# Health Care Lawsuits Survive Dismissal in FL, VA **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 15, 2010, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-lawsuits-survive-dismissal-in-fl-va/557244 "2010-10-15T14:35:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2010, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-lawsuits-survive-dismissal-in-fl-va/557244/121 "2010-10-31T15:58:34Z")
> [@Yorick73](#): > > This is a government-caused problem. By eliminating the pre-existing condition exclusion insurance companies had in place, they inadvertently created the problem of people NOT getting insured until they need it. This is called the Law of Unintended Consequences. So, now they want to force everyone to purchase insurance to solve the very problem they created. What we’ve got here is a failure to communicate. The pre-existing condition exclusion that companies had in place was the problem. And that problem [existed](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/18/AR2009091803501.html)before Congress did anything about it. > [@](#): > > A proposal to make preexisting health conditions irrelevant in the sale of insurance policies could help not just the seriously ill but also people who might consider themselves healthy, documents released Friday by a California-based advocacy group illustrate. > > Health insurers have issued guidelines saying they could deny coverage to people suffering from such conditions as **acne, hemorrhoids and bunions.** [emphasis mine] > > One big insurer refused to issue individual policies to police officers and firefighters, along with people in other hazardous occupations. > > Some treated pregnancy or the intention to adopt as a reason for rejection. In addition to preventing people from getting insurance in the first place, there were also problems with “recission” where people who had payed premiums for years suddenly had a medical problem, and the insurance companies scoured their records looking for any pretext whatsoever to revoke people’s health insurance policies (even for trivial reasons like not reporting acne). ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2010, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-lawsuits-survive-dismissal-in-fl-va/557244/122 "2010-10-31T21:49:03Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > What we’ve got here is a failure to communicate. > > The pre-existing condition exclusion that companies had in place was the problem. And that problem [existed](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/18/AR2009091803501.html)before Congress did anything about it. > > In addition to preventing people from getting insurance in the first place, there were also problems with “recission” where people who had payed premiums for years suddenly had a medical problem, and the insurance companies scoured their records looking for any pretext whatsoever to revoke people’s health insurance policies (even for trivial reasons like not reporting acne). What we have here is your failure to understand a basic point. You also seem to not be capable of understanding how insurance works. Why would any insurance cover something that existed before you had a policy? The whole point of insurance is the gamble that something will go wrong…not paying for something that is already wrong. Now, that being said, the government eliminated the preexisting condition exclusion. In doing this they MUST force everyone to be covered to offset the costs incurred by people who are ill before they have insurance. This is a problem created by the government in order to address a different problem. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2010, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-lawsuits-survive-dismissal-in-fl-va/557244/123 "2010-11-01T00:55:29Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > The whole point of insurance is the gamble that something will go wrong…not paying for something that is already wrong. Which is why the whole concept of private health insurance is moronic. ---
**Author:** ![jasg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f0a364/32.png) [@jasg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jasg)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2010, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-lawsuits-survive-dismissal-in-fl-va/557244/124 "2010-11-01T01:59:02Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > …only the very sickest would ever sign up for insurance (since they know they can wait until they are sick to sign up, why sign up when they are healthy?) This is called “Adverse Selection” and is a way to game the system. I keep hearing this “not until I am sick” claim, but will that really be allowed to happen? Every employer plan I have used and Medicare have protected themselves from “Adverse Selection” with Open Enrollment periods - if you don’t sign up during that period (usually a few weeks a year), you wait until the next period, a year later. From my reading of the rules for the Insurance Exchanges established by the Healthcare bill, they will also use Open Enrollment periods. If that is true, waiting to buy insurance could be pretty risky. If you get sick a week after the period ends, you pay your own tab for a year. Regarding the Individual Mandate in the new law, I’m surprised that no one has brought up the federal mandate to purchase a product that was a part of the Militia Act of 1792. According to the wiki, it required every “free able-bodied white male citizen” between the ages of 18 and 45, with a few occupational exceptions, to purchase a weapon and ammunition ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2010, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-lawsuits-survive-dismissal-in-fl-va/557244/125 "2010-11-01T03:54:04Z")
> [@jasg](#): > > Regarding the Individual Mandate in the new law, I’m surprised that no one has brought up the federal mandate to purchase a product that was a part of the Militia Act of 1792. According to the wiki, it required every “free able-bodied