Quote:The relative isnt dead when you switch insurance companies...I really don't get what you are trying to say...

 

The example I used was based on LIFE INSURANCE.  In the case of life insurance, a pre-existing condition would be DEATH.  You can't call up and get a life insurance policy for someone who is already dead.  INSURANCE is an ALEATORY CONTRACT based on the INSURANCE against a RISK.  If your house has already burned down you can't buy fire insurance.  IF your relative has already passed they can't get life insurance.  When you start taking on people who have already had catastrophic health challenges in the general risk pool you are no longer talking about INSURANCE and RISK POOLING you are talking about a form of actuarial WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION!


 

 

 

If insurance companies were not forced to accept pre existing conditions, and I take a new job with a new insurance company and they did not cover my pre existing condition, I would have no coverage...Granted generally insurance have covered pre existing conditions when switching, but at any moment they could stop doing that. Now they can not...My mother ran into that problem with diabetis over a decade ago more like 2 decades ago...My dad  was working and they switched insurance companies and the new one would not cover pre existing conditions...They had to buy a supplemental insurance because the cost of medicine was so ungodly high

 

Let me say this.  I am not talking about throwing people out on the street.  This system was screwed up by the statists in the 40's because of price controls.  Everyone should be able to own their own policy with the same tax advantages as corporations.  They should also be able to join associations and form groups on their own to pool purchasing power and lower costs. 


 

The structure of the system has created a challenge dealing with people who are currently insured who didn't skirt the system that may have a pre-existing condition.  MY point is two fold 1.) let's have a frank ACTUARIAL CONVERSATION about what that means and 2.) Forcing everyone into a system they can't afford doesn't make any sense.  The way we are approaching it now is creating an actuarial death spiral.  Plans that universally cover all pre-existing conditions are too expensive and don't fit for 95% of the population.  The only way that they can actually think to get anyone to buy into that system is through SUBSIDIES FINES AND PENALTIES.  The problem is that the money still comes from somewhere and the fact that it doesn't make budgetary sense for most folks doesn't change!


 

 chronically ill persons need healthcare too...why make it 2 entities and complicate things even more? Insurance is a multi billion  dollar a year business, they can afford it, and that's what they are in business to do... There would be all kinds of law suits if you tried to separate normal healthy persons insurance from chronically ill persons...IDK id diabetes is considered chronically ill, because when controlled I can libe a normal healthy life...Maybe the health freaks who die of "natural causes" should pay more because they lay in the hospital bed dying of nothing and the insurance company has to pay up  

 

If you want to just demonize corporations you go right ahead.  The VA has done gang busters from what I understand. 

 

You separate the two risk pools because its easier.  This tangled web of increasing cost and trying to hide it with taxes subsidies fines and penalties is not sustainable.  Allow the average healthy person to pay their own insurance and then set up a risk pool for the chronically ill that has a different foundation of support from the community.  At current you are actually making the problem worse because people pay so much for insurance that doesn't really provide access (deductible shock) that they can't afford the actual care and aren't seeing a doctor.  This creates more chronically ill people. 

---