Should health insurance companies be allowed to take into account pre-existing conditions and genetic information?

[Anonymous]

Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, a.k.a. ObamaCare, health-insurance companies are no longer allowed to take into account pre-existing conditions when deciding whether to insure and at what prices.

Republicans pretend they support the free market, but they ALL (apart from Ron Paul) voted for the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, which prohibits health-insurance companies from taking into account genetic information when deciding whether to insure and at what prices.

This is insane, in my view. This is like being prohibited from taking into account credit history when deciding whether to issue a credit card and at what rates or when deciding whether to issue a loan and at what rates. It’s also like being prohibited from taking in account driving history, age, and disability (which vehicle insurance companies do take into account) when deciding whether to provide vehicle insurance and at what rates. The costs, of course, would get passed on to low-risk drivers and low-risk borrowers, whose costs would rise.

Answer these questions too, if you want:

1. www.girlsaskguys.com/.../q966549-do-you-support-obamacare

They should be allowed to take into account pre-existing conditions.

They should be allowed to take into account genetic information.

They should be allowed to take into account both.

They should not be allowed to take into account either of those.

[Red_Arrow]

First, define insurance... from dictionary.com - "the act, system, or business of providing financial protection for property, life, health, etc, against specified contingencies, such as death, loss, or damage, and involving payment of regular premiums in return for a policy guaranteeing such protection". Protection against contingencies. A contingency is a dependence on chance; uncertainty; etc.

Insurance is protection against something currently unknown happening in the future. Preexisting conditions and genetic abnormalities (if known) are not future chance, they are current fact. So, very simply, to insure one is to hedge against something that is not preexisting or known to be in the genetic makeup.

Insurance companies are not supposed to help anybody who is scik, they are supposed to agree to pay certain amounts if a person gets sick (injured, whatever) after entering the contract.

And that is what is wrong with our system of private health insurance. One cannot pay for something that would contractually cover EVERYTHING. Babies that are born with a condition are not able to have purchased insurance before they were born. (Their parents might, but the child cannot help if that does not happen.) A child that gets sick or injured before being old enough to be out of school and working may have a lifelong disability and not be insured for it. A healthy worker may have common insurance, but be struck with something that would not be expected in even the farthest imagination, yet there it is, and it is not covered.

What is needed is a risk pool that covers the young, the unborn, the jobless, whatever. In other words, a system like Canada or Europe . Not exactly, but based on that idea. A pool that is paid into by all and covers all.

[Red_Arrow]

The system of having insurance so costly only the rich (or the public employees) can afford it is sick. Yet as long as the rich control the government and stifle any attempts to better health care in America, we lose.

Sorry about going over, but I used 1998 characters out of an allowed 2000 and it said it was too long. Something else that is buggy on the new GAG.

[Koldhearted]

Yes...

Why shouldn't they take into account a pre-existing condition? It's way more expensive to take care of a cancer patient than it is a healthy person. Not allowing them to take them into account just forces people who are healthier to pay more

For genetic information, if we're talking race, height, weight, etc, in my opinion no this info is private and allows for discrimination

[Izzy2102]

No of course not, I can't believe they were allowed for so long. The difference between that and credit or driving history is that genetics is not choice and your health generally isn't either.
It's ridiculous for insurance companies to place huge fines on people who were born with some genetic defect. Often so high they can't afford insurance at all. What world do we live in that is ok? Why don't we just go back abandoning weak babies in the wild?

Take me for example. I have asthma. Had it all my life and it's really a minor thing, I get a prescription every few months and that's it, but getting affordable health care before obamacare was really really hard.

I think health care should be gender, age and pre conditions blind. Yes low risk groups pay more than they get out. And you are a low risk group, so you're being selfish, but has it ever occurred to you that you may not always be a low risk group? One accident and you could be in a wheelchair, blind or left with some other chronic disease which would make your insurance skyrocket. It's called insurance so you are taken care of IF something bad happens. if you just drop dead at 80 without ever having been ill in your whole life, ya you overpaid but that's called solidarity. More likley than no though, you'll see hospitals often enough in your life and you'll be relying on other, younger, healthier people to be overpaying for you

[Asker]

You could argue that credit and driving history aren't really choices either.

"Why don't we just go back abandoning weak babies in the wild?" Well, that is allowed in a sense and largely accepted as moral: it's called abortion.

"I get a prescription every few months and that's it, but getting affordable health care before obamacare was really really hard." And whose fault is that? Government. Health-care is one of the most highly-regulated and government-financed sectors of the US economy, and that was true even before ObamaCare. I doubt very much that, in a free market, people would buy insurance to cover inhalers. Even in a far-from-free market such as car insurance, people don't buy gasoline insurance!

