Illustrative but pointless poll

The poll question is at the end. Read before voting.

Imagine the following situations:

1) You buy a new car and don't insure it. Some time later you total the car and then try to geit it insured.

2) You buy a house an don't get any insurance for it. Sometime later you get robbed and then try to insure your house against theft

3) You buy a house an don't get any insurance for it. Sometime later it burns down and your then try to insure your house against fire

Poll question: Do you think it's fair to try to get insurance only after you expereince misfortune, and that it would be fair to demand the insurance company to pay for damages in such cases?

Oh, bonus situation: you go through life without health insurance. One day you feel badly and go to the ER. there a doctor diagnoses you with diabetes. You try to get health insurance then.

Its called insurance for a reason...
Rather than calling it restitution...

deleted

With the three examples, it's fraud.

For the medical question, it might be fraud. If not, it falls under the umbrella of "Pre-Existing conditions" which are not covered.

It's not fraud if you don't lie. if you say "I just totalled my car and I would like to insure it," that's not fraud. Neither is saying "I just got diagnosed with a chronic condition that requires life-long medical care and drugs, I would like to get health insurance."

It's fraud if you lie about the condition of your car or your health.

All would be invalid claims. If you totalled your car at 10AM on June 30th, and try to insure the car at noon the same day, you won't get any money for that claim since it was made after the accident. Also, since most states require you to be insured, being uninsured getting into an auto accident you would likely have to pay a semi hefty fine, and pay for all damages OOP.

Nareed, in Vegas, you have emergency care insurance already whether you bought it or not (for all intents and purposes). Even if you had no money or insurance. Even if you never plan to pay for the care.

Everyone is entitled to care if you are seriously ill or injured. This the way the system already "was."

It's true all over the U.S.

Now if you just walk in, and tell them you have diabetes, they probably won't cover anything, and kick you the hell out.

Quote: Gabes22

Also, since most states require you to be insured, being uninsured getting into an auto accident you would likely have to pay a semi hefty fine, and pay for all damages OOP.

No state I am aware of requires you to insure your car. They require LIABILITY insurance, not "car insurance." (ie: collision/comprehensive)

In college I had a car that for years I didn't insure. Just had liability coverage as required by law.

If you outrightly own your vehicle you are correct. However, if your vehicle is currently being financed most states require collision and comp. Some require Uninsure motorist as well.

Nareed is alluding to the moral hazard piece of the Affordable Health Care Act. Posters here recognize the situations described are unfair, yet that exact type of situation is now allowable under US law.

Its your lender that requires the insurance, they own the car until its paid off therefore they wish to protect there property. Same for houses.

Quote: slyther

Nareed is alluding to the moral hazard piece of the Affordable Health Care Act. Posters here recognize the situations described are unfair, yet that exact type of situation is now allowable under US law.

Quite the opposite. I asked whether it's fair to try to insure after disease, theft, fire or accident and to demand the insurer pay. Most people say it isn't fair to do so.

Quote: rainman

Its your lender that requires the insurance, they own the car until its paid off therefore they wish to protect there property. Same for houses.

No. Actually it's state law.

Quote: Gabes22

No. Actually it's state law.

What state requires more than liability?

If you finance your vehicle, the contract stipulates that you must maintain comprehensive coverage to protect the lien holders interest. This is not a law.

Please post a link to your state law that requires more than a minimum liability.

Did some research on it. You're correct.

Not to miss the point that plenty of intelligent, articulate people cannot grasp this argument when you talk to them about health insurance. This puzzled me for years until I finally realized that in the US, we confuse "health insurance" with "the health care system" since in our country it is one big muddle.

Thus when someone argues that a person with some chronic, expensive condition should not be denied health insurance due to "previous condition", what they are really saying is that they don't believe we should deny said person health care... subsidized health care if necessary. Most of us agree with the sentiment, not all agree that modifying the current system is the best way.

