As long as we're passing health care and thus doing more damage than the terrorists, I'd like to suggest one change:
Stop terrorizing the English language. I'm talking about the term, "pre-existing condition." The prefix "pre" is totally unnecessary, like Republicans at a policy debate. Adding "pre"doesn't make something exist any harder just as ending a sentence with multiple question marks doesn't make it any more a question.
What if we applied the same type of grammar to other words. Would we have "post-history?" "Past-previous?"
I think we need to end the Insurance industry's abuse of the English language with such phrases as "pre-existing condition."
And I think we need to be pro-active about it.
4 comments:
As much of a word-nerd as I am, I think I may have to disagree on this one. If you leave off the "pre" and the insurance company says that they're turning you down because of an "existing condition", then your response would be, "Of COURSE it's an existing condition or else I wouldn't need to be treated for it!" Pre-existing is just an effort to say that this condition was there before you got the insurance and they're not gonna cover it. Perhaps it would be more grammatical to call it an "already-existing" condition, or a "previously-contracted" condition, but hey, if you can buy a "semi-boneless" piece of meat at the grocery, then I say all bets are off.
Welcome back!
You did not loose this reader at least. ;-)
Well, two of my three readers are here!
@Gilahi -- I still don't think the "pre" is needed...I stand by my pre-existing argument.
Well, it's difficult to argue with a preconceived notion.
Post a Comment