"And you are a low risk group, so you're being selfish". A mind-reader, are we? Actually, I used to suffer from asthma, and I once spent one continuous month in hospital (on something unrelated), and I've lived in many countries and experienced many different systems.

[Asker]

"but that's called solidarity." Well, it's funny that those who push solidarity don't trust people and therefore think such solidarity should be mandatory. I never said it should be illegal for an insurance company to charge everyone the same. But, why shouldn't it be up to people to decide for themselves? Isn't forcing solidarity like forcing friendship or forcing romance? Spiritually bankrupt.

[Izzy2102]

Credit history is, what you spend and don't is entirley up to you.
Driving well maybe a bit less, but if you cause 10 accidents a year, you're reckless. There is a relationship, with health care there's not

Actually no, with abortion we kill a baby regardless if health. Selectively abandoning weak babies is well playing favourites and that's what health care companies are doing with commericial interests in mind. Doesn't that sound wrong to you?

No that's entirely on health care companies who are fun for profit and then obviously calculate what you have to pay them so they can make a profit.
Obamacare attempts to stop from making crazy profits off sick people, which is just wrong. How could you say it's not?
It's not that I need insurance to buy inhalers. Obviously. But i need any kind of later incidenices that could be in any way traced back to that covered. That's whats keeping the prices up

Well you sound like someone who just doesn't want to pay a bit more

[Izzy2102]

People in general are greedy, that's why you need an incentive. I don't think the majority of people actually would mind for everyone to pay the same and for the rest, ya it should forced. It's not solidarity to one person as it is with friendship or love, it's solidarity to people living in your country

[Asker]

"Credit history is, what you spend and don't is entirley up to you". No. It's determined by your personality, your intelligence, your income, your needs and wants.

"Actually no, with abortion we kill a baby regardless if health." Well, no, ANY reason is allowed, and that's fine by me. Many people do have abortions because of disability.

"No that's entirely on health care companies". So, the high costs of the highly-regulated, part-socialized health-care industry are the fault of the insurance companies? Sure enough, ObamaCare has resulted in hugely-increased costs for many customers.

[Asker]

"People in general are greedy". Why is wanting to keep your own money 'greedy', if demanding someone else's money is not greedy?

[Izzy2102]

I don't get your positions at all. Like not even one bit. Really it baffles me that people can think like that but I'm not in the mood to debate this right now. I think adequateley sums it up
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncWklJ5HFBM

sorry couldn't find a better quality

[Asker]

Very bizarre video. The sexual equivalent of 'universal' health-care would be mandatory sex. After all, how should we deal with people who can't persuade others to have sex with them? Sex is a very deep human desire and arguably necessary for mental health and certainly good for health. So, shouldn't 'we as a society' provide sex to people who can't get it?

Sure, not everything has to have a profit. That's why I think it's right that non-profit health-care is legal. But why does it need to be forced?

[Izzy2102]

becuase no profit health care isn't sustainable unless everyone participtes.

In that metaphor capitalism is sex and industries such as health care or I don't know technology are the potential sexual partners. He's saying while most industries should be (almost) entirley free and capitialistic some just shouldn't because it's just wrong. The same way you wouldn't sleep with your sister

[Asker]

"becuase no profit health care isn't sustainable unless everyone participtes." Not true at all. The UK has a fifth of the population of the USA and has 'universal' health-care. The British National health Service is the world's fifth largest employer.

I know what he's trying to say, but he's just being irrational.

[Izzy2102]

Not sure what your point is, the NHS is not like an insurance company. It is not run for profit, it is financed by taxes so that way everyone does participate

He makes perfect sense. What doesn't to you? It's a joke obviously it's made to be ridiculous on purpose, but he does have a point

[Asker]

The NHS is basically a mandatory, non-profit insurance company. My point is, if a country the fifth of the size of the US can make 'universal' health-care work, and some even smaller countries, why can't the same health-care system work with contributions from a fifth or even less of the US population? Every opinion poll out there suggests that far more than a fifth of the US population supports 'universal' health-care. Even before ObamaCare, a third of the population was on government health-care.

He doesn't have a point. No one is saying non-profit health-care should be banned. He's actually made himself extremely intellectually vulnerable by making us wonder whether it is right to let people suffer who can't persuade others to have sex.