IMO this is unfortunate and is not going to be fixed. Take a look at Obamacare, almost all of what it has managed to get to kick in so far is leaning on insurance companies to hew to what is seen as more fair treatment, such as in fact not allowing them to deny insurance due to previous condition.

Quote: odiousgambit

Thus when someone argues that a person with some chronic, expensive condition should not be denied health insurance due to "previous condition", what they are really saying is that they don't believe we should deny said person health care... subsidized health care if necessary. Most of us agree with the sentiment, not all agree that modifying the current system is the best way.

IMO this is unfortunate and is not going to be fixed. Take a look at Obamacare, almost all of what it has managed to get to kick in so far is leaning on insurance companies to hew to what is seen as more fair treatment, such as in fact not allowing them to deny insurance due to previous condition.

Well said.
Yes, a person should be allowed access to health care, even if he is sick.
The (shameful) fact that the only way to get that access in US is through what is (improperly) referred to as "insurance" does not make the socium caring for their sick "unfair".

Quote: odiousgambit

IMO this is unfortunate and is not going to be fixed. Take a look at Obamacare, almost all of what it has managed to get to kick in so far is leaning on insurance companies to hew to what is seen as more fair treatment, such as in fact not allowing them to deny insurance due to previous condition.

If insurers had to give me insurance regardless of pre-existting conditions, and charge me a regular premium besides, I'd drop my insurance right now. Why pay for years, if you can just pay when you get sick, right?

Therefore the idiocy of compelling everyone to get insurance.

Quote: Nareed

If insurers had to give me insurance regardless of pre-existting conditions, and charge me a regular premium besides, I'd drop my insurance right now. Why pay for years, if you can just pay when you get sick, right?

Therefore the idiocy of compelling everyone to get insurance.

Exactly! But why are you calling it "idiocy" right after showing yourself that it is the necessary measure that must be taken to make the whole thing work? How is it an "idiocy" to do what's necessary?

"Idiocy" is calling it "insurance", not making people have it.

Talk to any insurance executives. Earthquakes, floods and health are items that are bedecked with the language of insurance but are not insurance.

Real insurance involves known risks and known costs and a known coverage pool... all this changes with health insurance.

Money in medicine is made by those who control patient flow. This is why you don't see many Doctors R Us places or Quick Jab Check Up and Car Lube franchises. The gate keeper functionaries control patient flow. You want care: go a doctor in your insurer's plan and get the carrier's negotiated discount off the ticket price. You need Meds... doc can prescribe anything he wants as long as its in the Insurer's Formularly and is paid for at the Insurer's rate.

MRI needed? Insurer controls the medical imaging (which are money machines, usually owned by the Docs wanting the MRI) but where it gets done is Insurer controlled. A five hundred dollar ambulance across town when a two minute wheel chair ride is available means nothing to the Insurer who wants the lowest cost MRI fee. The insurer doesn't pay for the ambulance.

MRIs are rarely definitive... the wealthy get follow up tests, the middle class get the "worries" and the poor don't even get the MRI. All the expensive follow up tests are paid by someone other than the doc who prescribed the insurance.

Medical care is a bit like the criminal justice system: The DA who comes up with a jailhouse snitch to strengthen his weak case can get a defendant sentenced to 40 years. The DA gets another notch on his gun at very low cost but the taxpayers have to pay forty grand a year for the prison cell and 7 grand a year in welfare payments to his wife and kids.

Quote: FleaStiff

Medical care is a bit like the criminal justice system: The DA who comes up with a jailhouse snitch to strengthen his weak case can get a defendant sentenced to 40 years. The DA gets another notch on his gun at very low cost but the taxpayers have to pay forty grand a year for the prison cell and 7 grand a year in welfare payments to his wife and kids.

I came across a spouse bb for inmates where a woman was asking how to continue getting her husband's pay while he was in prison. It caused quite a laugh fest. (grrl you ain't gettin' no money! lolololol, etc.,)