[speechlesstx]

Yes, he just did.

No I didn't, I compared insurance scenarios. You guys wouldn't think twice about saying an auto insurer shouldn't have to pay to 'treat' a pre-existing condition would you?

[spitvenom]

No cause you bought the car that way. No one bought their bodies and said Look at that one it is riddled with cancer lets get that one.

[speechlesstx]

Keep in mind... insurance is regulated . If this is an issue in the states involved ,it is up to the states to change their existing laws. Evidently most states have written provisions into their laws to deal with this.

Speaking of states, some are beginning to push back on Obamacare...

Lawmakers in eight states, only half of which are controlled entirely by Republicans, have filed proposals this year to ask voters to amend state constitutions to prohibit what they bill as restrictions on a person's freedom to choose a private health care plan, mandatory participation in any given plan and penalties for declining coverage. Similar measures were considered in two other states, though they wouldn't have been decided by voters. And lawmakers in three other states say they plan to file similar ballot proposals in the coming months.

[speechlesstx]

No cause you bought the car that way. No one bought their bodies and said Look at that one it is riddled with cancer lets get that one.

No, but the insurance principle is the same. Insurance companies are naturally averse to taking on known risks. How can anyone be surprised or shocked by that? They don't mind eliminating pre-existing clauses under a mandate though, because they'll have a bigger pool of customers which spreads the risk and allows them to better predict their costs.

[spitvenom]

If they are adverse to taking on risk why are they in a risk based business? There is nothing more risky then someone's health. The fact is an Insurance company is nothing more then a middle man they do not offer any goods or services. Their entire business is to pay a hospital or Dr when someone who pays them for their service gets sick. Yet they don't want to do that half the time. So they don't want to take on risk and then when you file a claim you have to jump through hoops to get them to do what you are already paying them to do.

[speechlesstx]

If they are adverse to taking on risk why are they in a risk based business? There is nothing more risky then someones health. The fact is an Insurance company is nothing more then a middle man they do not offer any goods or services. Their entire business is to pay a hospital or Dr when someone who pays them for their service gets sick. Yet they don't want to do that half the time. So they don't want to take on risk and then when you file a claim you have to jump through hoops to get them to do what you are already paying them to do.

What I said was taking on "known" risk. Of course they are in the risk business but they have to minimize or otherwise account for that risk or they go out of business. That's why life insurance is higher for smokers and auto insurance is higher for drivers with tickets and at-fault accidents on their record.

The purpose of insurance is to insure against catastrophic loss, it was never meant to pay for unlimited services.

[spitvenom]

I see your point about insurance being in case of something. Hence why we need to reform health care completely.

[tomder55]

So far what we have here is a special interest group quoting another special interest group citing state laws that do not restrict insurance companies from denying insurance due to domestic violence "preconditions" . What I have not seen is underwriting policy from any insurance company or even ancedotal examples where this has happened. I have been searching since this op was posted and come up blank.

Now I'm not saying it doesn't happen ,but my best guess is if I may make the comparison... is the same as when we say that since there is no specific language to prevent illegals from participating in the HR3200 plan ,that there is nothing to prevent them from doing so .

As you recall , we took some heat and was accused of distortion and outright lies for making such claims.

Is this then a comparable case where the absence of provisions to prevent the insurance companies from denying coverage is the equivalent of the insurance companies actually doing so ?

[excon]

Ex ;not true , insurance companies deny drivers all the time. That is why many states have a risk pool coverage .

Hello again, tom:

It's as I said. ALL insurance companies are required to take part in this high risk pool. Tell me. What insurance company in their right mind would choose to sell to this HIGH risk group if they didn't have to??

excon

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, tom:

It's as I said. ALL insurance companies are required to take part in this high risk pool. Tell me. What insurance company in their right mind would choose to sell to this HIGH risk group if they didn't have to?????

excon

Depends on what they're getting paid to take the risk.

Remember, PROFIT is the greatest mitigator of risk. If you are getting paid enough to take the risk, then you'll take it. If not, you won't.

So... in answer to your question, excon, if the insruance companies are making enough money to take the risk, if the risk/reward analysis is in their favor, why wouldn't they take the risk? I would... if the price was right.

Money talks, BS walks.

Elliot

[twinkiedooter]

Insurance companies make truckloads of money every day whether it be auto insurance, home insurance, life insurance and yes, health insurance. They just have a very hard time parting with any of the money. They use any and every excuse not to. They just dreamed up another excuse I see.

[tomder55]

Depends on what they're getting paid to take the risk.

Remember, PROFIT is the greatest mitigator of risk. If you are getting paid enough to take the risk, then you'll take it. If not, you won't.

So... in answer to your question, excon, if the insruance companies are making enough money to take the risk, if the risk/reward analysis is in their favor, why wouldn't they take the risk? I would... if the price was right.

Money talks, BS walks.

Indeed . My question is that if a high risk pool works for auto insurance then why wouldn't it work for health at the state level ?

Oh wait... it does.
Health insurance risk pools -- state-sponsored programs for the medically uninsurable