[Izzy2102]

oh i see. Well mostly because people would choose the plan that's financially best for them. For most people any kind non profit plan would but for some, especially the rich and healthy a for profit one would may be cheaper. So you divide health care between poor and rich, sick and healhty. And that doesn't work, because for non profit health care to be cost effective you're relying on people that don't get out much put in their share or more.
If you got roughly equal participation from demographics but just 1/5 of the population it would work, but it doesn't work out in reality like that

He's saying we should stay away from for profit insurance altogether.No option because capitalism doesn't belong into health care.
If you keep going on about that point, I don't think you got the metaphor at all. What you're saying about someone not getting laid doesn't make sense in that context. It's ok, I just didn't about that someone might not understand it

[Asker]

"oh i see. Well mostly because people would choose the plan that's financially best for them." Really? Did you know Americans give more to charity per capita and as a proportion of GDP than any other people? And look at how people of all economic backgrounds support the NHS in the UK: www.ipsos-mori.com/.../...s-tables-spring-2012.pdf

"He's saying we should stay away from for profit insurance altogether.No option because capitalism doesn't belong into health care." And what argument does he offer? None. In fact, as I said, he invites the corresponding question about people who lack sex: what should be done with them? Surely it's unfair to let the sex-less people suffer.

[DaniJean909]

I don't think they should be allowed because I have had to actually fight with companies before on a condition that I was born with and cannot change. That's not fair on me that they won't cover me for something That I have had my whole life and will continue to have issues with. But only requires Urgent attention once every 5-10 years. I had a lot of Insurance companies turn me down because of this problem and I am so happy that this law is in place because without the insurance when I have to have my surgeries they are upwards of 10,000 for an in and out Procedure. Another way I look at it is, If I can't get normal health insurance I would have to mooch off the state to get all these benefits because I would have to pay $90 a visit my Dr. and have to pay of hospital bills for the rest of my life. I hate using state assistance and if that bill was in place where they could deny me for a "Pre-existing condition" I'd be a person that would have to have it.

Your brought in the Credit information as well and if I don't have the insurance to help with the cost of something I could never pay my bills in full, my Credit would be hit hard because of something that was out of my control and I suffer from it.

Just my personal view.

[washize]

Logically NO ONE Can afford to have cancer or some other genetic condition unless they are in the 1%.

REASON BEING WHY people NEED health insurance to be able to AFFORD to PAY for these EXPENSIVE illnesses.

Rejecting someone healthcare on the basis of expense is inhumane. IF we can afford to give companies like walmart and the oil industry billions in tax cuts and government subsidies. We can LOGICALLY pay for a hard working man/woman who is sick and needs $500K for their treatment.

I believe in investing in human capitol. The more you invest into people and their well being, the MORE they are capable of being productive for businesses. IF all of your employees are sick, depressed, starving, and unmotivated, your business is going to suffer. Why not take care of your cattle properly so that that they can yield you the highest reward?

[Asker]

"The more you invest into people and their well being, the MORE they are capable of being productive for businesses. IF all of your employees are sick, depressed, starving, and unmotivated, your business is going to suffer. Why not take care of your cattle properly so that that they can yield you the highest reward?" Right! So why does government need to force businesses to act in a way that's allegedly MORE profitable? Surely, if employers are 'greedy' (as we keep being told), they'll happily give their employees health-care so as to make them more efficient.

[washize]

I don't know. There are businesses who live by this model and businesses that do not. My guess is greed, that companies would rather have lower profits, than to give their employee's anything. My guess would also be that paying part time and minimum benefits is also cheaper. For some companies having a revolving door of employees is probably me profitable than having a stable employee.

Anyways, if a company makes X amount in profits, Citizens should not be responsible for paying their employee's food/medical, through tax payers dollars.

[Asker]

"My guess is greed, that companies would rather have lower profits, than to give their employee's anything." Well, that's a contradiction. A greedy company would by definition want to give its employees insurance if that would boost profits. Anyway, do you really think that businessmen sit around wondering how to make their employees more miserable? Come on.

"Citizens should not be responsible for paying their employee's food/medical, through tax payers dollars." I agree. I believe in a free market.

[washize]

I also said "My guess would also be that paying part time and minimum benefits is also cheaper. For some companies having a revolving door of employees is probably me profitable than having a stable employee." Ultimately I think most companies don't give a shit about their employees. They really don't have a reason to as long as there is someone to replace the ones that leave/get fired.

", if a company makes X amount in profits, Citizens should not be responsible for paying their employee's food/medical, through tax payers dollars."

In a free market no one would paid anything. Perhaps if America has less regulations for American people. Meaning that they didn't need a building permit to build their homes, and didn't need car insurance/inspections to drive their cars that could be plausible. As it would cost less money to live. But since we can't legally squat or live in mudd huts, a free market isn't logical.

[Asker]

OK. But, do you care about the company you work for? Why do we have this expectation of one-sided self-sacrifice?

I want a free market in everything.

