Pre Existing Conditions are Common Sense


The other day I heard someone talking about the state of our healthcare system.  I don’t think anyone really thinks our current system is (was) perfect, but one thing I can’t stand is the obsession with pre-existing conditions.  Maybe worse than people throwing around ‘”pre existing conditions” is the reason why they should be mandated by the government….”because it is common sense.”

“Because it is common sense” might be the single worst argument for anything, anywhere.  The reason we tie our shoes or look both ways before we cross the street is not because it is common sense. Saying it is common sense to cover pre-existing conditions not only isn’t common sense, it doesn’t make any sense at all.

Insurance is a way to spread risk to one person out among many people.  The key word is “risk”.  Risk is defined by as “the exposure to chance of injury or loss”.  The reason your car insurance doesn’t cover your oil change or your annual inspection (if your state requires one) is because there is no risk involved, it is a guaranteed 100% those events will happen.  Since car insurance is actual insurance every time you turn on the TV you see an ad from Progressive, 21st, Geico, Safe Auto, etc. advertising about their low rates that most of the population is more than happy to pay to cover any unforseen accident.

When it comes to health insurance, I’ve talked to many people who want their employer to pay for it, have no deductible or co-pay, and have everything under the sun covered, including annual check ups and pre-existing conditions, neither one of which is an unforseen risk.  I’ve actually heard multiple people at my former employer complain about a $30 co-pay.  That is insanity.  Having insurance carriers pay for annual check ups and pre-existing conditions isnt transferring your risk, it is having someone else pay for you. You know you’re going to the doctor once a year, why should anyone other than you pay for that? You don’t have to go, you choose to go.

The same goes for pre-existing conditions.  While it sounds cold-hearted or down right mean, why should you be able to go to some else and force them to pay your medical bills?  If a local church or charity decides to raise money to help you with your bills, I think that’s great.  If an insurance carrier, for some strange reason, decides to charge you $100/month to cover your $300/month medical bills then they should be allowed to do that too, just don’t force them to.  It gives people an incentive to wait until something happens to them (cancer, broken arm, the flu, etc.) to get covered.  If pre-existing conditions are required to be covered, I will cancel my insurance immediately and not buy it until I am in an ambulance.  The problem with that is that I won’t be the only one to do that, rates will increase exponentially, and politicians will argue that the federal government must step in because greedy insurance executives and lining their pockets with insane rates charges to suffering people.  Uncle Sam will turn into the only health insurance carrier in the country and we’ll be forced to accept “free” healthcare paid for by half our pay checks….Obamacare is just the first step to a single payer.

God bless freedom, liberty, and personal property,

Slappy Jones II

newest oldest most voted
Notify of
You are 100% correct. I feel for people who have pre-existing conditions that raise their premiums, but it’s the same reason that Lindsay Lohan should pay a higher auto insurance rate- she is more likely to use it. Even before Obamacare was passed, many people already behaved as if health insurance (NOT HEALTHCARE) was a right instead of a product that they wanted/needed/desired. They didn’t care what procedures cost and had every test run under the sun as long as they only had to pay a $30 copay. Ludicrous. An equivalent would be if there was food insurance that limited… Read more »
Rollo McFloogle

“While it sounds cold-hearted or down right mean, why should you be able to go to some else and force them to pay your medical bills?”


I would think that most people would agree that it would be wrong to hold someone at gunpoint to get them to pay for a medical procedure for you, why is it also not wrong if the government does it?