white male citizen” between the ages of 18 and 45, with a few occupational exceptions, to purchase a weapon and ammunition Apparently the mandate isn’t all that [novel of an idea](http://open.salon.com/blog/paul_j_orourke/2009/07/22/our_founding_fathers_socialist_healthcare_system): > [@](#): > > Our Founders realized that a healthy work force was essential to our economic health and growth. It was for this reason that, in July of 1798, Congress passed, and President John Adams signed into law an act “For the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen,” establishing the Marine Hospital Service. > > This Federal government socialized healthcare insurance was funded by a tax that was withheld from the sailor’s pay, and then turned over to the government by the ship’s owner. This first payroll tax amounted to slightly over 1% of the sailor’s wages. An injured or sick sailor would make a claim, his record of payments would be confirmed, and he would be given a “chit” for admission to the local hospital. Some of these healthcare facilities were private, but in the larger ports Federal maritime hospitals were built. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2010, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-lawsuits-survive-dismissal-in-fl-va/557244/126 "2010-11-01T04:11:49Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > What we have here is your failure to understand a basic point. You also seem to not be capable of understanding how insurance works. Why would any insurance cover something that existed before you had a policy? The whole point of insurance is the gamble that something will go wrong…not paying for something that is already wrong. I know how it works, and how it will continue to work until 2014. That’s precisely the problem I have with it; The holy free market has left millions of people without access to affordable health care. The job of the government is to step in and intervene when the free market is unable or unwilling to perform a neccesary function. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2010, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-lawsuits-survive-dismissal-in-fl-va/557244/127 "2010-11-06T04:26:52Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > I know how it works, and how it will continue to work until 2014. That’s precisely the problem I have with it; The holy free market has left millions of people without access to affordable health care. The job of the government is to step in and intervene when the free market is unable or unwilling to perform a neccesary function. How are they intervening? By forcing private insurance companies to pay for health care for certain individuals above and beyond any premiums they will pay? By forcing individuals to purchase a product that some simply do not want? Do you really not see a problem with either of these? I suppose for you the end justifies the means. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2010, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-lawsuits-survive-dismissal-in-fl-va/557244/128 "2010-11-06T05:05:52Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > How are they intervening? By forcing private insurance companies to pay for health care for certain individuals above and beyond any premiums they will pay? Yes. Because they don’t want to because it isn’t profitable. So you need regulations. But in return the insurance companies get more clients. > [@](#): > > By forcing individuals to purchase a product that some simply do not want? Do you really not see a problem with either of these? I suppose for you the end justifies the means. You aren’t forced to do it. You just pay higher taxes if you don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2010, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-lawsuits-survive-dismissal-in-fl-va/557244/129 "2010-11-06T05:40:58Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > How are they intervening? By forcing private insurance companies to pay for health care for certain individuals above and beyond any premiums they will pay? By forcing individuals to purchase a product that some simply do not want? Do you really not see a problem with either of these? I suppose for you the end justifies the means. In this case, yes. The ends justify the means. Paying for health care is just like paying for roads and bridges, fire fighters, police, lawyers for the indigent accused, and publicly funded education. It’s just part of the basic package of what a civilized society provides for its citizens. I don’t believe that any fundamental human rights are being abridged here by asking citizens to pay for these things, even those individuals that have no immediate use for those services. ---
**Author:** ![jasg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f0a364/32.png) [@jasg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jasg)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2010, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-lawsuits-survive-dismissal-in-fl-va/557244/130 "2010-11-06T16:20:10Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > How are they intervening? By forcing private insurance companies to pay for health care for certain individuals above and beyond any premiums they will pay? … but the entire basis for insurance is to provide benefits that exceed the premiums you might pay (but others pay and never receive benefits). It is called shared risk. If insurance benefits simply matched premiums, who would buy it in the first place? If you look around the world, there are two models that make health insurance profitable for the insurance companies. [ol] [li]Limit who is insured by eliminating customers who are sick or likely to be sick - the US model[/li][li]Require that everyone have insurance - the German model since the 1880’s[/li][/ol] Of course, only one model benefits the citizens as whole (because the risk is shared among all). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-lawsuits-survive-dismissal-in-fl-va/557244.md?page=6)