How can people say insurance companies should be able to deny based on pre-existing conditions?

Question by Thor bless the USA: How can people say insurance companies should be able to deny based on pre-existing conditions?
Let’s look at an example.

Bob has a job. He has health insurance. He gets cancer, and his insurance company pays for his tens of thousands of dollars worth of treatments.

The economy goes south, Bob gets laid off. He has to choose between health insurance and losing his house, so he obviously needs to stop the insurance. Later, Bob gets re-hired, and despite the fact that he can afford insurance, he can never get it again, because he has a pre-existing condition.

But no, we need LESS government regulation of the insurance industry. LOL!

Best answer:

Answer by Proud Texan
Simple minds can be convinced to vote against their own best interest. Those who don’t think for themselves and get all their opinions from Fox fictional News and Rush Limbaugh.

What do you think? Answer below!

Financial Markets (ECON 252) Professor Shiller provides a description of the course, Financial Markets, including administrative details and the topics to be discussed in each lecture. He briefly discusses the importance of studying finance and each key topic. Lecture topics will include: behavioral finance, financial technology, financial instruments, commercial banking, investment banking, financial markets and institutions, real estate, regulation, monetary policy, and democratization of finance. Complete course materials are available at the Open Yale Courses website: open.yale.edu This course was recorded in Spring 2008.
Video Rating: 4 / 5

14 comments to How can people say insurance companies should be able to deny based on pre-existing conditions?

  • Brian M

    Its ridiculous really. Any time you lose your job, every backlog of diseases you have becomes a preexisting condition. Whether you agree with Obama’s health insurance plan, this has to change.

    BTW, has anybody ever thought about how “pre” before “existing” is redundant?

  • Evil Independent

    They are assessing the risk involved in giving him a new policy. Disregarding risk is not good business for insurance companies or any other business. If government takes that risk, who pays? Probably not Bob.

    If someone has been convicted of drunk driving several times, should insurance companies and the states be forced to let him drive an insured vehicle? He has a pre-existing condition of being an alcholic, let’s give him health insurance, too. Grow him three or four livers, a new set of lungs and he can live forever, killing people on the highways of America.

  • Can you open my milk mommy

    Insurance companies are a Business,they make money.So knowing that we could assume that they would not like to loose money on someone they know will cause them a financial loss.

  • Moderates Unite!

    Cons dont want to admit it, but this is happening every day and is happening more and more.
    Do you know insurance companies are now trying to use your genetic information against you? That’s right, you can be denied coverage because you carry a gene that may be “linked” to the potential for an increased risk of cancer.

    Better believe it. This issue is going really going to change the way people think in the next 5-10- years once the we have seen what an unregulated system leads to.

    EDIT: Can you cons please learn how to spell “lose”?

  • Tag Teamed

    Was Bob a liberal? well, you know it’s for the best.

    Only rabid Neo-cons deserve medical treatment.

  • Wake Up and Stand Up

    They’ve never had this experience.

    I’m one of those people. There was a cancer cluster at my school. Five of us ended up with various forms of lymphoma. I was stage IIID when diagnosed at 14 and came out a year later after treatment to remission that has lasted. I am now decared medically cured by my doctors (after all I’ve been cancer free for 15 years).

    However, I CANNOT get insurance through the private sector. I have it through my husband which has allowed me to start my own business (and employ two people). I would not have had that luxury otherwise as I do still need to have insurance.

  • SugarBear

    I’ve never heard of insurance through an employer denying one based on a preexisting condition. They require no physicals and ask no medical questions….except maybe if one is a smoker or not.

  • andy g

    That would be like buying a car with a bad transmission!!! Think about it!!! LOL

  • not a top con & proud

    Bob has a pair of aces and a pair of kings in his hand and is about to draw one card, by what right can he force the other players to match his bets?

    I realize they call it insurance and people delude themselves into thinking it is a right, but the fact remains it is gambling, just like a casino. Insurance companies are not in the “business” to be benevolent or help people. They’re there to get the house’s cut. A guy with cancer isn’t a good bet.

    The question might be why do we mix gambling with medicine?

  • CIA

    Bob wasn’t too wise, having Cancer, to let his insurance lapse, especially since Obama is giving so many free passes on mortgage payments. Further, he might still have his job if the Prez would give some attention to creating jobs, which clearly is not his priority.

  • Matt W

    So, let’s fix the problem and force the insurer to cover Bob who now has expensive follow up care. We can’t mandate that the insurer lose money to cover Bob (primarily because we can’t force anyone to sell insurance) so they will have to raise their premium rates in order to cover the incredibly higher group costs covered by the employee group. We have also forced community rating so that smaller groups aren’t discriminated against when they have a member like Bob. As a result, everyone’s insurance goes up, potentially quite a bit because there are a lot of Bobs out there who are staying in the same job so they don’t have to go through the demeaning waiting period for insurance at a new employer and incur the COBRA cost for coverage until the waiting period is over.

    And yet, somehow, magically this will end up costing all of us less. The fact is that we usually step a big leap of faith between “force the insurer to cover Bob” and “this will end up costing all of us less”. I would prefer a little more focus on the reality of the situation.

    With a bill like this we will end up with a single payer simply because no insurance company can or should stand for this. They will abandon the segment and leave us high and dry. Yet how can you force them to do business at a loss..

  • N

    Denying care to those who need it is simply disgusting.

  • Your post is very interesting.

  • The article was still worth reading. go for it!

Leave a Reply