Is it fair for auto insurance companies to charge rates via Pre-Existing Conditions?
In other words, if i had a accident (hey, anyone can have one, no matter how cautious or good of a driver we are), My car gets broken into or stolen, or maybe im a young teenage driver these things would all be taken into account if i went out to get a new auto insurance policy. They would be considered "Pre-Existing Conditions" and effect the rates of my insurance, or cause a company not to offer me insurance or to drop my insurance all together.
Point being, we accept this with auto insurance, why is it so wrong for insurance companies to do the same with medical insurance?
Another thing, i cant buy a car which already has a huge dent in the door, then turn it into my insurance and expect them to fix it. This would be considered a Pre-Existing Condition. Why should a medical insurance company be required to offer insurance to someone who already has cancer?
I for one have a great driving record, yet my auto insurance is much more than my medical insurance.
Will we get auto insurance reform as well??
I see your point…so how about when Auto insurance tells you it costs more to fix the car than what it is actually worth (i.e. its "totalled")
Sounds like the rumored "Death Panels" ehh?
July 17th, 2010 at 7:32 am
No, it is unfair and irrelevant!
References :
July 17th, 2010 at 7:45 am
I see your point, however insuring a car, versus insuring a body is millions of miles (or dollars) apart. How much to fix a broken car versus a broken body. I do not believe the current Health care reform in congress is in our best interest. Make everyone get health insurance should be a must. It should be REQUIRED just like purchasing car insurance. If you can afford rent, house, car, vacation, jewelry, boat, restaurant, gambling, hair extensions, fake nails, dogs, vacation home, atv, motorcycle, etc. you can afford health insurance. Just get rid of one of your materialistic vices and pay for your own health insurance like the rest of us responsible folks.
References :
July 17th, 2010 at 7:51 am
I see your point…so how about when Auto insurance tells you it costs more to fix the car than what it is actually worth (i.e. its "totalled")
Sounds like the rumored "Death Panels" ehh?
References :
July 17th, 2010 at 8:31 am
Yes, it is fair and sensible that a person with a bad driving record would have a higher auto insurance premium. They are statistically more likely to file future claims, and therefore be a greater financial burden to the insurance provider.
Yes, it is fair and sensible that a person with a bad medical record would have a higher Health insurance premium. They are statistically more likely to file future claims, and therefore be a greater financial burden to the insurance provider.
It would not be fair or sensible for me to expect you subsidize my medical insurance premium. Nor would it be fair or sensible for me to expect you to subsidize my auto insurance premium.
Much like driving, our medical records are largely the result of our own lifestyles and choices. We can not expect our neighbors to foot the bill for our lifestyle choices without giving them the right to regulate and restrict those choices.
Driving is a choice in and of itself. One can live without driving a car and therefore have no need for insurance. If one chooses to drive, mandatory LIABILITY insurance is a must because your choices affect the life and safety of others whom may or may not have influence on the choices you make.
With medical issues, insurance should not be mandated by the government, as one’s own health only affects the individual and his/her family. The interested parties in a medical insurance claim have influence on the lifestyle choices made leading up to the claim.
Responsible drivers maintain insurance coverage on the vehicles they drive. Those that do not are subject to legal punishment.
Responsible people maintain health insurance coverage on themselves and their families. Those that do not, should not be everyone else’s problem.
My point is this;
If we are to maintain liberty, we cannot impose our will on each other.
If I choose to eat fried pork chops for every meal and end up with chronic heart disease or some type of cancer, this should not be your problem to pay for as this is the result of my lifestyle. Nor would I accept the concept of you having the authority to prevent me from eating those pork chops.
I will die one day, and so will you.
Until then, I choose to live as a free man.
References :
July 17th, 2010 at 9:14 am
There is a huge difference here.
Health insurance companies are claiming "preexisting conditions" for conditions that are not actually preexisting that their customers can’t prove weren’t preexisting.
References :