[washize]

I do actually care about the company I work for. I believe in what they have to offer and what they provide for their consumers. I've worked at many jobs and even shitty jobs where there are people who CARE. It isn't ONE-SIDED, companies expect their employees to bleed their lives to them, with little to no compensation in return. Why should someone be expected to work 40+ hours a week at minimum wage with no benefits or job growth?

You must live off of faith and not reality. If you've got a great job and/or rich parents, Issues like this don't really concern you. Even if you have a great job now in a free market you won't. Foreigners are often more educated and a a cheaper source of labor. Many of my friends who used to be engineers are out of work because of this.

But you're free to believe what ever you want and live in whatever reality that you want. IF nothing effects you, or the people you care about, you really don't have to worry about any of this.

[Asker]

"You must live off of faith". Says the person who thinks that employers would consider denying health insurance to their employees even if providing it would boost profits. By the way, for a company not to strive to be as profitable as it can be while adhering to the law is actually a violation by the management of the legal rights of the stockholders. And you're the one making statements about how businesses don't care about their employees, whereas of course employees do care. Give me a break!

[washize]

I never said that ALL employees care, I said that I worked with many who did. Also many companies do deny healthcare to their employees. Many companies do not hire full time employees as a way to NOT give out benefits.

As I said, you believe and do what you want. If you've got a job that pays benefits, and/or if your parents are taking care of you. None of this effects you either way.

[Asker]

"I never said that ALL employees care". I never said you did say that.

"Also many companies do deny healthcare to their employees. Many companies do not hire full time employees as a way to NOT give out benefits." But they wouldn't deny it if it would boost profits, which is what you were originally claiming.

[Asker]

And by the way, employees often are the business-owners too.

[washize]

Yes that is my belief. Since many companies make the argument that they can't afford to give their employees benefits or raise their wages. Yet when companies such as costco, provide their employees benefits and higher wages they suffer no loses, but actually get an increase in profits.

As I keep saying you are free to believe what you want. If you think big buisness has your back and is looking out for the American people you are free to do so. Many Americans who lost their pensions and 401k's felt the same way.

[Asker]

"If you think big buisness has your back and is looking out for the American people you are free to do so." Look up 'straw man argument'.

"Yet when companies such as costco..." Well, if it's true for Costco, it must be true for all companies!

[washize]

Learn to read and learn the definition of an argument. I said do what you want to do, many Americans who lost their pensions and 401k's had the same mentality that you do.

Yes, if companies that make billions of dollars in profits they should be able to provide such basics to their employees. As said before, why are businesses and corporations given the special privileges of getting billions in tax cuts/subsidies when they give so little back to the economy and their employees?

IT doesn't make sense to me that the American people have to pay their hard earned money to give to these businesses and corporations that make billions of dollars a year.

But many people seem to be fine with that, they're free to feel that way.

[Asker]

"If you think big business has your back and is looking out for the American people you are free to do so." But I NEVER said this.

"Yes, if companies that make billions of dollars in profits they should be able to provide such basics to their employees." Well, you should've just said that before, instead of claiming that businesses would choose to be less profitable than they could be just to spite their employees.

"IT doesn't make sense to me that the American people have to pay their hard earned money to give to these businesses and corporations that make billions of dollars a year." A tax break isn't 'giving'. It's not-taking-away. If you don't recognize the difference between those two acts, then you don't recognize the difference between your property and someone else's. Subsidies, on the other hand, would be banned in a free market.

[washize]

As I keep saying, live in whatever world and reality you want to. I don't care either way. You asked a question and I gave you my opinion.

[Asker]

If you didn't care, you wouldn't have answered my question. And "live in whatever world and reality you want to" doesn't make sense. This is about how the health-care sector should be governed.

[Cheeky_Unfortunate]

What is the value of a human life and why is it that just because I was born a certain way my life is worth less than yours? That is exactly what an insurance cost is, you know, when you are taken under insurance you are actually invested in, the higher the premium the lower your value, but most people sort of forget that and say "It's a business!" but it's not just any business. That's like going to the ER and being told "You don't make enough to be treated for the things you cannot control. Die in the corner."

[Asker]

Hahaha. The cost of health insurance is not a calculation based on how much your life is 'worth' ('to whom?', I might add). The cost of health-insurance is a calculation based on your current medical needs and your possible future medical needs and the possibilities of those various needs.

[Cheeky_Unfortunate]

That is quite literally the value of your life. It's calculable. Insurance companies us algorithms and risk assessments to seek the monetary value of you as a person in relation to healthcare and how much they have to cover. For instance if genetically speaking you were likely to have cancer that would count against your value so if were normally a person who would earn one million dollars during your work life that gets cut down to maybe 600k, so the premiums have to go up to counterbalance the value and your earning potential. That's how they make money. They constantly invest against the liability of those they are covering.

