Do you think that you could buy fire insurance on your home while it is burning, or collision insurance on your car after just having a accident? Let's say you could, don't you think the rates would sky rocket?
How can Health Insurance Companies not raise rates substantially. if people are brought in with Pre-exist ing conditions?
It's a basic tenet of insurance---TO HAVE INSURANCE WHEN YOU NEED IT, YOU MUST BUY IT WHEN YOU DON'T.
Insuring Risk
-
librtyhead
- Posts: 199
- Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 2:32 pm
Insuring Risk
I really am liking Lon and his common sense!:yh_glasse
Insuring Risk
librtyhead;1299082 wrote: I really am liking Lon and his common sense!:yh_glasse
We all like Lon but he eats apple sauce then drools all over him self.
Yesterday he said his dog is Richard Nixon re-incarterated.
The day before he was cleaning his musket because he thinks Napolean is sending his troops to New Zealand and theyre going to take his kite away from him.
We all like Lon but he eats apple sauce then drools all over him self.
Yesterday he said his dog is Richard Nixon re-incarterated.
The day before he was cleaning his musket because he thinks Napolean is sending his troops to New Zealand and theyre going to take his kite away from him.
I AM AWESOME MAN
-
along-for-the-ride
- Posts: 11732
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 4:28 pm
Insuring Risk
insurance
Definition
A promise of compensation for specific potential future losses in exchange for a periodic payment. Insurance is designed to protect the financial well-being of an individual, company or other entity in the case of unexpected loss. Some forms of insurance are required by law, while others are optional. Agreeing to the terms of an insurance policy creates a contract between the insured and the insurer. In exchange for payments from the insured (called premiums), the insurer agrees to pay the policy holder a sum of money upon the occurrence of a specific event. In most cases, the policy holder pays part of the loss (called the deductible), and the insurer pays the rest. Examples include car insurance, health insurance, disability insurance, life insurance, and business insurance.
Definition
A promise of compensation for specific potential future losses in exchange for a periodic payment. Insurance is designed to protect the financial well-being of an individual, company or other entity in the case of unexpected loss. Some forms of insurance are required by law, while others are optional. Agreeing to the terms of an insurance policy creates a contract between the insured and the insurer. In exchange for payments from the insured (called premiums), the insurer agrees to pay the policy holder a sum of money upon the occurrence of a specific event. In most cases, the policy holder pays part of the loss (called the deductible), and the insurer pays the rest. Examples include car insurance, health insurance, disability insurance, life insurance, and business insurance.
Life is a Highway. Let's share the Commute.
Insuring Risk
Lon;1299080 wrote: Do you think that you could buy fire insurance on your home while it is burning, or collision insurance on your car after just having a accident? Let's say you could, don't you think the rates would sky rocket?
How can Health Insurance Companies not raise rates substantially. if people are brought in with Pre-exist ing conditions?
It's a basic tenet of insurance---TO HAVE INSURANCE WHEN YOU NEED IT, YOU MUST BUY IT WHEN YOU DON'T.
So you think someone born with cystic fibrosis or down syndrome. haemophilia etc etc should be excluded from medical cover when they are adults? I assume even in america you won't refuse to treat a child.
What if it was a pre-existing condition you didn't know you had?
How can Health Insurance Companies not raise rates substantially. if people are brought in with Pre-exist ing conditions?
It's a basic tenet of insurance---TO HAVE INSURANCE WHEN YOU NEED IT, YOU MUST BUY IT WHEN YOU DON'T.
So you think someone born with cystic fibrosis or down syndrome. haemophilia etc etc should be excluded from medical cover when they are adults? I assume even in america you won't refuse to treat a child.
What if it was a pre-existing condition you didn't know you had?
Insuring Risk
Lon;1299080 wrote: Do you think that you could buy fire insurance on your home while it is burning, or collision insurance on your car after just having a accident? Let's say you could, don't you think the rates would sky rocket?
How can Health Insurance Companies not raise rates substantially. if people are brought in with Pre-exist ing conditions?
It's a basic tenet of insurance---TO HAVE INSURANCE WHEN YOU NEED IT, YOU MUST BUY IT WHEN YOU DON'T.
Not sure I agree with the analogy. You wouldnt get refused motor insurance if you had a previous accidents. Why should someone be refused medical insurance for a pre-existing condition. Its ludicrous
How can Health Insurance Companies not raise rates substantially. if people are brought in with Pre-exist ing conditions?
It's a basic tenet of insurance---TO HAVE INSURANCE WHEN YOU NEED IT, YOU MUST BUY IT WHEN YOU DON'T.
Not sure I agree with the analogy. You wouldnt get refused motor insurance if you had a previous accidents. Why should someone be refused medical insurance for a pre-existing condition. Its ludicrous
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Insuring Risk
gmc;1299292 wrote: So you think someone born with cystic fibrosis or down syndrome. haemophilia etc etc should be excluded from medical cover when they are adults? I assume even in america you won't refuse to treat a child.
