So in short, it's legislation claiming to protect coverage for pre-existing conditions that guarantees that an insurance company can exclude to cover you for pre-existing conditions if they choose.
Leave it to the GOP to come up with an alternative that has a gap in it guaranteed to give the Democrats something to hammer them with.
So google and Apple and twitter and visa and MasterCard can discriminate and iboerson people they don’t want.
But insurance companies must cover people who refuse to buy insurance, get sick and then try to sign up for medical coverage because it’s not “fair”.
This country is so screwed.
I agree.
Healthcare is the one issue, that the GOP seems to me, to be completely sold out on.
It is massively overpriced, and excludes people in circumstances, exactly like what is mentioned here. And things exactly like this are then done, and the GOP is HAMMERED for it.
I understand there will be those who take issue with me for saying this, but I really do not think the GOP should be doing this.
This is TERRIBLY non-productive.
Almost catastrophically, in fact. Terrible politically.
Way off base.
Of course I am just one opinion, but I KNOW I am not alone in thinking this.
Not at all.
The same usual Rino suspects.
If government would just get out of health care entirely, or near entirely, costs would just go down.
ALL of congress should be forced onto Medicare.
THEN let them make decisions on healthcare.
You mean make it fair for the people who don’t have pre-existing conditions. Of course there needs to be a way to exclude uninsurables and put them in a high risk pool.
The whole problem, succinctly stated, in one clever, incoherent sentence.
The reason the Republicans can't crack this nut, in fact, the reason their party won't exist as a single party by 2024, is that they are divided and unable to be reconciled over the contradiction so ably stated above.
"Ensure people that want healthcare have the ability to purchase it"
Let's break it down.
Nobody "wants" "healthcare" (whatever that is). I suppose the author of the sentence means "health insurance".
People either need health care (meaning, hospitalization, surgery, medications, and nursing services), or they don't. WHEN they need it, they want it (or are too sick to know they do), but when they don't need it, they most certainly don't WANT it.
When people NEED hospitalization, surgery, medications, and nursing services (and notice how much people don't want to think about that - they invented the euphemism "healthcare" to describe it) - when they need it, "having the ability to purchase it" is absolutely, totally, 100% completely the last thing on their minds. So is organizing society so that it will be available. What is on patient's minds at the point of need is death, or life - disability and disfigurement, or recovery. They do not know, or care, who pays, or how.
So, the Democrats have resolved the philosophical question that comes before the practical problem. They want to ensure that "healthcare" (by which they mean services) is given to all by the government without regard for ability to purchase (pay for) it. Whether this is right or wrong, smart or stupid, practical or akin to skittles from unicorns is not my point. My point is that they have resolved the contradiction embedded in "lower costs, lower taxes, no mandate, ensure ability to purchase (pay for it) for 100% of the population". The Democrats know what they want, and they are united and determined to have it.
The poor, stupid Republicans, OTOH, are divided about the underlying premise. They really do want health insurance to be cheaper without the lost revenue being made up by taxes, and they want no requirement to have it, BUT they also want "people that want healthcare" (again, whatever that means) to "have the ability to purchase it".
This is incoherent. If hospitals, surgeons, drug manufacturers and nurses do not get paid for their services, they will no longer be available. Many, many people who NEED (and therefore "want") those services cannot pay 1% of what they cost.
"Ensuring that people that want healthcare have the ability to purchase it" either means cheap insurance that doesn't cover anything OR nationalization of the resources to deliver care to those who cannot, or will not, pay.
There is no middle ground. The Democrats know what they want. The Republicans don't.
As Sun Tzu said, "It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle."
The Republicans do not have a plan because they do not have a philosophy that can support their opposed goals of more freedom for the well and perfect security for the sick.
If insurance is required to cover a pre-existing condition, then it is not insurance anymore. It is just an inefficient way to pay for something (if you let the insurer charge a fair premium), or a way to force other people to pay for it (if you require “community rating”as under Obamacare).
Maybe the best way to address this is not with insurance, but going at it through the supply side. Make medical care so much less expensive through increased competition and smart deregulation that only catastrophic insurance is needed by most.
If it covers pre-existing conditions it is cost shifting, not insurance.
Insurance is a clean bet, covering pre-existing conditions nullifies the bet as the insurer already lost before the bet was made.
Will the Republicans also mandate that State Farm sell Pre-Existing House Fire Conditions Insurance?
Republicans are such cowards. The innate socialist in elected officials must be a very strong force.