In Reply to: Re: An injection of common sense on pre-existing conditions posted by Bruce Dorsi on May 06, 2017 at 10:32:56:
>> What about the people with an illness such as MS, or MD ? ...How about people who have had a heart attack in the past or required heart surgery/valve replacement/stent ?? ...What about people who are cancer survivors? ...Should they all be banned from coverage due to pre-existing conditions? <<
I certainly don't think people with pre-existing conditions should be banned, but I do believe they should be charged more for insurance premiums. To Dean's point, insurance is about predicting and managing risk of an event. The risks are spread by pooling premiums from subscribers. Folks who have MS, MD, cancer, pick-one have already had their risk event take place, so when they sign on, they are immediately taking benefits for which they have paid no premiums. So in essence, they are asking for free healthcare, NOT health insurance. Those two things are getting muddied in this debate taking place right now.
Any of you remember "assigned risk" car insurance policies for new drivers, or drivers with bad driving records? My understanding of assigned risk is that regulators force insurance companies to pool their coverage to cover high-risk drivers. I'm wondering why that approach could not be applied to health insurance? Why put it on taxpayers? If the insurance companies are so profitable, then let them allocate a portion of those profits to those who need healthcare, i.e. immediate benefits before paying into the system vs. health insurance? As people with pre-existing conditions contribute premiums and fund their own risks, then premiums could decline.