The healthier you are the less money you take from the pool so the higher your value to the company monetarily.

[Asker]

Well, that's still not a calculation of the value of your life, unless you choose to be determined by those things you mention.

[Cheeky_Unfortunate]

That's shifting goalposts. You stated that insurance companies should have the right to use information and conditions you cannot control to lower the value of your life monetarily. So either they do or they do not. Don't give me some happy go lucky "Well it's up to you!" bullshit; it's up the insurance companies, the people who use those values, so either you support them or you don't.

[Cheeky_Unfortunate]

I guess that's a harsh reality check for most of these people who say this type of shit. Your life has a value. A hard value. A hard, calculable value. Your life has been projected in value from birth. The moment you enter the world with a defect the value of your life is decided. Invisible defects (genetics) only worked AGAINST people. No matter how wealthy you were if you were prone to stroke or had a family history of heart disease your premiums would shoot up, period. Welcome to the Capitalism and Free Market you're all about.

[Asker]

How is it shifting the goal posts? I said they do have the right. I repeat that: they do have the right, and the law should allow them to do it.

But I never said that anyone should base their own sense of self-worth on what rates they are offered by insurance companies. You're the one saying that, not I.

[Cheeky_Unfortunate]

When your parents have an illness you have to ask yourself if they have the right to raise premiums because account 1437516-C needs a new risk assessment. It's almost like you talk about rights but reducing humans to numbers is the reduction of rights. They have the right as a business, yes, a corporation, sure, but since when should corporations composed of people work against people?

And this discussion isn't about self-worth. This is about worth to society. Insurance companies are not the only people who use this projection. Oh no, your government uses this projection, your state does, your place of work can, and various other institutions do and it goes into marketing data amongst other things. Your value is not something personal, it's the most impersonal element about you, because upon realizing that you are one of many and nothing more than a lemming to these people and your life and it's termination is just an end-point only then...

[Asker]

"Your life has a value. A hard value. A hard, calculable value." You're peddling what you claim to be against. I don't base my sense of self-worth on what rates I am offered for loans and insurance. If you choose to see yourself that way, that IS up to you.

"Welcome to the Capitalism and Free Market you're all about." No country has ever been a free market. The closest the world ever got was the United States between 1865 and 1913.

And, by the way, government health-care systems make calculations too. Patients are prioritized. Certain treatments are provided. Others are refused. If you worry so much about what health-care providers think of you, you surely wouldn't want a system where that's centralized, and the sole health-care provider is making calculations with regard to you.

[Cheeky_Unfortunate]

can you begin to understand why insurance is a horrible, unethical monster in it's current state. You're defending someone's right to make a reaping off of your family! What is wrong with you? It's not really surprising that most of the world has turned to universal healthcare and other programs like pensions that follow you as you work. Do you know why? It starts with an "E" and ends with an "thics".

[Asker]

"It's almost like you talk about rights but reducing humans to numbers is the reduction of rights." You're the one reducing human value to numbers. I've told you, I don't base my sense of self-worth on that. But if you want to base yours on that, that's up to you.

[Asker]

"can you begin to understand why insurance is a horrible, unethical monster in it's current state." Erm, apparently, you didn't read the question, because I made it quite clear I do oppose the current state.

Well, in a universal health-care system (which is actually a misnomer), people do get prioritized and even denied. The difference is, unlike in a free market, the alternatives are limited if not totally non-existent.

[Cheeky_Unfortunate]

Insurance companies are not Healthcare Providers. You're just crossing wires now. As a matter of fact if insurance companies didn't exist healthcare would be much, much cheaper. The reason the cost of healthcare is so high is because insurance companies bid against the cost of the procedure. I don't think actually know what you're talking about. A procedure in America that is 40k here and only 6k overseas is not because of the value of the dollar but because of the fact that hospitals don't have to compete against one another and they can offer a standard rate without competing against the insurance companies.

When insurance pays something it pays maybe 20% of the hospitals asking price, so if a hospital sets a rate of 100,000$ they get 20,000$ from the insurance company but because legally it must be equivalent across the books those without insurance are charged the full 100,000$.

Go read a book or something.

[Asker]

Well, the insurance companies are the people you're paying: that's all I meant by 'health-care provider'.

"As a matter of fact if insurance companies didn't exist healthcare would be much, much cheaper." In many respects, you're right. But, whose fault is that? Government's. In a free market, people would probably choose to buy insurance for catastrophic injury, but not for routine check-ups or non-immediate surgery. People don't buy gasoline injury, for example!

