Posted on 10/07/2009 12:03:26 PM PDT by ElenaM
nail + head
you hit it
I prolly just replied to the wrong post. my bad ;-)
Yes, they should. We enjoy lower premiums because we DO subscribe to the effects of pooled ownership. If we enjoy the benefits, then - in for a penny, in for a pound - we can't just refuse the drawbacks. Such situations - a pre-existing illness - are largely arbitrary in who they afflict, so while you and I may think it unfair right now to help pay for coverage of a new employee with a PEC, down the road, you and I might find it equally unfair when we turn out to be that same employee getting denied coverage.
Plain and simple, in a pooled plan, you shouldn't get to cherry pick who gets coverage and who doesn't. If you can deny people with past conditions, it gives room to deny people with somewhat predictable future conditions (smoking, obesity). Companies are trying to do just that by charging those who smoke with penalties. And that slippery slope leads to genetic markers and requiring health exams prior to hire, and perhaps during employment.
Not to mention, those with pre-existing conditions who are switching jobs have probably already paid into the premium system and deserve that care anyway.
Perhaps there could be exception for very small firms, but very small firms don't offer fantastic healthcare plans anyway because their costs are higher in the first place.
If we were asking the same question about any other financial transaction, the vast majority of answers would be a resounding "NO!" If a new bank account holder wanted to open an account using $5 out of all other account holders’ funds, the outrage would be immediate and deafening. Yet in this case the vast majority say, "Sure, why not?"
But that's not how banks work, and we know that going in. Insurance plans are defined by the pooling of risk - and we're all at risk. If the object is to pay premiums until something happens and only end up denied when a change of life event occurs (now you're a PEC!), then there's no point in having insurance at all, and we're all idiots.
Insurance can be thought of as financing. You need to finance the things you can’t afford to pay up front.
I’m just talking about it in terms of how the politicians are using preexisting as a moral bludgeon to attempt to gain support for the takeover of healthcare.
It’s a moral issue in some aspects, particularly when it becomes a personal issue. But I agree that it’s a business decision.
It is a moral question. Forcing people to pay for healthcare covering the pre-existing conditions of others and calling it “insurance” is both theft and fraud. Having said that, your fender example is an excellent way of illustrating the problem.
By setting up a one time round-robin enrollment list comprising all licensed insurance companies, those presently uninsured would be automatically enrolled on a round robin basis. The round-robin insures that the pre-existing risk is evenly distributed among insurers.
Dawn, if suddenly there were no health insurance, the costs of your medical care would, by necessity come down. And if you had been able to pay into a medical savings account for the 25 years you did not have extensive medical costs, you would have a boatload of cash to help with the cost you incur now.
And, btw I also have a neurological condition (undiagnosed as yet, but similar to MS, so yeah, I know exactly where you’re coming from. But, I don’t think we will be at all served by Obamacare, I think people like you and I will be deemed too expensive as we get older. Then what?
Check out
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-care
Once you get past the Leftist source and the sensationalist title/intro, it is really quite good
But...isn’t that what the media does?
And I’m sorry about your back, sheesh, not much worse than a back problem.
BTW I think maybe we had a waiting period because my husband’s former employer was self insured.
Yet the individual in question has nothing vested in the pool. It’s not like an existing member contracted cancer. It’s the situation of an earlier post’s comment, the woman who decides to pay only when the pregnancy test is positive. That very situation is what is killing MA’s attempt at universal healthcare.
How come everyone doesn’t know the media and politicians are FOS?? It seems to be a big secret!
I will put it this way. Politicians cant shut up about the evil insurers denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, as if the only ones who benefit from that policy are fat-cat executives.
In my book, the people acting most immorally are those who wait to get insurance until they have a need for an expensive treatment, then take a policy for only as long as needed to extract coverage for the problem.
This has reportedly been happening in Massachusetts. Paying a small fine to be uninsured is a lot cheaper than joining a policy and staying.
The simple truth is that the insured CAN be victims of the uninsured and casually insured. But this is too difficult a concept for demagogues to master.
That explains it.
I’m doing okat with the back. I can walk, work and care for my kids so I’m good.
I wish I could remember the details. I’ll blame my pre-existing condition for that! ;)
Whew, I thought I said something stupid! :)
I’m not for Obamacare. I’m pretty happy with the system as it exists, in regards to “group” benefits. And at those short times when we were w/out group benefits, we paid for private benefits (early on before COBRA...of course they did exclude my MS)...but the point was as long as we were covered, once we got group benefits again, the MS would be covered...so we’ve always been insured.
I understand what you’re saying about not having to pay in and saving the money (yep, we would have had a bundle), but say you’re diagnosed when you’re young (as many MS patients are)...you wouldn’t have had time to pay in much toward a medical savings plan.
What is more troubling is that pre-existing conditions can even be genetic predispositions for which the individual has obviously no control. I fear that with the government collecting everyone’s medical records such information could be used to discriminate not only in providing coverage and treatment but even in hiring for jobs or approving loans.
And what do you do with people who don’t want to be insured and/or refuse to pay?
Should you lose coverage and you trust your husband, divorce and go on public assistance. Assets will be protected and down the road you can always "reconcile".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.