One of the most difficult problems with health care is the desire for pre-existing condition "insurance" coverage.
It is charged with emotion as we hear so many tragic stories.
But could a little logic be introduced into the equation?
Think about this as an example:
Are you willing to provide fire insurance for someone who's house is already on fire?
If you did, how long would it be before you went broke and could provide insurance to NO ONE?
This idea is either misguided stupidity, or an intentional effort to stop all but government provided health care. I suspect the latter.
LOGIC dictates that an insurance provider, forced to cover pre-existing conditions will either go broke quickly OR be required to increase premiums exponentially.
And if the only surviving health provider is the government, it will quickly go broke.
OOPS! I forgot: The government is ALREADY BROKE!
Thus the government's solution may become "Don't have the surgery, take a pain killer"
Logically, the terms insurance and pre-existing condition do not go together.
We can't buy flood insurance from the government for our homes the day our house gets flooded.
There is a 30 day waiting period! WHY?
"It's an industry principle that people spread the risk on assumptions of risk, and not wait until the event happens and then buy the insurance."
Even earthquake insurance can't be purchased within weeks of an earthquake.
Earthquake insurance waiting period enforced WHY?
"It's an industry principle that people spread the risk on assumptions of risk, and not wait until the event happens and then buy the insurance."
We can't wait to buy fire insurance until there is a fire.
We can't buy car insurance after an accident.
Insuring Americans with pre-existing conditions is key in health care debate
Edited by Rogerdodger, 02 September 2012 - 10:03 AM.