Posted on 11/06/2009 7:20:04 AM PST by SeekAndFind
I have have a Canadian friend who keeps telling me that Canada's healthcare system is better because it caters to ANYONE regardless of pre-existing condition.
In other words, the Canadian system has a safety net for people ( who through no fault of their own ) were born unhealthy ( asthma, diabetes, etc. ).
In the USA, people who have these conditions cannot be insured because they are a drain on insurance companies and most of them are not poor enough to qualify for medicaid. The result is it drains the family's budget and makes the middle class actually poorer.
Since people with pre-existing condition are un-insurable, how are they going to cope ?
Let's say you were a conservative politician running for national office and were asked this question about how people with pre-existing conditions can best be helped, how would you respond ?
Since FR is a discussion thread, I'd like to hear your suggestions on how to solve this problem ( SERIOUS ANSWERS ONLY PLEASE, wisecracks and one liners not welcome ).
Thanks all
Yes. Have the insurance company (if any) that covered the individual fully or partially responsible.
Since the illness occurred during that time but was not treated until later then the first should cover the cost.
Self-ping for later. I, too, am interested in what Freepers have to say on this. I’d like to know how to answer my liberal nephew who wants Obamacare because of people with preexisting conditions. I myself am taking medication for something and wonder what would happen if I switched jobs. Will my new employer’s insurance refuse me because of “preexisting condition”?
That should Read _ The company that had coverage earlier.....
I would like to see something like that; primarily because it would remove one of the underpinnings for the wholesale overhaul now being considered. I would even consent to a token $10 or so monthly fee taken out of everyone else’s insurance to pay for a “national disabled fund” *except* for the single notion that placing such a fund in governments’ hands would invite summary theft of same.
Pre-existing conditions is a straw-man argument because current law forbids insurance companies from denying coverage after one year of the condition treatment.
Increased competition will help fill in the gaps. Just like auto insurance, there are policies for high risk drivers. Yes, they may have to pay more, but whenever there is a service gap, someone will fill it.
This is a very good question, SeekAndFind!
I’d really like to see some ideas, too. Sadly, I’m too ig’nert of the system to have any clue.
(Bookmarking this for later)
This is the ONE issue I have with the conservative stance on healthcare. Especially with people losing their jobs left and right.
My mom had insurance through her employer. She was diagnosed with cancer, stage IV. In order to get her disability insurance, she had to quit her job, not just be out on leave. However by quitting her job, she had to move to COBRA which was nearly triple the cost.
Now I know that is not someone else’s problem, but when I see my own family torn up in this case, I know how it must feel with jobs being lost everyday.
So, I’m interested in a conservative plan as well. I do think there are some good ideas in a risk pool type plan like they have for auto insurance and property insurance. But those plans are extremely expensive due to the high risk, and you are right back where you were before.
There does seem to be a need, overhauling the healthcare isn’t the answer. But with unemployment as it is, interstate health insurance sales isn’t going to do very much right now.
We have the best health care in the world. If you are penniless you can go into great emergency rooms around the country AND NOT BE DENIED CARE.
Depending on your financial circumstance you will then either be considered indigent and have it waived, or get on some payment plan to cover it.
A pre-existing condition cannot be "insured" because it has already happened and trying to do something like that will bankrupt the system and drive it to a government solution...which will be far worse in terms of quality of care and ultimately (due to rationing) in terms of extent of care.
Sorry...in life people get sick and die. We are not going to stop that. A free market solution means the most people will get the best care. Just like it has meant that the most people will rise in their economic standing and create the envy of th world when it comes to standard of living and individual wealth.
That is really what this debate is about. The socialists and marxists wanting to foist control on the economy and destroy the free market.
If you’ve been on the medication for more than a year, it is against the law for them to deny you coverage. Sure, you may have to pay more, but you will be able to get insurance.
But in all seriousness, the best way to deal with pre-existing conditions is to allow for insurance companies to sell cheaply priced catastrophic insurance coverage. Throw in some other adjustments to make the premiums as cheap as possible. This will entice more people to buy this type of insurance and it will help to prevent the pre-existing condition problem.
Also keep in mind that HIPAA regulations effectively solve this problem for people who switch jobs and insurance plans. So for most people in the USA who work regular jobs with benefits included, this is not an issue.
Don't forget that the reason insurers do not want to cover pre-existing conditions is because if they were required to do so, no one would buy insurance. They would wait until they got sick to buy it. It'd be like buying liability car insurance after you caused a crash.
I’m not sure about diabetes, but my son and daughter both have asthma and they are insured under my wife’s policy from where she works. The insurance company pays for their inhalers, and any medication they need. The company is Aetna.
I’m sure there are web sites that you can search which give you a full overview.
It is my understanding that group policies through an employer do not exclude pre-existing conditions, and individual policies only exclude pre-existing conditions for a set period of time.
I was diagnosed with a curable cancer in 2008 and am presently receiving follow-up care and scans. If I lose my job, I have COBRA coverage available and any future job with a group health insurance plan will cover my medical care. It appears that the one difficult thing would be starting my own one-man company or small business. Other than that, I should be able to have care if I or my wife have a job with a company that offers a health plan.
One of my employee's husband has diabetes with a non healing wound. He has had numerous hyperbarric treatments. There is no threat of dropping his coverage.
Separate insurance from employment so individuals and families make the decision directly for their needs. That way, they do not make changes to their insurance the way you have to today when you leave a job or get fired/laid off, or if employers do not provide health care.
Encouraging lifetime policies would help bring the overall cost down and keep people insured.
Your parents buy you a policy at birth that you simply keep as long as premiums are paid. This is one that is owned instead of being a leased one from your employer.
This would be an affordable solution if the government would reverse some of the ridiculous requirements that they have on insurance companies today.
Well said.
US care is expensive due to extremely high medical insurance, and because it’s being given to people who have no right to it.
If we care about the poorest in our society we owe it to them to get rid of the parasitic forces that weigh down the medical system.
I believe the best answer is to find a way to qualify for small group guaranteed issue health insurance, even if you must start your own business to do so.
Many states have high risk pools but they can be very costly.
This is a very important issue. We all have pre-existing conditions whether we know about them or not.
I worry about how my wife, a stroke survivor will fare if something were to happen to me. Here in Colorado, there is a state program for folks like her, but I don’t know if she would have to first spend everything I leave her first.
Health insurance needs to be moved away from being employer based and pools set up large enough to make it affordable, and denial due to pre-existing conditions needs to be done with.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.