kyoung05

iTrader: (2)

Well, you do have a point regarding pre-existing conditions. On the hand, once you are insured through one provider, and are diagnosed with a particular condition, you'll basically stick with that provider forever because it would simply cost too much to go with anyone else. So from a cost perspective, you might be "locked in." Essentially, when that provider agreed to insure you they were taking a gamble that they'd get more money out of you than they would have to spend, and they lost.

On the other hand, from a new providers' prospective, it makes no business-sense to offer to cover your pre-existing condition at the same rate as your old provider, knowing that the will constantly pay more per month in coverage than they are receiving in premium payments. I mean, they're meant to be a profitable business, not a charity.
________
New relationship advice forum

saqwarrior

It's not, but cancer is.

EDIT: Oh boy, that's a downer. Your joke made me laugh.

saqwarrior

I have an ethical problem with the idea that saving peoples' lives is about profit. Of course, I have some pretty strange ideas about money, labor and society in general, so take what I say with a grain of salt.

kyoung05

iTrader: (2)

Be that as it may, you can't say health insurance providers care any more about saving lives than auto insurance providers care about ensuring their clients won't go into financial ruin if they get into an accident. Insurance providers aren't doctors (who probably do care about saving lives). Insurance is nothing more than a way to hedge risks - you'd rather constantly pay $200/mo than to have to pay $200k out of nowhere.
________
Csi advice

saqwarrior

Oh, I don't disagree at all. I'm just saying I don't like how it works.

kyoung05

iTrader: (2)

Well, I think insurance provides a workable/fair middle-ground. Without it, there would be 2 options - (1) the government provides free health care to all, in which case some people will get something for nothing; or (2) make people pay for the full cost of care out of pocket, in which case the majority of the people wouldn't even be able to afford regular doctor's visits.

While option 1 may sound appealing, I think the fundamental problem lies in the fact that like power, receiving a benefit for free corrupts a person. You get something significant at no cost for long enough, and you can't help but think you're entitled to it forever. Think about it - if someone gave a person $1000/month for a number of years, any person would begin to think that that money was theirs; they sure as hell wouldn't want to give it up, but at the same time, they sure as hell wouldn't feel like they needed to work for it either. With respect to universal health care, I feel that those who were getting something for nothing would feel like they were entitled to it, while those that have to pay extra to cover those that couldn't afford it would become resentful. I think a system like this takes away some of the incentive people may have had to work and be a productive member of society.
________
MEDICAL MERIJUANA DISPENSERY

Tizzo27

Unfortunately, good feelings don't pay off student loans, and Med school costs alot of money.
I see no reason you can't make money and do good at the same time..
Granted you have companies that screw over their clients (insurance companies etc using loopholes to avoid payouts ala New Orleans comes to mind)
And those companies should be out of business, but profit doesn't automatically equate to wrongdoing.

Sounds similar to generational welfare.. Where you will have 2 or more generations of a family on welfare. They don't even know how to really work anymore. They just kind of leach off of everyone else.