Can you explain how covering pre-existing conditions is good and a money saving idea? I don’t see it.
Let’s say you have an illness for which you need to buy insurance. Under current law, the insurance company doesn’t have to pay for any illness you had prior to acquiring the policy. Now they would have to ensure that when you signed up for the policy. That’s what the ban on excluding people with pre-existing conditions from coverage means.
Someone’s gain is someone else’s loss. If you are covering pre-existing conditions, you are rasining the cost of premiums to members to esnure adequate resources to pay for any eventual outlays associated with ongoing care that will now be covered by insurance.
Very complicated problem and it is a Catch 22.
When carriers went from Non Profit to for profit they became very strict on who they would accept. 10-15 years ago I would enroll say 6-7 people out of every 10 that applied. In the last few years maybe 2 out of 10. Conditions that carriers accepted 10 years ago are no declines.
As the rates increase each year the young healthy people drop off...leading to you guessed it even higher rates. In my state for instance for every $1 you actually receive in services from a hospital, the hospital has to bill private insurance $1.77 to make up for all the people with no insurance. The trick is to get people insured before they have their pre-condition and not allow them to enroll after they are diagnosed. As Rush said buying insurance after you had the accident expecting it to pay for the accident. Also Pushing preventive care has really helped. That is why carriers now pay for services such as adult physicals at 100% without it going towards a deductible.
>Can you explain how covering pre-existing conditions is good and a money saving idea? I don’t see it.
If I may venture an answer; it will encourage more [complete] truthfulness on applications and, if nothing else, increase the ‘resolution’ & degree-of-confidence of the insurance company’s statistics.