"Go read a book or something." Why don't you go read a book? Apparently you didn't even know the definition of 'free market'.

[Asker]

*gasoline insurance

[Cheeky_Unfortunate]

"Erm, apparently, you didn't read the question, because I made it quite clear I do oppose the current state." Counter-intuitive. You said they should have the right but then you oppose the current state. Pick. This is why I said "choose" in the beginning. You're double-backing on yourself. Whether you approve or not they either have the right or they do not.

Comparing anything to modern Insurance models is a waste of time because it's the only investment where you are guaranteed to lose. It is also one of four industries that literally only causes misery in society. It is a completely unnecessary model on the individual level and has greatly deviated from it's original intentions of safeguarding against elements you cannot foresee.

[Asker]

In the current state, insurance companies don't have the right to discriminate. So yes I do oppose the current state. There are also high prices, as you say, but those are also caused by government regulation.

"Comparing anything to modern Insurance models is a waste of time because it's the only investment where you are guaranteed to lose. It is also one of four industries that literally only causes misery in society." Well, then, blame the government. Only government could make people buy the equivalent of gasoline insurance.

[Cheeky_Unfortunate]

The problem with that is it doesn't cover co-pays. Insurance doesn't even have to legally pay 100% of your operations and often it only pays AFTER an amount is reached, so if you break your leg for $5,000 but your deductible is 10,000? Tough luck. Good luck. This is why you lose. Really, really good insurance costs more money than you would require for treatment and really "moderate" insurance has a deductible so high and far away that it's unlikely you'll hit it without long-term illness. By the way insurance companies are at fault and it would be the people, not the government, specifically because as a corporation unless you centralized it (COUGHCOUGH) they can charge as they see fit. Regulation would just be centralization. Also, "gasoline injury" is called "Car insurance" or "Work insurance" if you're working with deadly chemicals. You have to be insured by your employer. What in the hell?

As for the definition of free market and how Capitalism has never hit the...

[Cheeky_Unfortunate]

I'm aware, but America was not the closest point to Capitalism. Not by a long shot. It happened, long before it was named as such, at the dawn of the monetary system.

[Cheeky_Unfortunate]

This anarchism makes no sense. The government centralizes? REGULATION IS BAD! If the government doesn't regulate? GOVERNMENT IS AT FAULT!

You're full of contradictions. You say they should but then they shouldn't and... Eh.

[Asker]

I'm not an anarchist. Again, maybe, you need to go and take your own advice and read a book.

I never said centralization is bad. Apparently, you're incapable of reading. I think centralization is fine, if it's voluntary. "If the government doesn't regulate? GOVERNMENT IS AT FAULT!" Government does regulate health-care hugely, and did so even before ObamaCare. Even before ObamaCare, 60% of health-care spending in the US was done by government and 31% of Americans were insured by the government. That's before we even look at the huge amount of regulations on health-care professionals, hospitals, drug companies and insurance companies at both the state and federal level.

[Cheeky_Unfortunate]

I didn't say you were an anarchist, I said you were proposing anarchism, and it's unlikely you know why. "The difference is, unlike in a free market, the alternatives are limited if not totally non-existent." in context to a free market argument that would be saying "centralization is bad". There's literally no other way to read that in context. Now if you want to exit context, that's dumb, that's where you shifted the goalpost before by exiting the business model and talking about "human value in relation to the self" which is non sequitur to your own point.

Look, in a simple sentence just tell me what you actually believe because it's pretty clear that you keep double-backing due to just simple role adjustments. You either back or don't back things you don't "partially" back things and then show counterexamples off-topic that back another claim altogether.

One claim.

[Cheeky_Unfortunate]

As for government regulating healthcare of course it does but that also has nothing to do with your argument about insurance companies and their rights since insurance companies inherently have nothing to do with healthcare. At all. The business models don't intertwine.

The socialist proposition of providing care to your citizens is also non-sequitur and has nothing to do with insurance.

[Asker]

"it's unlikely you know why". You've very arrogant for someone who knows very little. First, I had to correct you on the free market. Now, I have to correct you on anarchism. Anarchists are people who believe that government should be abolished and therefore everything should be legal, including force. The free market = consent = anti-force

[Cheeky_Unfortunate]

The fact that you "corrected" me on the Free Market in relation to Laissez Faire (which don't get me started on why that's not the original or only) as a concept in America is not actually a sign or semblance of your knowledge. Anarchism is not the conccept that there should be no government, it's the idea that the government shouldn't be centralized, and it does work, as it has historically, one of the most famous instances being in Italy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Italy) but your laziness to educate yourself is pretty prevalent.

