4 ms·

If your insurance covers pre-existing conditions, it's not insurance anymore.

klipt 9y ago
The problem is that every condition becomes a "pre-existing condition" when you change insurer. And because insurance is tied to jobs, people are forced to change insurers frequently (whenever they change jobs, or whenever their employer changes providers). So you're on insurance A with no pre-existing conditions and get cancer. Next year your employer switches to insurance B. Now you have a "pre-existing condition" - is it fair to suddenly refuse to treat you? If that's the case, what's the point of having "insurance" at all?
- dfabulich 9y ago
  If this were an "insurance" market, when you get diagnosed with a problem (cancer, say), the old insurance A would have to pay for the cancer treatment, and keep paying even if you leave the insurer. Any "new" conditions would be covered by your new insurer B (or not covered, if you didn't get new insurance), and insurer B would have the right to refuse to pay for pre-existing conditions because those would be covered by your old insurance A. But that isn't to say that if we had "insurance" life would be altogether better. Insurers would increase the premiums of people who beat cancer, because cancer has a habit of coming back. Quite likely anybody who beat cancer would be unable to afford insurance in the future.
analog31 9y ago
Not necessarily. In my view, all insurance is a creature of regulation. Insurance needs regulatory oversight to manage substantial moral hazards and arbitrages, otherwise nobody would buy it. The enabling regulations for health insurance could include provisions for managing the care of people who have pre-existing conditions.
- joshfraser 9y ago
  That's not true. Look at insurance clubs in third world countries (funeral insurance clubs in South Africa for example). It's completely unregulated, but people band together to help amortize the cost/risk of rare financially devastating events.
  - analog31 9y ago
    That's fair, but I suspect that the insurance industry as we know it would be reduced to a microscopic fraction of itself without enabling regulations. Likewise for business in general without liability limitation and other corporate regulations.
bduerst 9y ago
Pre-existing conditions includes disorders that makes you more susceptible to diseases while not guaranteeing you'll get them. That's still insurance.
sjwright 9y ago
If you're talking about the pre-existing condition of broken leg, I agree with you. You should not be able to sign up for insurance after breaking your leg and get all the relevant care paid for. If you're talking about the pre-existing condition of fat and family history of heart disease, then I disagree.
- joshfraser 9y ago
  It wasn't meant as a political statement. Instead I was commenting on how the terminology doesn't make sense. A single payer system would remove a lot of the perverse incentives we have with our current model that prioritizes profits over care.

The problem is that every condition becomes a "pre-existing condition" when you change insurer. And because insurance is tied to jobs, people are forced to change insurers frequently (whenever they change jobs, or whenever their employer changes providers). So you're on insurance A with no pre-existing conditions and get cancer. Next year your employer switches to insurance B. Now you have a "pre-existing condition" - is it fair to suddenly refuse to treat you? If that's the case, what's the point of having "insurance" at all?

dfabulich 9y ago
If this were an "insurance" market, when you get diagnosed with a problem (cancer, say), the old insurance A would have to pay for the cancer treatment, and keep paying even if you leave the insurer. Any "new" conditions would be covered by your new insurer B (or not covered, if you didn't get new insurance), and insurer B would have the right to refuse to pay for pre-existing conditions because those would be covered by your old insurance A. But that isn't to say that if we had "insurance" life would be altogether better. Insurers would increase the premiums of people who beat cancer, because cancer has a habit of coming back. Quite likely anybody who beat cancer would be unable to afford insurance in the future.

analog31 9y ago

Not necessarily. In my view, all insurance is a creature of regulation. Insurance needs regulatory oversight to manage substantial moral hazards and arbitrages, otherwise nobody would buy it. The enabling regulations for health insurance could include provisions for managing the care of people who have pre-existing conditions.

joshfraser 9y ago
That's not true. Look at insurance clubs in third world countries (funeral insurance clubs in South Africa for example). It's completely unregulated, but people band together to help amortize the cost/risk of rare financially devastating events.
- analog31 9y ago
  That's fair, but I suspect that the insurance industry as we know it would be reduced to a microscopic fraction of itself without enabling regulations. Likewise for business in general without liability limitation and other corporate regulations.

bduerst 9y ago

Pre-existing conditions includes disorders that makes you more susceptible to diseases while not guaranteeing you'll get them. That's still insurance.

sjwright 9y ago

If you're talking about the pre-existing condition of broken leg, I agree with you. You should not be able to sign up for insurance after breaking your leg and get all the relevant care paid for. If you're talking about the pre-existing condition of fat and family history of heart disease, then I disagree.

joshfraser 9y ago
It wasn't meant as a political statement. Instead I was commenting on how the terminology doesn't make sense. A single payer system would remove a lot of the perverse incentives we have with our current model that prioritizes profits over care.