What if it was a pre-existing condition you didn't know you had?
That was not my point--------my point had to do with costs and the fact that insurance costs (premiums) are based on risk and the greater the risk the greater the cost. If people are willing to accept those costs, then so be it, but to think that you can insure anything without great cost is a bit naive.
What if it was a pre-existing condition you didn't know you had?
That was not my point--------my point had to do with costs and the fact that insurance costs (premiums) are based on risk and the greater the risk the greater the cost. If people are willing to accept those costs, then so be it, but to think that you can insure anything without great cost is a bit naive.
Insuring Risk
Snowfire;1299295 wrote: Not sure I agree with the analogy. You wouldnt get refused motor insurance if you had a previous accidents. Why should someone be refused medical insurance for a pre-existing condition. Its ludicrous
Au contraire--------I can't speak for the UK, but in California your driving record, tickets, prior accidents, age, number of miles driven, type of vehicle will determine your premium.
Au contraire--------I can't speak for the UK, but in California your driving record, tickets, prior accidents, age, number of miles driven, type of vehicle will determine your premium.
Insuring Risk
Lon;1299299 wrote: Au contraire--------I can't speak for the UK, but in California your driving record, tickets, prior accidents, age, number of miles driven, type of vehicle will determine your premium.
Absolutely. I understand that. I'm not sure, though, that the analogy with motor insurance is fair. We can all get by without the car if we cant insure it for whatever reason. Emergency medical procedures are not a luxury. There very neccessary
Why are people denied health insurance for pre-existing conditions ? It happens in the US doesnt it ?
Absolutely. I understand that. I'm not sure, though, that the analogy with motor insurance is fair. We can all get by without the car if we cant insure it for whatever reason. Emergency medical procedures are not a luxury. There very neccessary
Why are people denied health insurance for pre-existing conditions ? It happens in the US doesnt it ?
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Insuring Risk
Why are people denied health insurance for pre-existing conditions ? It happens in the US doesnt it ?
They are denied for the same reason they deny insuring a dead person for life insurance. Example--------A sick person has been receiving chemo for 8 months and paying for it out of their own pocket, the CAT scans, radiation, labs, etc. have been running 10 to $15,000 a month and now you ask the Insurance Company to insure this person----------you gotta be kidding me. What do you think would be a fair premium?
They are denied for the same reason they deny insuring a dead person for life insurance. Example--------A sick person has been receiving chemo for 8 months and paying for it out of their own pocket, the CAT scans, radiation, labs, etc. have been running 10 to $15,000 a month and now you ask the Insurance Company to insure this person----------you gotta be kidding me. What do you think would be a fair premium?
Insuring Risk
Lon;1299305 wrote:
What do you think would be a fair premium?
Wouldn't have a clue. Its not something I have ever had to consider. Its why we find our NHS so precious. Not perfect by any means but something we treasure very dearly
What do you think would be a fair premium?
Wouldn't have a clue. Its not something I have ever had to consider. Its why we find our NHS so precious. Not perfect by any means but something we treasure very dearly
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Insuring Risk
[QUOTE=Snowfire;1299303]Absolutely. I understand that. I'm not sure, though, that the analogy with motor insurance is fair. We can all get by without the car if we cant insure it for whatever reason. Emergency medical procedures are not a luxury. There very neccessary
We can also live with a host of medical maladies and so called emergencies that will not kill us but yet we seek treatment.
One persons emergency is another persons inconvenience.
We can also live with a host of medical maladies and so called emergencies that will not kill us but yet we seek treatment.
One persons emergency is another persons inconvenience.
Insuring Risk
librtyhead;1299082 wrote: I really am liking Lon and his common sense!:yh_glasse
Yeah because we all know that people with prior histories of illness, injury, and disease should go fn die already!
You people are fn clueless
Yeah because we all know that people with prior histories of illness, injury, and disease should go fn die already!
You people are fn clueless
Insuring Risk
K.Snyder;1299419 wrote: Yeah because we all know that people with prior histories of illness, injury, and disease should go fn die already!
You people are fn clueless
KC----I would like to respond, but for the life of me I don't understand your post.
Could you clarify? I'm a wee bit thick.
You people are fn clueless
KC----I would like to respond, but for the life of me I don't understand your post.
Could you clarify? I'm a wee bit thick.
Insuring Risk
Lon;1299421 wrote: KC----I would like to respond, but for the life of me I don't understand your post.
Could you clarify? I'm a wee bit thick.
Anyone against the treatment of preexisting injuries, illnesses, and diseases is very immoral. People act like alot of people hadn't before(Considering the passing of the current bill) never went to the Dr.'s office when not a damn was wrong with them. What changes now aside from Dr.'s having to treat people as opposed to symptoms?
Could you clarify? I'm a wee bit thick.