This is where we get into trouble. You don't know what you're talking about and you don't care. What you learned in American History in 6th grade and heard off of some punkrocker's band is all you actually know. Anarchism is a conceptual FORM of government rule.

[Cheeky_Unfortunate]

I think you should be alerted that this could be considered trolling. You're completely ignorant of what you speak and are probably working less from the understanding of how insurance actually works and more from just your personal opinion and 7th grade level knowledge.

[Asker]

No, no, no. 'Anarchy' comes from the ancient Greek for 'without a ruler'. Do some people misuse the word 'anarchy'? Yes. But that doesn't change the definition.

Why do you assume I'm American ? You love assuming things, don't you?

[Cheeky_Unfortunate]

Wait, you're going to tell me that in the face of actual evidence ( and many forms of evidence ) as well as a developed society of Anarchists your concept is correct?

Oh Jesus.

[Asker]

You're the troll.

[Asker]

'Anarchy' comes from the Greek 'without a ruler'. I apparently have to repeat that.

[Cheeky_Unfortunate]

Anarchy in Greek would be, in context, "Without a KING", not "Without Rule". You're killin' me. It grates my nerves a little to see someone defend their ignorance. You don't know Greek. I know you don't. If you did you could properly translate in relation to context because Anarchism was and still is a form of political ideology that specifically refutes the concept of centralized rule. It does not represent MARTIAL LAW.

[Cheeky_Unfortunate]

OH, let me cover that before you try to nitpick it: Latin.

[Asker]

https://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy

"It does not represent MARTIAL LAW." Where did I claim that anarchy is martial law? Do you need help reading again?

[Cheeky_Unfortunate]

You use the worst sources on the internet to back an idea that people have acted under for hundreds of years and actually have put into practice ( thus the link I posted for you ) because you want to be right that badly?

Better question: What does this have to do with insurance?

By the way if you click definition three ( Anarchism ) of your own source it hands you your own ass:

https://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchism "anarchism
  Use Anarchism in a sentence
an·ar·chism
[an-er-kiz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1. a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty."

Your own source proves you wrong. What the hell is wrong with you?

[Asker]

You: "Anarchism is not the conccept that there should be no government"

Dictionary: anarchism is "a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty."

[Asker]

Oxford Dictionary: www.oxforddictionaries.com/.../anarchy

[Asker]

Oxford Dictionary: www.oxforddictionaries.com/.../anarchism

[Cheeky_Unfortunate]

So you are trying to debunk your own source while still not understand what is being said. The reason there is an "or" is because of the concept of governmental restraint, specifically introduced by the refinement of the idea, but alas it doesn't matter.

Back to Insurance. What do you know? This side game and your working so hard to show you know so very little is dull.

[Asker]

You're all over the place. 'Or' gives a second definition. In any case, a government by definition uses restraint.

Check out the Oxford dictionary for further evidence that I am right and you are wrong: Anarchism is "Belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion."

"Back to Insurance", because you've been embarrassed by your intellectual dishonesty.

"This side game". Bad memory again? Who introduced the topic of anarchism? You. You were hoist by your own petard.

[Cheeky_Unfortunate]

Haha, intellectual dishonesty. Oh sweet Jesus. Are you aware that getting a dictionary definition is actually a form of intellectual dishonesty since dictionaries by and large use misnomers and do not properly define jargon based terms. If you were to say "What is the definition of Life?" you look in a Biology book, not a dictionary; I Wasn't going to call you on it because I really am not interested in what you don't know but if you really want to delve into what makes you sound stupid we can do this all day. The basic Wikipedia disagrees with you. Any philosophical writings on Anarchism disagree with you. Hell even a dictionary doesn't align perfectly to your own concept.

Now enough of this, what do you know about insurance? I regret not calling you out on your mental philandering earlier.

[Cheeky_Unfortunate]

By the way, to cover something earlier, the reason I said it wasn't equivalent to MArtial Law was because I knew right away you were getting your definition out of a dictionary. Guess what one of the definitions is in one of your sources? Lawlessness. What a surprise. This Curse of Cassandra, I swear.

[Asker]

So the Oxford Dictionary is bad, but Wikipedia is good, even though Wikipedia is edited by anyone? And you try to use a dictionary to disprove me, and when that fails, you say that "dictionaries by and large use misnomers"?

"Any philosophical writings on Anarchism disagree with you." Not true. Read Lew Rockwell, Murray Rothbard, Lysander Spooner and others. In any case, people within a movement aren't necessarily going to be objective about it, are they?

"Now enough of this". Haha.

