Why do people think that you should be able to get insurance AFTER you get sick?

One of the things on the table is being able for you to pay the "tax" for not having insurance but being able to get insurance at any time regardless of pre-existing conditions. Does anyone in Wash. use their heads? Imagine if that applied to car insurance. I'd pay $800 just so I didn't have to have insurance if I knew right after I got into a wreck I could get insurance and pay for it that way.

Insurance companies cancel your insurance after you get sick.

Then no one else will insure you.

A small business owner here, about 35 got breast cancer. She was insured, got a mastectomy and three years later got it again.

Her insurance company dropped her, now, having no insurance and unable to get it anywhere else, she went through her savings, lost her business, her husband left, and she can't really take care of her kids.

To really top it off, two days after finding out she had another bout of cancer, she suddenly got a herniated bowel. Her insurance company wouldn't cover that either.

What you are missing is that people who do buy insurance before they are ill, are dropped after wards, and then they can't get insurance anywhere.

Whats the good of paying into the system for years if its not going to be there when we need it? Why not just ship our money to the company and forget about it?

There isn't any reason to TD me on this, its the simple truth.

Its that invincibility thing, younger people think only the fat, the drunk, the sick need care, not them. Then they do and they find out its not available past emergency care. That they are expected to pay for it, and that surprises them, they don't know and don't want to know that they are just as human as everyone else.

You can be healthy today, and find a lump tomorrow.

Then you are in the soup, but the problem isn't so much that people don't have it as insurance companies won't sell it.

They only want to cherry pick the youngest, healthiest, non-sports minded people. Non-sports minded because injuries are very expensive in athletes.

The point is still this, you CAN buy it and STILL not have the coverage you thought you paid for. Those who take chances are simply taking chances, and we see so many here who will tell you that they don't need it that I figure we need a card for them to carry that says DO NOT TREAT IN CASE OF ILLNESS OR INJURY. They should get what they want.

The issue isn't whether you should be able to get insurance after you get sick ... it's why shouldn't everyone be covered by a universal health care system. In such a world you wouldn't need health insurance per se. Every other developed country in the world has universal health care. The US doesn't, and as a result an estimated 100,000+ people per year die unnecessarily in the US. Getting sick is one of the highest causes of personal bankruptcy. AND the system is rated 37th in the world for overall effectiveness, while 1st in expenditure.

In case that last point isn't clear, it means that the US pays the most and gets poor results.

And this you want to keep/defend/??

EDIT: Response to your additional info ... You are right. You shouldn't be able to buy "insurance" if you know you have a condition, BUT you are missing the point ... people shouldn't have to be covered by a commercial insurance company and buy conventional insurance. There should be universal coverage for everyone. Whether a commercial company or a government agency runs such a system doesn't matter, it shouldn't allow cancellation for pre-existing conditions.

BTW .. arguments that government isn't competent to run health care are stupid. We trust them to run the armed forces, FBI, post office, food safety, drug and medical device regulation, etc., why not health care?

Because it's nice to play the lotto after the numbers are picked. The odds are more in your favor that way.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,564501,00.html