GOP Fears Trump’s War On Pre-Existing Condition Protections Will Backfire Bigly

[Chosen Daughter]

@Free Vulcan
I think the perception originally came from pharma.   Part of their marketing and manipulation.   I'm not against profits but this sure seems like uncontrolled greed.   They control regulation to keep out competition and push through profitable drugs.  Its not about curing the sick for these people.  Its about finding a drug that covers up the symptoms so people have to take it every day.

I've found the research institutes to be much more honest.  I worked with a cancer one and found the people there to be extremely caring.  To the point they would attend funerals for children they had tried to help.

I am not against free market either.  But big pharma is subsidized by government.  Huge lobbying.  I used to have pharma stock through a company I worked for.  I remember getting a letter to vote for Bush.  This really is corporate greed and people are expected to fall in line and take all the things your Dr. prescribes.  It is a money making scam.  That is why they have jailed people for natural cures.

[Right_in_Virginia]

An acquaintance of mine was all up in a tizzy one day because her friends insurance company stopped paying for a drug.   The friend has cerebral palsy and requires a drug that costs over $30,000 a month. 

A terrible disease but 30k a month for the rest of your life is a lot to expect.

Look at you .... a death panel of one.

What else is a lot to expect:  bypass surgery after 60?

[driftdiver]

Look at you .... a death panel of one.

What else is a lot to expect:  bypass surgery after 60?

@Right_in_Virginia
You are free to write a check for the $30k,   I can get the address for you.

[dfwgator]

Its always good to get a second opinion on anything major.

"Ok, you're ugly, too!"

[driftdiver]

"Ok, you're ugly, too!"

@dfwgator
Heck that doesnt require a second opinion.  Even my momma would agree

[Bigun]

I am not against free market either.  But big pharma is subsidized by government.  Huge lobbying.  I used to have pharma stock through a company I worked for.  I remember getting a letter to vote for Bush.  This really is corporate greed and people are expected to fall in line and take all the things your Dr. prescribes.  It is a money making scam.  That is why they have jailed people for natural cures.

Most legislation is not actually written by congressional staff but by lobbyist over on K Street.  This is a major reason why we desperately need to junk the current income tax code and replace it with the fairtax.

[Jazzhead]

The problem is that pre-existing conditions have no place in insurance. Insurance is based on the probability that you will get sick. If you throw pre-existing conditions in, it becomes a welfare program.

The fact that our GOP reps in DC are all in a tizzy over it just shows how pathetic they have become.

Yes, BUT -  the system has never let free riders experience the true cost of their choices.   That was why a key component of ObamaCare was the individual mandate designed to force everyone to carry insurance.   Free riders still have the ability to go to emergency rooms and force those of us who are responsible to pay more (in increased insurance rates) to pay for their care.   But conservatives howled about the individual mandate, demanding the "freedom" to be irresponsible and glom off of others.     

What we have now is the worst of all possible worlds - no individual mandate, no reform of the ObamaCare changes (including its prohibition of no coverage for pre-existing conditions) that jacked up insurance premiums so high, and no relief for hospitals forced to care for the free riders.   

[Free Vulcan]

Yes, BUT -  the system has never let free riders experience the true cost of their choices.   That was why a key component of ObamaCare was the individual mandate designed to force everyone to carry insurance.   Free riders still have the ability to go to emergency rooms and force those of us who are responsible to pay more (in increased insurance rates) to pay for their care.   But conservatives howled about the individual mandate, demanding the "freedom" to be irresponsible and glom off of others.     

What we have now is the worst of all possible worlds - no individual mandate, no reform of the ObamaCare changes (including its prohibition of no coverage for pre-existing conditions) that jacked up insurance premiums so high, and no relief for hospitals forced to care for the free riders.

We had 'free riders' before Obamacare and premiums were much lower. They are a problem, but a problem that can be minimized without an individual mandate. The pre-existings are a bigger problem. We really are not dealing with either effectively.