[Cheeky_Unfortunate]

The Oxford isn't bad because it's The Oxford. The Oxford is bad because it isn't specific enough to express what the Political Ideology is really about. For instance in order to discuss what Anarchy is you have to discuss what Government is and what it's role is. Government is not just "Someone in charge", but again that's a huge undertaking to understand. Why do you think Political Scientists can get Master's Degrees and it takes, what, 9 years? Political Theory is far beyond what the layman is expected to know or is at all exposed to. The basic understanding is someone is an elephant and someone is a donkey and that's the end of it. The concept of "The People" is rich, too rich... for The People?

Lew Rockwell definitely doesn't agree with you. His concepts are deeper, much deeper. Oh Lord. I feel like you're buying time though. You're still on this tangent, why aren't you back to your original topic? This is my 4th calling for that. Talk about insurance.

[Cheeky_Unfortunate]

Here: You win. You're right.

Now, Insurance?

[Asker]

You've finally admitted that you're wrong. But, I don't like arguing with irrational, intellectually dishonest people, the kind of people who are desperate to change the subject because they've been so embarrassed.

You probably hadn't even heard of Lew Rockwell. But now you have. And, if you knew even a little about him, you would know that the motto for his website is 'Anti-state, anti-war, pro-market'. That should be clear enough for you. Notice how "His concepts are deeper, much deeper" isn't actually a rebuttal.

[Cheeky_Unfortunate]

Oh good, it took you two hours to come up with your final dodge and not talk about your original topic. Wow.

[Asker]

No wonder you're an 'Introverted Loner'... by your own admission! Haha. No one likes dishonesty. And intellectuals don't like intellectual dishonesty.

[gotc147]

Insurance companies provide a service and pre-existing conditions affect the cost of that service, so it makes zero sense to not take them into account when factoring a policy.

People born with a pre-existing condition are very unfortunate, but we can't all be dealt a royal flush in life, it sucks, but it's life, it's rarely fair, but we have to deal with it.

I still can't believe how many people still think it's the insruance companies that are gouging people and driving costs up... The IRS says the average insurance company profits were 3-4% last year, Life imitating art... Like in Iron Man 3, give people a Bin Laden, a Hitler, a Putin, some new boogeyman to throw their hate at and people just eat it all up...

[gonyr]

With that said, insurance companies are growing revenue and profits under obamacare. According to Forbes at least, maybe other sources have reported differently

[gotc147]

Why do you think insurance companies were so in favor of Obamacare? If you owned a business and the government mandated that every American buy your product, wouldn't you be in favor of it too?

And people still think Obamacare is going to work... It has already failed miserably. The goal of the law was to make health insurance more affordable and healthcare more accessible, it has made health insurance more expensive and made healthcare less available with all the doctors and hospitals that have stated they will not be taking Obamacare plans.

But then again that's assuming the true goal of Obamacare was in fact what the official statements say it was. If the true goal was to royally screw up our healthcare system to either pave the way for a socialist healthcare system simply to redistribute wealth then it is so far a roaring success.

[Anonymous]

How the hell can you not take into account pre-existing conditions? This whole "Affordable" Care Act is a disaster and is not intended to make America healthy at all, and it's specific intention is to re-distribute the wealth in this country. Obama just thinks we're all too stupid to understand and see it.

[Eternallylucky]

That's ridiculous because insurance companies are supposed to help people rather than discriminate who should get healthcare assistance. They are really invading a client's privacy. That's not a need to know basis especially genetic disease history

[Asker]

Do you go to work to 'help people'? That might be a secondary consideration. But surely your primary consideration is to make a profit for yourself. It's funny, however, that, when the tables are turned, many of us expect businesses to help us at their expense.

[Eternallylucky]

In the line of work, i've chosen. Yes. The last two jobs, no, it was all about making big bucks.

This is where obama comes in to straighten those companies out?

[Asker]

So you would do your current job, if you weren't geting paid anything or if what you were getting paid didn't cover your lifestyle? No, you wouldn't, because you wouldn't be able to survive, unless you already had wealth, in which case the wealth was earned by someone, whether you or someone else.

[Eternallylucky]

Yeah I got something to fall back on. I screwed the bank and I got a good return :]

[gonyr]

You could definitely argue that rates should be affected, but if don't ink coverage should be denied to someone because of a pre existing condition.

The examples of car insurance or a credit card, as you listed, will still be issued to people but at much higher rates.

[juggaloscrub]

Since we are being forced to get covered then this is the way it has to be. If it wasn't people could still be denied coverage and since it's something you have to buy or be fined I see no other solution.

[RideSallyRide]

I believe that is a no no now adays...insurance companies those rat bastards can not do that anymore...:D

[ImCoasting]

No, it's inherently evil if you ask me.