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

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!

Answers and Views:

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.

Answer by 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?

Answer by 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.

Answer by 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.

Answer by 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”?

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

Only rabid Neo-cons deserve medical treatment.

Answer by 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.

Answer by 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.

Answer by andy g
That would be like buying a car with a bad transmission!!! Think about it!!! LOL

Answer by 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?

Answer by 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.

Answer by 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..

Answer by N
Denying care to those who need it is simply disgusting.

Answer by Michael P
Let’s look at the first problem here.

-His health insurance was through his employer-

Why is this?

Because the government effectively forced this to happen by making health insurance tax deductible(therefore waaaay cheaper) for employers but NOT for individuals. Therefore, people are dying and going bankrupt.

-Solution-

Extend the tax credit to individuals, slowly get people OFF employer insurance and on to their own so they can’t be dropped unless they stop paying. Problem solved.

Problem 2

People w pre-existing conditions can’t get coverage on their own.

Why is this?

Because the government mandated that “special” (i.e. employer) groups be granted special provisions but guess what…private individuals do NOT get this benefit. Therefore, people are dying and going bankrupt.

The moral of the story…MAKE THE RULES THE SAME FOR EVERYONE AND STOP PLAYING FAVORITES WITH REGULATION AND GAMES WITH PEOPLE LIVES.

So as you can see, government’s mis-management of regulation is what is causing the majority of our problems.

That’s the problem with regulation, is when it is implemented by humans(or politicians), it is imperfect, corrupt and causes more problems than it solves. It’s not that regulation can’t fix a specific problem, it can, it’s just that it cannot do it without creating another unpredictable future problem.

Answer by jeeper_peeper321
because what would really happen is :

Bob would not buy health insurance, since he was healthy.

Then Bob gets cancer and rush’s out to but health insurance, so they will pay his $ 500,000 cancer medical bill.

Then Bob drops his coverage again, after the cancer is gone, since he is healthy again.

So Bob expects the insurance companies to pay his $ 500,000 cancer bill, after he only pays insurance premiums, while he is being treated for cancer.

Now just how long would the insurance companies last, if that was te law ?

If you want to fix the problem you listed, many States already have a State backed insurance program for those with pre existing conditions.

Answer by Alouette Radeon HD.4870
Kevin, the thing about conservatives is that they’re SO SELF-ABSORBED and incapable of empathy that nothing matters unless it happens to them. I remember watching some woman on TV talking about how she was so for going into Iraq and busting some heads and she carried the US flag to hang it out front of her house every day (she was VERY careful to NEVER let it touch the ground. I guess she thought there was something wrong with US soil..lol). They interview her and she talks about how proud she is that her son’s in Iraq and fighting. She gets asked about all the parents that lose their children and she said “I would be sad but I would be proud.”

Well she never expected to have to put her money where her mouth is but her son was killed 3 days later. Then you see her “Oh, I don’t know if I was right to say those things. Maybe we shouldn’t be over there…etc.”. I bet a lot of people felt sorry for her. I didn’t, I wanted to smack her across the head for being such a moron! She really felt nothing for people, just herself. It didn’t matter to her that Americans were dying in Iraq until it was HER son who died. THAT is how Conservatives are, it’s ALL about them. If it’s not happening to them, it’s not important and they will fight to keep their right to be that way. The right to be evil. Oh if Jesus could just see you now all you Conservatives, he’d be so proud! (To see you all go to hell.)

Answer by kent j
Explain how the federal government that is behind by TRILLIONS of dollars can have anything to do with telling a business how to run itself.

Sir.. you right now MUST SELL YOUR HOUSE TO ME FOR 5 Dollars.

Will you do it.
no..

obama is a cnt.