I hate to say it but the pre-existing conditions provision in this bill has broad appeal. Trying to overturn that will be detrimental to the overall effort of repealing the bad stuff. There may be a better way to implement the concept such as using the high risk pools that have been discussed, but ultimately there needs to be some way for people with pre-existing conditions to purchase insurance at a reasonable price.
Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The most important thing right now is for the Republicans to take back control of the Congress this year so we can put an end to the socialist hysteria that has gripped Washington. Then we can work on improvements from there.
It really wouldn’t be insurance, it would be a maintenance plan.
McCain offered that with health insurance pools similiar to what’s available with high risk property and auto insurance on a state by state basis. The percentage of business the company writes in the state, they must take that same percent in the pool.
The Dems balked at that.
There is NO DOUBT that pre-existing conditions issues need to be met. But to make mandatory for every insurance company is impossible.
Correct.
Corker said they need to "punch big holes" in this bill and not necessarily run on repealing the whole thing.
Yes, full repeal can happen over time, but just take huge bites out of for now IMO.
“but ultimately there needs to be some way for people with pre-existing conditions to purchase insurance at a reasonable price”
There is a way, I’m sure, but only the free market could ever come up with it. However, no, there doesn’t need to be a way. We have to stop looking at things from the perspective that either everyone has to live a happy life of technicolor lollipops, or the federal government must take over.
“Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”
But the bill cannot possibly be “good” with a ban on dropping people for preexisting conditions. Aside from the mandate on individuals to purchase insurance, the preexisitng conditions part is the absolute WORST part of the bill.
I understand the problems with the limitation, but holding up the high-risk pools as a shining example is wrong.
The amount they charge is insane...nobody can afford that.
The key phrase here is "reasonable price". What's "reasonable"? I think that reasonable prices are those sufficient to ensure the policy issuer a profit. Others think that such premiums will be "unaffordable" (another favorite weasel-word).
The truth of the matter is that forcing insurance companies to write policies for sick people and limiting what their premiums will be is a transfer payment from the more-healthy policy buyers to the less-healthy ones. If this is what you propose then please state so explicitly.
I don’t see how ANYONE can approve of that provision. Perhaps create a pool for extreme cases? I hate that idea, but THAT is better than FORCING a private company to take on a case that would otherwise be rejected.
Or, don’t restrict the RATES an insurance company can charge if they HAVE TO TAKE ON extremely bad risks.
Good God. Where does it stop?
“Hey, I’ve had 3 speeding tickets in the last 2 years, I’ve had 5 accidents in which I’ve been found to be at fault in the last 3, I’ve had 5 DUIs. I drive a 2009 Red Corvette and I’m 19 years old. I demand coverage.”
Gimme a break.