[Jazzhead]

We had 'free riders' before Obamacare and premiums were much lower. They are a problem, but a problem that can be minimized without an individual mandate. The pre-existings are a bigger problem. We really are not dealing with either effectively.

How do you propose that we deal with folks with pre-existing conditions?   If we require insurance companies to issue policies covering pre-existing conditions, costs will naturally sky-rocket.   The law does need to effectively protect those who act responsibly, by making sure that folks who are already covered by insurance can't lose that coverage when they get sick.    But folks still have the option of not buying insurance, and those folks inevitably get sick.   How should their costs be addressed?  Should hospitals be allowed to deny care to folks without insurance?     

[Sanguine]

How do you propose that we deal with folks with pre-existing conditions?   If we require insurance companies to issue policies covering pre-existing conditions, costs will naturally sky-rocket.   The law does need to effectively protect those who act responsibly, by making sure that folks who are already covered by insurance can't lose that coverage when they get sick.    But folks still have the option of not buying insurance, and those folks inevitably get sick.   How should their costs be addressed?  Should hospitals be allowed to deny care to folks without insurance?   

Insurance can't, by definition, take care of uninsurable people.  The states, local governments and charities will have to take care of people who can't afford insurance and can't afford their medical care.

[Right_in_Virginia]

@Right_in_Virginia
You are free to write a check for the $30k,   I can get the address for you.

Your conclusion that the dollar amount "is too much to expect for the rest of his life"  would be a standard reply from a death panel.  And it just slid right off your fingers onto the screen ... and now you're defending it.

Is this more conservatism?

[ABX]

What war on preexisting conditions?

[Sanguine]

Your conclusion that the dollar amount "is too much to expect for the rest of his life"  would be a standard reply from a death panel.  And it just slid right off your fingers onto the screen ... and now you're defending it.

Is this more conservatism?

Who do you want to pay for it?  Someone has to.

[Bigun]

Insurance can't, by definition, take care of uninsurable people.  The states, local governments and charities will have to take care of people who can't afford insurance and can't afford their medical care.

As they did before Obamacare came to be.

[Emjay]

Gripe fests are fun and we all have our stories.  I wish government would get out of health care but it may be a while.

In the meantime, it is not reasonable to expect insurers to cover pre-existing conditions. 

[ABX]

Who do you want to pay for it?  Someone has to.

Prior to the ACA, there was what was known as the preexisting condition pool. This was a partial subsidy, partial reinsurance pool that helped pay insurance companies to offer services for people with preexisting conditions. Yes, it cost those people more but from what I've seen it was still less than the outrageous ACA costs- especially deductible and co-pay.

No, not every insurance company took part in it, just a few, so it was up to the patient and/or family to research this to find the plan that meets their needs. This was replaced by the government being the babysitter.

[Sanguine]

Prior to the ACA, there was what was known as the preexisting condition pool. This was a partial subsidy, partial reinsurance pool that helped pay insurance companies to offer services for people with preexisting conditions. Yes, it cost those people more but from what I've seen it was still less than the outrageous ACA costs- especially deductible and co-pay.

No, not every insurance company took part in it, just a few, so it was up to the patient and/or family to research this to find the plan that meets their needs. This was replaced by the government being the babysitter.

Yes, that was one way.  @Right_in_Virginia seemed to have a plan to pay for this kind of thing and I was curious as to what it is. 

[Free Vulcan]

How do you propose that we deal with folks with pre-existing conditions?   If we require insurance companies to issue policies covering pre-existing conditions, costs will naturally sky-rocket.   The law does need to effectively protect those who act responsibly, by making sure that folks who are already covered by insurance can't lose that coverage when they get sick.    But folks still have the option of not buying insurance, and those folks inevitably get sick.   How should their costs be addressed?  Should hospitals be allowed to deny care to folks without insurance?   

