“...but left the pre-existing conditions and “children” to age 26 intact.
Conservatives need to support this compromise. “
Pre-Existing condition is THE deal killer. This FORCES the insurance companies to “cover” extremely sick and costly individuals, so the cost is passed on to the rest. THIS pre-existing MANDATE has to go for a free market to operate properly.
Yes, but thanks to Obamacare, the precedent has already been set. You get rid of the pre-existing mandate coverage the bill will do even worse than Ryancare. This will likely be temporary or phased out over a certain period in the new bill, or risk-pools will be established that's separate from general coverage.
You do understand the concept of insurance?
>Pre-Existing condition is THE deal killer. This FORCES the insurance companies to “cover” extremely sick and costly individuals, so the cost is passed on to the rest. THIS pre-existing MANDATE has to go for a free market to operate properly.
Isn’t that the point of insurance? To spread out the costs and the risk?
Imagine, if you will, an insurance company that would grant coverage to someone after the wreck occurred.
What would the premiums be for everyone else?
There are workarounds that pencil out. That 30% premium in the last bill was one, and an exclusion of 90 to 120 days would be another. Combined with reinsurance for very high risk patients along with dropping the unlimited lifetime max and it’ll work out.
The big hangup is that they need to recognize that medical care for the poor will always be a money loser, and they need to create two totally different systems.