longer wait lines! Talk about cherry picking facts! There are people who are signing up for Obamacare, but they haven't actually paid into the system yet.
No wonder he was overwhelmingly elected twice.
But that is really hilarious! "Obamacare has saved more lives than any other piece of legislation."
He was elected because Americans are stupid.
You simply don't know what you're taking about. "Obamacare" exchanges are markets for private insurance. People are buying private health insurance coverage. Many are also being covered by Medicare, saving thousands of lives, unless they have a Republican governor (with the exceptions of OH and WV). Then they're out of luck.
Actually, the higher your education level, the far more likely you were to vote for Obama. Not intelligence, but it certainly speaks to informedness. Educated people tend to vote heavily liberal.
Clinton over Bush. Clinton over Dole. Gore over Bush. Obama over McCain. Obama over Romney. Now Clinton over Trump.
People seem to like Democratic presidents a lot more.
Thanks to Obamacare the number of options you have to choose from are limited. You can thank the worst President in history for lying to the American people.
At the same token, the least educated were more likely to vote for Obummer.
Everyone was more likely to vote for Obama because he won every demographic except rich, white, males.
The most educated voted for him. Your claim that he was elected twice because people are stupid is laughable. That's why you can't justify it. Your claim about the ACA and the number of insured was crap. Your claim about preexisting conditions before the ACA was bunk. You haven't said a single factual thing this entire time. Maybe that's why people vote for the Democrats instead.
Claim victory, why don't you? Typical liberal garbage. The beauty of debating a liberal is that they go through the same garbage every time.
Step 1: Misrepresent the facts.
Step 2: Claim to be educated
Step 3: Claim that his/her opposition doesn't know what they are talking about.
Step 4: Claim victory.
Somethings never change.
I would prefer that my disabled and sick mother get the care that she needs. So no.
Doesn't your mother get her health care through Medicare?
No. We had a great healthcare plan and she has some amazing doctors. But right when Obamacare came into place they dropped us. Thankfully we got new insurance but it costs more, and she no longer has the doctors she's had for a long long time. "If you want to keep your doctor, you can"...one of the biggest lies.
I am not a fan of ACA. I was thinking her disability would make her eligible for Medicare.
My spouse is disabled and has chronic illnesses. We still have my private insurance through my company. She is eligible for Medicare, but we chose our private carrier for her.
It's just become so frustrating :( I wish she could still have her specialists to go see. But she doesn't because our new insurance won't pay for them.
I can appreciate your frustration. She can not see her specialist, but she can get an annual physical at no cost. Sounds like flawed logic.
My prayers for you and your mother.
Thank you. I appreciate it!
No, they should not be allowed to.
How about yes?
We shouldn't have private insurance companies in the first place.
The VA worked out well.
Social security and Medicare have failed. The solution? Get government even more involved in insurance companies and healthcare. Brilliant.
I'd rather have socialist health care instead of government health care.
No. A private insurance company shouldn't be forced by the government to serve people they don't want to.
You say no but then argue for a yes. I'm confused.
Not in a civilized country in which insurance is basically a prerequisite to receiving quality and affordable healthcare.
Poorly worded, but no, an insurance company should not be forced to knowingly be defrauded.
How should it be worded?
Wait, defrauded? How's that now?
Purchasing "insurance" for something that has already occurred is fraudulent.
Not if the terms of the policy permit it. Sometimes claim-based policies can work that way, for instance.
Fraud is what occurs if you make a material misrepresentation that the other party relies on in making a decision. If you are honest about whatever the issue is, it isn't fraud.
Right, and the voluntary component is what is missing once forced.
I didn't use the word voluntary, but ok, we an talk about that now if you want. If something isn't voluntary, how can there be fraud? If I am obligated to make the same decision no matter the circumstances, then by definition I cannot be defrauded, because the bad information wouldn't have influenced my decision.
You mentioned that it wasn't fraud if the terms of the policy permit it, meaning that both parties would have to voluntarily agree to it. The question is asking if it should be forced into policies, removing the aforementioned voluntary agreement.
For a simplistic analogy:
Person A has no collision insurance and wrecks his car. He later purchases a collision policy and files a claim to repair his pre-wrecked car. That's fraud.
Liberty, you're not listening. Fraud requires a lie. If there's no lie, there's no fraud.
You clearly object to the requirement to provide coverage for pre-existing conditions, and that's fine. So object to it. But stop trying to call it "fraud." Something doesn't have to be fraudulent to be objectionable. When you apply terminology without regard for its meaning you only hurt your own position.
Technically true. But if we go that route, then we can't call the agreement "insurance" anyway, so it then becomes a moot point.
But that's just an objection to the idea of calling health insurance "insurance." And I agree to some extent; health insurance really does function in a fundamentally different manner from most types of insurance.
I actually don't know the history of the health insurance industry, but it seems plausible to me that it used to be that health insurance really was only catastrophic insurance (which would make it more similar to other kinds of insurance), but it eventually expanded to the comprehensive plans we have nowadays and the name never went away. I wouldn't object to changing the name. It can see how it could be confusing and/or imply similarities to other forms of insurance that operate on more traditional insurance principles.
It was as recently as 2009 here. I could buy a policy that covered emergencies only (hospitalization, injuries, etc.) for as low under $50/month. That obviously isn't the case anymore as "health insurance" has shifted from an insurance product to a prepaid subscription service.
To clarify, I don't mean that catastrophic insurance wasn't available recently; I mean that it may be that this is where modern health insurance evolved from.
It's always hilarious to me when Obama pretends that insurance companies hate him due to this portion of the ACA. It's quite the contrary because he is forcing people to give insurance companies business.
I agree. But I agree that an insurance company should not be able to reject someone because of pre-existing conditions.
Why is that?
So that sick people can still get insurance.
Exactly. Health carriers opposed ACA because of the fundamental flaws of what was proposed. The math did not add up. So carriers lobbied and testified to get funding guarantees built into the legislation. The carriers wanted this to be a "too big to fail" proposition. The problem still remains and this ACA will not be able to sustain a "private" insurance product for those with pre-existing conditions.
Dr it's not insurance at that point. It's more of a defined benefit plan
Sounds like you are legislating from your morals.
It's legislating for the good and welfare of US citizens. But if you think it's unconstitutional, explain the Supreme Court upholding the affordable care act.
That's easy. You can't force a citizen to buy a product. Obamacare isn't a tax.
Your question doesn't refer to buying insurance, but rather should insurance companies deny people based on pre existing conditions
I always love it when the government tries to watch out for me. It's almost like they care about me, but then I remember.
That's correct. I'm simply answering your question that wasn't exactly focused on my question though.
Ever heard of a social contract?
Don't like the government, you're free to move to a country with less.
Of course, I have, but I'm a Constitution lover unlike you.
So are the Supreme Court justices. Not only are they constitution lovers, but it's their job to strike down any law that goes against the constitution.
ACA was not one of them
Of course it was. Scalia was absolutely correct about Obamacare. He was a national treasure unlike the majority of the justices though.
Doesn't change the facts that
1. ACA deemed constitutional
2. It's immoral to deny insurance to someone with preexisting conditions
3. It's illegal to deny insurance to someone with preexisting conditions
1. That it was. It was ruled incorrectly.
2. There you go forcing your morals onto people.
3. Now it is. That's beside the point.