Total Posts:4|Showing Posts:1-4
Jump to topic:

Economics of pre-existing conditions

dc0404
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2017 11:42:56 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Don't mistake this as not wanting to help people. The acceptance of pre-existing conditions in large part will bring down the healthcare system. These are the major flaws of Obamacare and its coming republican replacement. There are some exceptions where pre-existing should be fine within reason, but here it goes...

Imagine if you could have a car accident and then by law, insurance carriers would have to cover your car damages, even if it were your fault? It would make car insurance very expensive for safe drivers that pay for insurance. Of course, once these safe drivers get wind that "pre-existing" accidents are covered, not to mention the rising cost of premiums because of the acceptance of accident pronged drivers, it will be cheaper for them to opt-out of insurance too, and wait for an accident, but then car insurance companies would go bankrupt.

acceptance of pre-existing medical conditions will increase healthcare costs tremendously over the coming years and healthy individuals will eventually elect to not have insurance since they will be accepted anyway, should something arise. If more exit insurance, premiums go up even more so insurance companies can stay in business.

People that do not take care of themselves, or invest in insurance, should pay more for medical coverage than those that do not, and should pay a LOT more or should be denied for their pre-existing issue since they had the opportunity for insurance already. Their premiums should be higher and they should not complain about it, because ultimately and otherwise, healthy people paying insurance are subsidizing for careless unhealthy people that expect it, which is not insurance at all. So again, if pre-existing conditions are allowed for in large part, the system will bust.

DC
John_C_1812
Posts: 917
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2017 4:01:35 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
The precedent set by the medical industry is a major facture in the responsibility of public treatment. A Basic precedent in a division created publicly in the medical treatment takes place in payment as it comes in several forms to the medical field. Not just in money as with the insurance end, blood, organs, bodies, donation of time in the form of work, and finally federal grants and funding for research equaling billions of tax dollars.

On the other side of the Constitutional scale is principle health insurance by principle is not limited to payment, insurance also comes in the form of knowledge and experience. The best, the practical, realistic service provided for the cost paid has changed over the years. The economic issue is that regardless of the amount of premium insurance a patient might pay. The question is what should they pay?
The end payment does not always insure better or successful treatment of any illness and the patient has grown older with no exposure to the necessary information to make them a wise consumer here. We only find ourselves less informed of any services that we are expected to pay for.

What can really be said of the years of inured patient service, is it that the Insurance industry is taking on the role of patient advocate. "Experience has taught me yes." Not payment broker as the last Executive officer suggested by position once held by the market.

A Presidents job is analysis DC_404, the State of the Union on this topic is the Drug War has changed this industry in many ways. As chemicals are a intricate part of any War which titles itself Drug. it is not what the general public fully understood or signed on for, for this I am sorry. It be what it is and nothing better or less.

This War"s economic impact is felt in the insurance industry as it is no longer a just a broker for payment of the Cold War days. Insurance is a competitor of employment for well skilled medical professionals as advisory position to reasonable medical treatment become a big influence to treatment.

Hope this writing is found to be insightful to the grievance you describe.
John_C_1812
Posts: 917
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2017 5:54:37 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
DC_404
I apologize in advance for the dread created when reading this debriefing. As it is feared in this instance there will be no relief. Is it far to place a general public understanding that insurance started out in a United State, United State not describing America just a constitutional starting point to be a form an economic bribe, paid as insurance which has been now explained today as a legal right.

Growing up were children like you, like myself, like many students advised that becoming a doctor would insure a high income that would be paid in money? Was this payment to be compensation for form of living lost on amount the volume of justification to industrialized work load a child was expected to carry made a shift to intellectual and not physical labor?

I point this out as this is a political debate over a viewpoint that is not being defensed as Constitutional by State of the Union. Taking a moment to look past doom and gloom the insurance industries marketing is failing. Pre-existing condition is democratic B.S. for a push to socialized medicine. Why? The medical field does not want the scrutiny that the bribe of large payment insurance now has laid at its table of this industrialized operation. Independent boards of governing carried out by debriefed medical professionals with experience to medical treatments.
augcaesarustus
Posts: 383
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2017 9:37:02 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
Ok, so I develop a psychological condition during my working career due to stress, and I need regular psychiatric treatment. Should I be denied health coverage due to this circumstance?