subject: Should Health Care Cover Pre-existing Conditions? [print this page] One of the key areas of the healthcare reform bill focuses on insurance companies providing coverage for pre-existing conditions. It has been estimated that over the last three years, more than twelve million Americans were denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition. While this portion of the new health care law would help a large number of people, many debate whether or not it would be healthy for the insurance industry on the whole.
Even under nationalized health care, the insurance industry will still be private. Forcing the industry to take on every type of pre-existing condition could cause a variety of new issues. It also begs the question of 'why should they'.
If you are thinking this sounds a bit harsh or cold, consider these facts:
If you had a car that was ten years old, with the regular amount of dents and rust, and you get into an accident tomorrow, you would not request the insurance company to cover the "pre-existing" damage.
If you find yourself on the side of the road with a tire that has gone flat, and you call triple A at that time and sign up for a new membership, you would not expect that they would come out and address your "pre-existing" condition.
If you purchase a new appliance and you are offered an extended warranty and decline it, then later on have major problems with the appliance, you would not expect they would then sell you the warranty to cover the "pre-existing" problem.
If you do not have homeowner's insurance and you experience a fire that destroys everything, you would not call an insurance company the next day to request coverage for your "pre-existing" home.
If all of these scenarios are viewed as "no brainers", why do people naturally expect that their health insurance company should agree to take on all of their pre-existing health problems? This is not patient discrimination as the health care reform bill states; it is simply the way the insurance industry operates.
