Skip to main content

Today's Poll: Should health insurance company policies be required to cover pre-existing conditions?

By Howard B. Owens
tom hunt

That is like asking an automotive insurance company to repair a damaged car that was done previously to taking out the policy. Flies in the face of all principles of insurance.

Feb 22, 2018, 10:14am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

That's not like it at all because

A) Once a car is repaired, it's repaired. As a general principle, it's not going to have an ongoing condition.

B) The car repair market has not been greatly distorted by government interference, greatly driving up costs.

C) A car is not a human life.

D) If a car becomes too expensive to repair, you can get rid of the car. Repairing a human body can take years and have a bottomless expense and far outpace most people's ability to pay for it. You're stuck with the body until it dies and without proper care, it will die sooner than its warranty.

Feb 22, 2018, 10:34am Permalink
Jim Urtel Jr

Anyone voting no has probably never had a pre-existing condition. It`s easy to talk until you need coverage for yourself and it will probably happen eventually to everyone.

Feb 22, 2018, 12:48pm Permalink
C. M. Barons

There is no comparison with auto insurance. One chooses auto insurance. Unless one defaults and loses insurance due to irresponsible actions or the insurance company goes out of business, one has the choice of staying with the same insurance provider. In the current business climate with employer provided insurance one might change providers every year. In my case I've been employed by the same company and have had four different providers in 12 years. Certainly COBRA would allow one to maintain the same provider in such circumstances, but the cost without employer contribution and group rate would be prohibitive. In any event the circumstances are outside the insured's control.

Feb 23, 2018, 1:43am Permalink

Authentically Local