[DoodleDawg]

Insurance for those with pre-existing conditions is not insurance.

Argue semantics if you want but that doesn't change the fact that this is one of the few popular features of Obamacare and the GOP is working to eliminate it without any alternative. Optics on this won't be good.

[italianquaker]

President Trump keeps making the rats look bad whatever the issue. They win for a week and than he wins for the duration

[Political Junkie Too]

Argue semantics if you want but that doesn't change the fact that this is one of the few popular features of Obamacare and the GOP is working to eliminate it without any alternative. Optics on this won't be good.

Here are my thoughts on "pre-existing conditions."

1. I see two "classes" of pre-existing conditions:
   • The "bad class" are those who wait until they get sick and then try to get insurance. These are the people who get into auto accidents without insurance and then complain about the costs, and who have house fires without insurance and then complain about the costs.
   • The "good class" are those with a history of continuous health insurance, likely provided through their employer, who contract one condition or another as many aging people do and have it treated through their plans, who then lose their jobs and employer-provided health care and suddenly find themselves with "pre-existing conditions" when seeking new health care coverage.
2. To the "bad class," I can see the immense popularity that pre-existing condition coverage would have for these people, as it rewards them for earlier irresponsible behavior. At this point, I haven't attributed motive to this class, but it could be that:
   • They are young and healthy and were willing to assume the risk,
   • They were unmarried and didn't feel the burden of family responsibility yet,
   • They were barely getting by and couldn't afford the insurance premiums.
3. To the "good class," I can see the popularity that might come from making pre-existing condition coverage available.
   • These people had plans they liked that were covering their conditions, and doctors they liked that were managing their conditions.
   • ObamaCare converted existing conditions into a pre-existing conditions when it set the framework for driving out he health care plans that Obama insisted people could keep. These people wouldn't have pre-existing conditions if there were no ObamaCare.
   • ObamaCare's "employer mandate" destroyed the 40-hour work week by converting full-time workers to part-time (under 30 hours per week) to avoid triggering the mandate. This caused people to either lose their jobs or lose wages, resulting in losing their health care insurance. Again, ObamaCare itself was the catalyst for converting existing conditions into pre-existing conditions through no fault of the person.

So, I think there are "semantic" arguments to be made here. At the least:

• One could express sympathy with the plight of the "good class" of people who were doing the right thing but were harmed by ObamaCare.
• One could offer potential solutions to the "good class," such as portable insurance options so that people don't feel tied to their employers or at risk when laid off from jobs.
• One could encourage the "bad class" to rethink their options, or offer other insurance packages like combining health and auto coverage together where the same premium covers whichever condition occurs first (illness or accident), or something else.

Personally, I would appeal to the responsible majority who didn't want ObamaCare, but wanted a solution to the pre-existing condition paradox they found themselves in because of ObamaCare. I would treat the appeal to the others as the "tail wagging the dog," offering some options but not making the whole health care system cater to them.

-PJ