insurance should not cover pre existing conditions
There, I said it. Google be damned. I looked for “insurance should not cover pre existing conditions” and I got 0 (zero) hits.
I then looked for “insurance should not cover pre-existing conditions” and got 0 (zero) hits.
I then looked for “insurance should not cover preexisting conditions” and I moved up to 1 (one) hit.
We don’t buy fire insurance while our houses are burning down, we don’t buy life insurance for corpses, we don’t buy flood insurance while standing in a hurricane, so why is it such an INCREDIBLY rare opinion that pre existing conditions should not be covered?
Insurance is bought to share risk. There’s no risk of getting sick for those that are already sick!
Well now when people search for “insurance should not cover pre existing conditions” they’ll know they’re not the only sane people on the planet.
This has been a public service announcement, thank you for reading.
(For those readers who don’t know words, and are too lazy to look it up, I’m referring to the fact that a program that “covers pre-existing conditions” is not “insurance.”)
I agree it’s an oxymoron, but when I look for “insurance should cover pre-existing conditions” I get 8,760 hits.
So Google is telling me that for each person that proposes such a ludicrous idea, there’s not even .1% that will respond back with the opposite? That’s incredible.
Again, probably because the people who are smart enough to not hold such an idiotic notion are smart enough to understand the most obvious reason it is idiotic.
(i.e., if you know “insurance covering pre-existing conditions” is an oxymoron, you’re not going to create literature that says it “shouldn’t”.)
You’re basically whining that almost no one has come out and stated that “water should not be solid”, when there’s over 20k references to people saying “water should be solid”. I’d be willing to bet the reason for the discrepancy is that people who understand the oxymoronic nature of the phrase “water should not be solid” are not going to come out and assume the same oxymoron in order to try and correct it.
How will the government protect forests that are “predestined” to be dry and then struck by lightning. There are no guarantees, unfortunately. Not everyone can live forever, no matter how much we wish it were so. But I do believe that charity could provide plenty if government spending were to be reduced DRASTICALLY.
No. There is such a thing as private welfare. Mutual-aid societies and fraternal hospitals were hugely popular as a form of private welfare before the government got its greedy hands into them and destroyed them: http://mises.org/daily/5388
Firstly, we’re not talking about forests; we are talking about people, and as such, the question that should be asked is either “how will the government protect those with conditions that private insurance will not cover?” or “how will the free-market do so”. If charity is the only means by which vulnerable people can be protected, then I fear that a lot more people will suffer under a completely free market as opposed to a properly run welfare state.
There is such a thing as private welfare. Mutual-aid societies and fraternal hospitals were hugely popular as a form of private welfare before the government got its greedy hands into them and destroyed them
Were they good enough to alleviate the conditions prevalent at the time though? My understanding of 19th century England is that it was a pretty dire place to live.
It’s like if someone says that all lemonade should have vodka in it, and then to continue to call that beverage “lemonade”.
For someone to come in and say, “No, all lemonade should not have vodka in it, and by the way, that wouldn’t just be ‘lemonade’ anymore.” isn’t wild and crazy.
Also, why are you picking such a silly fight?
I was searching in quotes for the exact phrase. Searching “insurance can not cover pre existing conditions” yields similar results. (One result)
I always enjoy it when someone is willing to argue on the opposing side on a forum that could be incredibly hostile to the position. Very ballsy.
So explain to me how you think a welfare system should work, from the point of view of the money. Start with the first tax collection and then trace it to the poor and I will tell you how I think I could make the system better. Does that sound reasonable?
So explain to me how you think a welfare system should work, from the point of view of the money. Start with the first tax collection and then trace it to the poor and I will tell you how I think I could make the system better. Does that sound reasonable?
That sounds very reasonable. A progressive taxation system would take a portion of a person’s income over a particular threshold and place it into a central pool. The more you earn, the higher a rate you pay. This pool is used to fund healthcare that is available to all citizens based on medical need; an unemployment safety net that ensures people do not go hungry or lose their home in the event they get laid off; universal education up to a certain level; and care provision for the elderly.
Well, technically, it’s still lemonade. It’s just been spiked. This can also called “hard lemonade” (although that typically refers to lemonade with a malt liquor, but alcohol just the same). Or, if you want to look at it another way, one might argue that it’s lemonade that’s been added to the alcoholic beverage.
Either way, your analogy is not really a good one, as the drink is still generally considered lemonade…it’s just alcoholic lemonade…or rather, lemonade with alcohol (or alternatively, alcohol with lemonade in it). Afterall, “non-alcoholic beer” isn’t considered an oxymoron, and the term “virgin” is commonly used in front of the name of typically alcoholic beverages to designate them as not having alcohol…as opposed to completely different names being used for alcoholic and non-acoholic versions of the (otherwise) same beverage.
As for your question, I find it curious you’d consider this debate “silly”, considering you were the one who created an entire thread to vent your apparent anger with the situtation of there not being enough Google hits for this particular oxymoron to satisfy your liking. In other words, I didn’t introduce any new topic. We’re talking about precisely what this thread (you created) is about. If this is such a silly subject, why did you create the thread?
There are two basic challenges for any centralised system that I’d like to discuss; Lack of experimentation, and similarly a lack of knowledge.
People have traditionally excelled when they have room for trial and error, so it would be beneficial to divide up this central pot among many different caretakers. Some caretakers would fail but the majority of them would trend toward emulating the caretakers that have yielded the best results. One central monopoly can only test one method at a time, so it is much slower to innovate.
So I think instead of having one central monopoly controlling the flow of money, we should divide up the system into many small groups.
