If the condition insurance business won't be capable of deny insurance because of pre-existing condtions?
Shouldn't the car insurance industry be made to offer vehicle insurance for drivers that have had accident at the same price as those without accident. Hmmm if they did that I wonder what would happen to everyones car insurance. Wouldn't it stir up?
Answers:
Human beings aren't cars and insurance companies find themselves in this position because they enjoy long shirked their responsibility and screwed over their customers. The way the laws worked beforehand, a person who had payed for insurance coverage and never have any major illness or even go for regular check-ups would be dropped from their insurance the second they actually needed it because of something minor they did 20 years prior. What happened to adjectives of the money that they pumped into the system for all of those years? Rather like adjectives of the social security I'm paying but won't get spinal column.
Do not mix medical insurance next to automobile insurance. Pre existing condition clause in majority of medical insurance policies is being used as the #1 excuse to deny a claim and in consequence it is very much unfair to the insured. Medical insurers other used and still keep using pre existing condition clause to their advantage as a idea to deny legitimate claim. Beside pre existing conditions there is usually plenty of other crap surrounded by their policies which are being used against their insureds. Medical insurers charge outrageously high premiums for their coverages. Automobile insurers charge elevated risk drivers higher premiums which is quite common and can be understand. The worst individual medical insurance policies are being underwritten by Blue Shield and Blue Cross, Aetna, Mutual of Omaha. There are various HMO medical group plans which belong in a dump.
Yeah. And resting on that let's make it so that car insurance have to cover gas & tires (like health insurance has to cover routine checkups) and it have to cover rims & spoilers... like federally mandated condition insurance has to cover IVF lol
Let's see what happens to the cost later...
Ok, so you are saying that parents who have a premie beside all kinds of medical problems should be charged more even though they have no idea that their child would be born that way? For example, enunciate the mom was hit by a drunk driver. The accident brought on premature labor and the doctor f*kd up and very soon the 26 week old has intellectual palsy. Should the mom be charged more by her insurance company? Or should her insurance company have the right to tell her to walk jump in a pond because they don't have to cover the baby?
And there you own it folks, the crux of the problem. If the insurance company is forced to carry the expensive folks at a discount rate, we ALL pay for it.
Probably. The interesting thing is that health insurance will no not know how to charge more based on sex. So all men's policies will dance up. If they did the same thing for coup¨¦ insurance all women's policies would go up. So I doubt it will come about for car insurance because that would be sexist.
Yes. Those with health problems will salary more.
This is why the government should take over strength care. Everybody pays the same no event what health they got.
The free open market system is not appropriate for a system that does not follow the rules of supply and demand. Everyone has an equal emergency for health and the supply of care is fixed by AMA, med schools, etc.
I
In truth don't expect gov.run health care anytime surrounded by the next 10 years or so.Covering pre existing conditions is noble but not affordable to any Co. or governing body.
At a very minimum, my health insurance payments will triple.
Another Republican attempt at allegory ends in tragedy.
Related Questions:
Answers:
Human beings aren't cars and insurance companies find themselves in this position because they enjoy long shirked their responsibility and screwed over their customers. The way the laws worked beforehand, a person who had payed for insurance coverage and never have any major illness or even go for regular check-ups would be dropped from their insurance the second they actually needed it because of something minor they did 20 years prior. What happened to adjectives of the money that they pumped into the system for all of those years? Rather like adjectives of the social security I'm paying but won't get spinal column.
Do not mix medical insurance next to automobile insurance. Pre existing condition clause in majority of medical insurance policies is being used as the #1 excuse to deny a claim and in consequence it is very much unfair to the insured. Medical insurers other used and still keep using pre existing condition clause to their advantage as a idea to deny legitimate claim. Beside pre existing conditions there is usually plenty of other crap surrounded by their policies which are being used against their insureds. Medical insurers charge outrageously high premiums for their coverages. Automobile insurers charge elevated risk drivers higher premiums which is quite common and can be understand. The worst individual medical insurance policies are being underwritten by Blue Shield and Blue Cross, Aetna, Mutual of Omaha. There are various HMO medical group plans which belong in a dump.
Yeah. And resting on that let's make it so that car insurance have to cover gas & tires (like health insurance has to cover routine checkups) and it have to cover rims & spoilers... like federally mandated condition insurance has to cover IVF lol
Let's see what happens to the cost later...
Ok, so you are saying that parents who have a premie beside all kinds of medical problems should be charged more even though they have no idea that their child would be born that way? For example, enunciate the mom was hit by a drunk driver. The accident brought on premature labor and the doctor f*kd up and very soon the 26 week old has intellectual palsy. Should the mom be charged more by her insurance company? Or should her insurance company have the right to tell her to walk jump in a pond because they don't have to cover the baby?
And there you own it folks, the crux of the problem. If the insurance company is forced to carry the expensive folks at a discount rate, we ALL pay for it.
Probably. The interesting thing is that health insurance will no not know how to charge more based on sex. So all men's policies will dance up. If they did the same thing for coup¨¦ insurance all women's policies would go up. So I doubt it will come about for car insurance because that would be sexist.
Yes. Those with health problems will salary more.
This is why the government should take over strength care. Everybody pays the same no event what health they got.
The free open market system is not appropriate for a system that does not follow the rules of supply and demand. Everyone has an equal emergency for health and the supply of care is fixed by AMA, med schools, etc.
I
In truth don't expect gov.run health care anytime surrounded by the next 10 years or so.Covering pre existing conditions is noble but not affordable to any Co. or governing body.
At a very minimum, my health insurance payments will triple.
Another Republican attempt at allegory ends in tragedy.
Related Questions:
- What specific complaints do YOU enjoy in the region of your present condition insurance?
- What is the best type of post-college/pre-job strength insurance?
- I hold a work, so Obama will charge me or my employer for form insurance, how will they capture money from others?
- What do you infer in the region of pet form insurance?
- Health insurance?