Home | About | Donate

It Should Be Criminal to Let Health Insurers Deny Coverage Based on Pre-Existing Conditions


In most such countries it is because coverage is paid through taxation, not insurance premiums. In those countries there can be no pre existing condition because you coverage begins in the womb.


So a company that makes bandaids or wheelchairs can’t sell them. Rhetoric will turn on you.


Were all details of the lawsuit edited out of this piece, or did the writer feel it was unnecessary to include them? I read through several times looking for any actual discussion of those specifics. I share the opinions of the writer, but I also remember reading piece after piece last year saying that the ADA was being “eviscerated,” when what was happening (bad enough, to be sure) was a limitation on certain lawsuits. That’ kind of casual flyby is one problem with an over emphasis on opinion as journalism. Yes, “access” journalism is just as bad, and yes, the idea of “unbiased reporting” is a centrist illusion. But information matters. I’ll go look for some on this topic.


Medicare-for-all necessarily means that you are “covered” for your healthcare. But it doesn’t guarantee that you’ll receive it. It is a mandated rationing program, like all socialist programs. The govt decides what care will and will not be covered. And the amount of care provided is based on the efficiency of the program, the number of doctors available, the quality of care, and amount of money the system pays in. This is why waiting lines are incredibly long in nationalized countries compared to the US (which is no bastion of free market healthcare anyway; when combining Medicare and Medicaid, we are already over 50% socialist and run a cooky quasi-highly regulated market / quasi-socialist system). Rationing and waiting lines are guaranteed outcomes of socialism, no matter what market we’re discussing, whether it be food, housing or healthcare. Scarcity of resources guarantees it.


Actualarianism - what’s that?


I invented it. It’s using actual arian methods to assess risk. I suggest that it is more of an ideology than a science, much like profiling.


There are two separate issues here - “health care” and “health insurance” - i.e., the difference between “providing someone with health care” and “paying for it”.

As much as you may not like what @tvorandftc has to say, he is correct - INSURANCE is designed to cover prospective risks. When you buy insurance, you’re paying to offload the risk of something happening to a third party - the insurance company.

What the problem always comes down to is that there is an unlimited demand for healthcare (the service) and there are limited resources to deliver it. The choice is always one of either rationing by availability (e.g., the National Health in the UK) where the provider determines what services will be available, to whom, and with how much of a wait, or by price (e.g., the US, where you can find just about any service if you’ve got the money to pay for it).

Which approach you favor is always going to be influenced by how good your access is going to be…

This is what always happens when infinite demand meets limited supply.


I disagree with the notion that there is infinite demand for health care. Personally - I don’t enjoy using health care services one bit and much prefer to do almost anything else in my life’s regular schedule. Of course there are a set of preventative services I nonetheless use and non preventative services when I have a serious condition. But the total is quite finite. Even if medical care were completely free - I would not use more of it.


Once again you miss the point. All demand is necessarily infinite. There’s an infinite demand for better care. You want to receive the best healthcare. The concept of “best” is always changing, but if your resources were infinite, you wouldn’t settle for anything less than the best care you can get. Plus, at old age, your demand for healthcare becomes infinite as you approach death in order to stay alive.


You fail to understand what I mean by “profit”. I am not talking about products and/or services costing something because both the materials and labor (as well as the research and development) do have costs.
Two quick examples about that to which I am referring are:
Martin Shkreli obtained the rights to teh antiparasitic drug Daraprim. He then promptly raised its price by a factor of 56 (from US$13.5 to $750 per pill), leading him to be referred to by the media as “the most hated man in America” and “‘Pharma Bro’”

Eli Lilly which is a major manufacturer and supplier of insulin whose development and patent protection ran out years ago has defied laws reqirig it to justify its extortionate price increases:
The Indianapolis-based drug maker — one of the largest producers of insulin — has been under fire from consumer advocates for jacking up prices on its lifesaving diabetes medication. And the company has chosen not to follow the California law, which requires it not only to disclose but justify significant price hikes to drug purchasers.
Eli Lilly has informed customers that it will not be providing such notices until an industry lawsuit challenging the law’s constitutionality is resolved in court.

These businesses (and many others!) are doing what they do because they can do so and justify their conduct by their missin to make a uch [profit as possible for their investors and not for any rationale need to cover legitimate costs of manufacture or development.


It is absurd to criminalize private company making a profit. The goal of a corporation is to make money as oppose to be a benevolent entity. Wanna have coverage of preexisting conditions? Do it via government program.


Dennis, I’m not surprised. But you’re a contrarian… LOL

The point is that there is an unlimited appetite for health, and most, if not all people would prefer to live significantly longer, and in better health (although most want that without exercise, or changing their eating habits, etc.)

As you and I both know, anecdotes aren’t statistics, and you and I are both anecdotes.


I guess my point is just that nothing is really infinite - the question is always finding the sweet spot where quality and affordability are optimally balanced. I maintain that sweet spot is more likely to be found under a singe payer system since there is less administrative waste.


Unless you are DOD, DHS, CIA, or NSA. They always get what they want. Sometimes even more.


More the fool us



If all these countries with horrific “socialist” programs are so horrible, HOW COME THEY ALL HAVE BETTER OVERALL HEALTH OUTCOMES AND LOWER COSTS THAN THE USA?

And maybe you are so stupid you are unaware, health care is rationed in the USA? By corporate death panels?

You live in an ideological fog, and cannot see the plain reality in front of you.


I agree. Life insurance should be the same. If Obamacare had a life insurance provision, i could sign up my deceased and collect the benefits I need. Being unhealthy should not be a hindrance to getting health insurance, and being not alive should not be a barrier to getting life insurance, either.

We sell Obstetric coverage to unmarried gay males. They cant get pregnant, but are ordered to buy pregnancy coverage. So why shouldn’ t life insurance for dead persons?


So you support limited government! Woohoo!

Yes, the DOD, DHS, CIA, and NSA, are government monopolies that cannot go bankrupt. Their budget is not based on profit and loss, so there is nothing to stop them from growing well beyond their stated needs. It’s the same problem that every government program has, and always leads to inefficiency in comparison to private businesses. That being said, some government programs are necessary. But we should never forget this fact about inefficiency and bloated budgets.


A Libertarian myth that is simply not true.


You’ve just listed all the reasons why for-profit insurers have no business dealing in the healthcare of human beings. Medicare for all is not an unsustainable pipe dream.

Your BS isn’t going to change any minds here. Oh yeah and billionaires, investors, and their corporations do not need you to speak up for them. Their money does that.