Should govt force insurance co's to accept people with pre-existing conditions?

[Rick]

And why must insurance companies be involved in the solution (if there is one)? Paying for people's existing conditions, is no more related to what insurance companies do, than it's related to what AT&T or Kellogg's does.

I dunno - why should I be taxed to support the government schools? It's not related to me at all. Think of it as a tax that makes their overall industry feasible.

 

[dogtowner]

To answer the question, NO. Actually not just no but hell no.

Insurance has always been legalized gambling. If you prefer to accept the risk and go without insurance and then roll those snake eyes, too bad for you.

If Obamacare was designed on an unconstitutional concept like mandatory participation, well too bad.

Scrap this mess and redo it in a sensible manner that will actually help with the problem of COST and do it constitutionally.

 

[Gipper]

To answer the question, NO. Actually not just no but hell no.

Insurance has always been legalized gambling. If you prefer to accept the risk and go without insurance and then roll those snake eyes, too bad for you.

If Obamacare was designed on an unconstitutional concept like mandatory participation, well too bad.

Scrap this mess and redo it in a sensible manner that will actually help with the problem of COST and do it constitutionally.

Yes and the redo should include tort reform. That will get the scummy lib's panties in a bunch.

 

[dogtowner]

Yes and the redo should include tort reform. That will get the scummy lib's panties in a bunch.

Yes. Even Obama has admitted that defensive medicine is a significant aspect to exploding costs. That's half tort and now half (or more) big push back from the various testing providers who are making big bucks on needless tests. But go one better and adopt "loser pays" to eliminate the nuisance cases that are only intended to be settled. And somehow put heat on the AMA to actually police itself.