pre-existing healthcare conditions should not be covered. You

Don't we all agree one this already? Besides the socialists who want you to pay for all their crap.

>>127363484
1. Probably another shitty slide thread...
2. Don't be a fucking moron - this is like the one thing *everyone* wants in health coverage.

"Oh your child was born with that heart defect? Sorry, not covered - pre-existing"

"Oh you worked 25 years, got laid off and have cancer? Sorry, not covered - pre-existing!"

what if its something your born with i.e. epilepsy

dont get me wrong I dont want to pay for some smoke stacks lung cancer chemo or lardos bypass and beatties pills, but theres gotta be some exceptions

File: 1276295304237.jpg (82KB, 502x600px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 502x600px

>>127363484

That's because it's just a weasel attempt at universal healthcare, and healthcare is not a right by definition. A right is only something that obliges another not to infringe upon. So the argument that healthcare is a "right" doesn't pass basic scrutiny on this principle. All enumerated rights in the constitution do.

People seem to forget what insurance means when it comes to health insurance. What someone is born with a condition? The only reason insurance should be involved would be if the parents purchased it before their child was born. Other than that, the insurance industry doesn't have much to offer.

Insurance is not healthcare, using an insurance company to purchase healthcare only adds a middleman to your transaction. Insurance companies aren't charities, if they tried to function as such, they'd go out of business. Insurance companies aren't government welfare programs, if you want welfare programs, why not just demand welfare programs instead of pushing for an unholy alliance between government and private enterprise?

>>127363484
im not necessarily against pre existing conditions being covered or not

but what happens to the guy with diabetes who breaks his leg

he gets fucked because he has diabetes?

File: David_Cameron.jpg (34KB, 306x428px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 306x428px

>>127363484
>Discuss
Fuck You

>>127364324
>"Oh you worked 25 years, got laid off and have cancer? Sorry, not covered - pre-existing!"

That's why socialized healthcare works when done right - because you spent those 25 years paying into it.

>>127366371
if he had insurance after he got diabetes, but not before he broke his leg, he gets coverage for his broken leg.

?

>>127364324

>still doesnt understand insurance

The problem with the US having universal healthcare is the same as banning guns. You have 300 million guns, you can't and shouldn't try to retroactively ban them. Way too late.

You have 300 million people, you can't and shouldn't try to retroactively insure them.

Maybe it could be done within a generation. The system exists, but taxes are not collected for anybody born before 1999, and nobody born before 1999 is insured, if the system was to be implemented in 2017.

That way, there is no issue of having to unprofitably, retroactively insure 300 million people that never paid into it, and the people that have access to it will have been paying into it their entire adult lives via tax.

>>127363484
I'm a developer. I do real estate. I am in a lifestyle real estate club in Dallas. We look for foreclosures where the owner(s) got sick and couldn't make the payments because they didn't have insurance. So they lose their investment (many thousands) and I buy their houses for pennies on the dollar or maybe just for back taxes. We pay HOA officials (don't tell anyone) to let us know if any widows with dementia aren't making payments. Then we wait, foreclose on the old sick person, kick their ass out and rehab the home if necessary. We make a couple hundred thousand on "deals" in prominent neighborhoods in DFW and Houston especially. So, too bad if you get sick buddy because I'll get your home and we pay a lot in campaign donations to keep us ahead of you.

>>127367290
How about giving everyone who's purchased insurance in the past a tax break?

>>127367517
Suddenly your administration of the program eats up half your budget trying to make that work.

>>127363484
By that logic people who dont have health problems and never go to the doctor should get a refund at the end of the year.

You cant have your cake and eat it too, Shekelberg.

>>127367290
Maybe, further to that, people born after 1999 can opt in to pay the tax and be covered, with a giant blinking rule that NO PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS are covered.