My point: not allowing insurance companies to ASSESS RISK is taking away insurance company’s main function. Someone tell me why I’m wrong...I don’t think I am.
Rates will shortly look like the SCHIP programs.
Without risk assessment, actuarial tables (in which insurance rates are based upon) is USELESS and companies will lose their AM Best rating, which will make them less solvent and on and on and on.
GOOD GOD WE HAVE BUSINESS MORONS IN WASHINGTON WITH D’S AND R’S BY THEIR NAMES!!!!!!!!!
It's all by design...without their main function, they will cease to be in business.
It's just what the socialist kakistocracy desires. Coming soon to a business sector near you...
You are absolutely right. As others have said, if you let someone buy a fire insurance policy when their house is already on fire, then they are insuring against risk, they are just shifting their costs.
The “HIP” in “HIPAA” is for Health Insurance Portability. That means that, if you lose your insurance, and if you buy new insurance within a set period of time, you can’t be excluded because of pre-existing conditions. There is already a law that prevents those who have been conscientious about maintaining insurance from being excluded when their coverage with one company ends.
You're not wrong. But, there are political considerations here. You can take a principled stand as say you don't want such regulation. But, that would put you in the minority. Some of the same polling that shows Obamacare as unpopular, also shows the reform of pre-existing condition prohibition VERY popular.
If the GOP says that want to repeal it all and wants no insurance reform, while it might be very popular with the minority (relative to the general electorate) conservative base, such a stand would be HIGHLY unpopular with the general electorate, all but guaranteeing all of Obamacare would stick around.
If the Republicans want to repeal any of this, they're going to have to pick their battles.
You are correct philosophically that a ban on preexisting conditions would hurt insurance companies and likely raise rates as well.
More practically, however....I just hate that insurance companies can reject people for preexisting conditions.
It just seems wrong that Joe Bob, who lost his job and couldn’t even afford COBRA for a few months ends up screwed because he has a preexisting condition. He then has to wait a full year at his new job before he gets covered.
And heaven help the self-employed people. They have no rights under current law....they are just out of luck entirely.
My wife had had kidney stones in the past, and we had to get a temporary individual policy last year. They covered her but forced us to sign an exclusion for the kidney stones. No thanks.
I think it’s wrong on ethical grounds.
If you have a car wreck, your rates may go up a little bit, but you don’t lose coverage.
It astonishes me that you can keep coverage after wrecking your car but if you get sick and lose coverage or have to go on the individual market, you can not just pay higher rates but also lose coverage for conditions you have had claims paid out for in the past.
That is NOT consistent, and how ironic that auto insurance is more forgiving.