The answer @Jazzhead is 'I don't know'. You can do exclusions to give them some kind of insurance. You could incentivize employers, insurance companies, and hospitals with tax credits to minimize premiums and costs. Create multistate pools and let insurance companies take as many as they can allow and yet remain competitive.

There is no one size fits all solution - you will have to whittle down as much of the problem as you can then deal with what's left.

I don't know the answer for 'free riders' either, other than pooling them into Medicare and adjusting the Medicare tax to reflect as an insurance premium, as a start.

[Bigun]

Prior to the ACA, there was what was known as the preexisting condition pool. This was a partial subsidy, partial reinsurance pool that helped pay insurance companies to offer services for people with preexisting conditions. Yes, it cost those people more but from what I've seen it was still less than the outrageous ACA costs- especially deductible and co-pay.

No, not every insurance company took part in it, just a few, so it was up to the patient and/or family to research this to find the plan that meets their needs. This was replaced by the government being the babysitter.

That's right!  And if we could get the people in Washington to remove the impediments to truly free insurance markets we would see dramatic drops in costs!

[Jazzhead]

Insurance can't, by definition, take care of uninsurable people. 

Sure it can,  if people get insurance before they become uninsurable.   That is the concept behind the individual mandate - to effectively require that everyone purchase insurance and be part of the risk pool.   The larger the insurance pool, the more resources are available to address care for folks when they get sick.

There is and was lots wrong with ObamaCare.   But the one thing it got right was the individual mandate - ironically, the one pillar of O-Care that's been repealed.   And now, the repeal of the individual mandate coupled with the lack of movement on creating market alternatives to the gold-plated O-Care plans serves to increase the unaffordability problem that encourages free riders.     

[driftdiver]

That's right!  And if we could get the people in Washington to remove the impediments to truly free insurance markets we would see dramatic drops in costs!

The insurance companies helped write Obamacare.  They have no interest in reducing insurance costs.  Costs will come down through competition and decreased regulation.

[goodwithagun]

How do you propose that we deal with folks with pre-existing conditions?   If we require insurance companies to issue policies covering pre-existing conditions, costs will naturally sky-rocket.   The law does need to effectively protect those who act responsibly, by making sure that folks who are already covered by insurance can't lose that coverage when they get sick.    But folks still have the option of not buying insurance, and those folks inevitably get sick.   How should their costs be addressed?  Should hospitals be allowed to deny care to folks without insurance?   

I already posted that: Remove all federal laws requiring employers to insure their employees. $3K MRIs will become $300 MRIs, $500 well child will become $50 well child, etc.

[Sanguine]

Sure it can,  if people get insurance before they become uninsurable.   That is the concept behind the individual mandate - to effectively require that everyone purchase insurance and be part of the risk pool.   The larger the insurance pool, the more resources are available to address care for folks when they get sick.

There is and was lots wrong with ObamaCare.   But the one thing it got right was the individual mandate - ironically, the one pillar of O-Care that's been repealed.   And now, the repeal of the individual mandate coupled with the lack of movement on creating market alternatives to the gold-plated O-Care plans serves to increase the unaffordability problem that encourages free riders.     

You're playing semantics and avoiding the actual content of my comment.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

The answer @Jazzhead is 'I don't know'. You can do exclusions to give them some kind of insurance. You could incentivize employers, insurance companies, and hospitals with tax credits to minimize premiums and costs. Create multistate pools and let insurance companies take as many as they can allow and yet remain competitive.

There is no one size fits all solution - you will have to whittle down as much of the problem as you can then deal with what's left.

I don't know the answer for 'free riders' either, other than pooling them into Medicare and adjusting the Medicare tax to reflect as an insurance premium, as a start.

Pre-existing conditions should be covered by the insurance policy which was in effect at the time of diagnosis.

[Free Vulcan]

Pre-existing conditions should be covered by the insurance policy which was in effect at the time of diagnosis.

True, but if they are diagonsed while having no insurance is the problem.