Now the second challenge of a central insurance company is a knowledge problem. It’s very difficult to know what’s going on all around the country. Surveyers and oversight groups are needed to gauge the market and ensure that money is being allocated to the proper locations. In most centralised welfare states, the people that control the money are people that actually have very little knowledge about the healthcare industry or the areas that they are trying to serve. This often results in money being allocated to people that don’t need it, and costing alot of money just for oversight and data gathering.
It would make more sense to split the groups up geographically into regions that they serve. This way, the caretakers are intimately knowledgable about the needs of their local community without the need to hire staff for the sole purpose of data gathering.
Also, politicians shouldn’t decide how the money is spent, as they have very little knowledge about what produces results, especially in a specific area. Specialized workers in the area should have the ultimate decision on how the money is spent. Waste is much more obvious to the locals than it is to politicians thousands of miles away, without the need of oversight committees, or elaborate surveys.
At this point I hope I’ve established that specialised, decentralised, and independent groups would be better at innovating and oversight than one centralised authority.
When it comes to the amount of money that could be gathered, this method of funding is superb. However, it’s important to be able incentivise workers to produce the best results.
So instead of taxing citizens to fund the program in their area, the caretakers should compete for tax dollars. Citizens would vote for the caretaking facility that they approve of the most, that way caretakers that produce the best results could get the most funding, while those that are not producing good results will be defunded and eventually closed.
But getting voting machines and counting ballots is expensive, and who’s to say how much the highest voted facility should get? We already established that politicians should not decide as they don’t know the needs of any particular area without costly data mining techniques, and we can’t just let the best caretakers decide their own salary.
So instead of voting, citizens should just “vote” with their tax dollars by giving it to the caretakers they appreciate the most.
At this point I hope I’ve established that decentralised caretakers, funded by a certain percentage of tax dollars that the citizens themselves control is better than a centralised monopoly that funds the operations by taxing and having politicians decide where the money should be allocated.
I think we can agree that specialists local to the area they serve would be much better at deciding how all of this should be done, rather than politicians in one area trying to decide how thousands of caretaking facilities should be managed, right?
If all of that makes sense I think we can get into why a voluntary system would make more sense that a taxing system.
Person 1: “Insurance should cover pre existing conditions.”
Person 2: “Insurance should not cover pre existing conditions.”
The whole conversation isn’t ruined because they’re technically oxymoronic statements, in fact I think both speakers would understand eachother perfectly well. You seem to be implying that no one on Earth should ever say what person 2 said because they’d be a stupid face. The purpose of language isn’t to out-do others symantically, but to understand one another, so it still surprises me that people say, “Insurance should not cover pre existing conditions” once in a blue moon, even when there are thousands of pages in which the opposite was said. People don’t even rebut with “insurance can not cover pre existing conditions”!
Edit: Thought of a better analogy.
It’s like if the popular opinion in the world was that “all chairs should not have backs” and there being virtually no one sayindg, “chairs should have backs”.
Maybe it would be better if someone went into a historical context to describe the first chair and how the word was originally used and how it doesn’t make sense to say a chair shouldn’t have a back and symantically it makes more sense to say that “all chairs should be changed into stools”, and then finally arguing why it’s a bad thing to remove the backs from all chairs.
It’s just easier to counter with the opposite and go onto why it’s a bad idea rather than dispute the use of words with people, but I guess that’s just my opinion.
A system that punishes and therefore arbitrarily suppresses output does not help the poor. A system that arbitrarily fixes the prices of medical goods and services (which is the inevitable result of such an entitlement program) neither increases the supply of doctors, nor the sophistication of its equipment nor the quality of care in general. A system that pays people to remain unemployed does not create employment and a system where banks can foreclose on delinquent homes will only reduce home ownership.
insurance should not cover pre existing conditions
If you have a great idea for a business I suggest you start one up. When you do that,let us knowhow the customer feed back worked forthis particular model, and how it related to your initial plans and expectations.
If not all you are doing is speaking intellectual gibberish
Nothing is a pre-existing condition if you go back enough in time. Just insure your newborn baby for life (at what will be the cheapest rate he could ever conceivably get) and you’re set.
Otherwise, pay from you own pocket, sell your house or car.
I would think we would all agree that insurance shouldn’t cover pre existing conditions because you can’t insure against something you already know the risk for, at it’s 100%.
However, I have empathy for these people, not in the least because of the track healthcare has taken in this country, with insurance largely being tied to your employment, insurance companies got to unload a lot of people they might have been stuck with had their customer base not been forced into such fluidity. For example, if it weren’t prohibitively expensive for a lot of people to buy their own insurance and keep it regardless of where they are employed, they would never technically have to leave that plan and anything that happened to them or those insured under it would be covered. Now some kid is insured under his paren’t plan, gets some disease, and now God forbid his parents get laid off or switch jobs for any reason, they’re screwed. I’m sure the insurance companies don’t mind this off loading of people they’d otherwise be stuck with, among other favors they get from the government. So personally I don’t care much about this issue from a practical stand point.
I would think we would all agree that insurance shouldn’t cover pre existing conditions because you can’t insure against something you already know the risk for, at it’s 100%.
These are things that are exist only in our mind. I can and sell “hope” or “widgets” for money. The “ought” is for actual factual entrpreneurs who take the risk, whobelieve they can tap into some need. Not moralistic Platonic intellectual speculators. We can not plan how society “ought” to behave - we can not turn themarket process or any of the goods it sells into “things”
There is no possible way anyone here can coordinate how these plans would work out by speculating.
Besides all that it is possible people have made sweeping generalizations and category errors. I may have “asthma”, but what I am being protected from could be a number of more “acute” or deadly things that could or could not stem from it (e.g: an asthma attack). To think in such narrow terms is self defeating, and once again…ultimately meaningless.
