Should you be able to wait to purchase car until after you wrapped it around a tree?

Why is it fair to make health cover all preexisting conditions? They are private businesses in business to make money & not charities.

 

  • The Patriot 12:02 am on January 26, 2010

    Because when the system is put into place abroad, it works.

    Your analogy is incorrect though. To use it the way the (un)insurance companies do, you would not be able to get fire insurance if you burnt some toast a year ago.

    Why does no other developed nation have the US model of healthcare? Because in the US model, insurance companies use death panels to deny care to those they are meant to cover. And then they raise costs [1]. Not only does the USA spend more on healthcare than any other nation [2], it finds itself bottom of the table when it comes to preventable deaths due to treatable conditions when it comes to developed nations [3]. The sad thing is that rather than focus on these things, the right spreads lies and half truths about the reforms and how healthcare works abroad [4]. But, if you think that my points are wrong, e-mail me with proof.

  • Neocons Hate Me 12:02 am on January 26, 2010

    Is it fair for insurance companies to retroactively rescind coverage up to 48 months after an injury or illness? Is it fair for HMOs to drop people who become sick? Is it fair to deny legitimate claims and draw the appeals process out for so long that the patient dies?

    We have consumer protection standards for a reason.

  • Heidegger 12:02 am on January 26, 2010

    First off, homeowners insurance and health insurance are not the same and second, I thought you cons said this bill would help the insurance companies.

  • Lawgirl 12:02 am on January 26, 2010

    Because pre-existing conditions can arise at birth. Because pre-existing conditions can prevent people from getting insurance that covers everything, not just their pre-existing condition. Because people’s health is more important than money. Your analogy is terrible.

  • Bobbi 12:02 am on January 26, 2010

    worked for Katrina victims. Many did not have adequate insurance, and screamed for the government (FEMA) to bail them out.

  • smedrik 12:02 am on January 26, 2010

    It is not that they deny care for prexisiting conditions, that i could almost live with. Care will be denied for any future ailment that although may not be entirely related.

    I am asthmatic, while living in the USA my HMO would not cover any treatments however would cover a specific drug to manage symptoms. The catch 22 is that this drug could lead to an enlarged heart. As a result if I took this drug, the only drug they would cover I would actually preclude myself from any treatments down the road related to my heart. You see to me – that is just evil.

    I consider that a prexisiting condition exlcusion, even though they were direcly responsible for potentially creating a problem by limiting treatments, it was perfectly acceptable to absolved themselves of any responsibility in payment for the issue they may have created. neat huh?

    Also another frightening things is that with our growing ability to read DNA, we actually in some instances know if you are likely to develop certain diseases. So, what makes you think that an insurance company, being a smart business will not use this information to their advantage, after all, a genetic predisposition is a preexisting condition.

    There needs to be boundaries and there are none right now.

    Also call me a bleeding heart liberal, however I don’t think a person who has survived cancer should be condemned to a life of no health care simply because they beat a disease. Cancer pretty much precludes you from health insurance.