Anyone against the treatment of preexisting injuries, illnesses, and diseases is very immoral. People act like alot of people hadn't before(Considering the passing of the current bill) never went to the Dr.'s office when not a damn was wrong with them. What changes now aside from Dr.'s having to treat people as opposed to symptoms?
Insuring Risk
Lon;1299298 wrote: That was not my point--------my point had to do with costs and the fact that insurance costs (premiums) are based on risk and the greater the risk the greater the cost. If people are willing to accept those costs, then so be it, but to think that you can insure anything without great cost is a bit naive.
That an insurance company can take someone's money and then refuse to continue ensuring them because of a history of bad driving and numerous claims and that other insurers may also refuse insurance is understandable. That it can cost an 18 year old £2,800 the same make of car that costs me £228 to insure is also understandable.
In the UK if you are in an accident and your injuries are exacerbated because you were not wearing a seat belt the any likely payout is reduced due to contributory stupidity.
If we follow your argument if someone takes an action that potentially could result in extensive claims being made like smoking or allowing themselves to become obese companies should also be able to decline cover at renewal point and other insurers should have the refuse cover because obesity or smoking is a pre existing condition. That would also keep bring the rates down for the sensible majority and save resources for those prepared to help themselves. Why should treatment be offered to someone whose stupidity is the cause of their illness but happens to be rich enough to afford it but declined for someone who has no choice in the matter and is unable to work due to ill health?
You can do without a car. But healthcare is rather different is it not? You think as healthcare as a product that people buy. We think of healthcare as a right and the issue is how to you ensure everyone has access.
That you would consider it reasonable that someone born with a medical condition that will require extensive treatment be denied help unless they are lucky enough to have enough money and can pay I find really strange. Tough **** you're going to die doesn't seem terribly constructive. Would you feel the same if it was one of your grandchildren left to die? It seems country in a country so vexed over the issue of abortion that they find nothing wrong in leaving people without medical care to suffer and die if they are ill, but poor. Perhaps it's a belief that god is judging them in some way.
That an insurance company can take someone's money and then refuse to continue ensuring them because of a history of bad driving and numerous claims and that other insurers may also refuse insurance is understandable. That it can cost an 18 year old £2,800 the same make of car that costs me £228 to insure is also understandable.
In the UK if you are in an accident and your injuries are exacerbated because you were not wearing a seat belt the any likely payout is reduced due to contributory stupidity.
If we follow your argument if someone takes an action that potentially could result in extensive claims being made like smoking or allowing themselves to become obese companies should also be able to decline cover at renewal point and other insurers should have the refuse cover because obesity or smoking is a pre existing condition. That would also keep bring the rates down for the sensible majority and save resources for those prepared to help themselves. Why should treatment be offered to someone whose stupidity is the cause of their illness but happens to be rich enough to afford it but declined for someone who has no choice in the matter and is unable to work due to ill health?
You can do without a car. But healthcare is rather different is it not? You think as healthcare as a product that people buy. We think of healthcare as a right and the issue is how to you ensure everyone has access.
That you would consider it reasonable that someone born with a medical condition that will require extensive treatment be denied help unless they are lucky enough to have enough money and can pay I find really strange. Tough **** you're going to die doesn't seem terribly constructive. Would you feel the same if it was one of your grandchildren left to die? It seems country in a country so vexed over the issue of abortion that they find nothing wrong in leaving people without medical care to suffer and die if they are ill, but poor. Perhaps it's a belief that god is judging them in some way.
Insuring Risk
You think as healthcare as a product that people buy.
We think of healthcare as a right and the issue is how do you ensure everyone has access.
I think that about sums it all up.
We think of healthcare as a right and the issue is how do you ensure everyone has access.
I think that about sums it all up.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Insuring Risk
Lon;1299080 wrote: How can Health Insurance Companies not raise rates substantially. if people are brought in with Pre-exist ing conditions?
It's a basic tenet of insurance---TO HAVE INSURANCE WHEN YOU NEED IT, YOU MUST BUY IT WHEN YOU DON'T.
Costs will rise, of course slightly, I think, rather than dramatically. It'g good to be philanthropic, though - after all, we pay for all sorts of things through taxation that we don't all use - roads, schooling for children, etc.
It's a basic tenet of insurance---TO HAVE INSURANCE WHEN YOU NEED IT, YOU MUST BUY IT WHEN YOU DON'T.
Costs will rise, of course slightly, I think, rather than dramatically. It'g good to be philanthropic, though - after all, we pay for all sorts of things through taxation that we don't all use - roads, schooling for children, etc.
Insuring Risk
I know most americans think their system is wonderful and universal healthcare something dreadful but everybody looks at the states and wonder why on earth you accept such an appalling way of doing things.
YouTube - Newborn with Birth Defect Denied Health Care Coverage Because of 'Pre-existing Condition'
You're a bunch of mugs.
YouTube - Newborn with Birth Defect Denied Health Care Coverage Because of 'Pre-existing Condition'
You're a bunch of mugs.