The preexisting condition rider should included for the next two years, say, to cover people who are sick now. But within two years everyone needs to get health insurance, not wait, then when they get sick, then suddenly they want insurance.
The whole concept of insurance, health, fire, car or any other insurance is that you pay it whether or not you need to use it at the time, it creates sufficient funds for the insurance company, so they can pay medical or other expenses for the unfortunate few, who need it.
You couldn’t go without fire insurance, wait until your house burns down and demand an insurance company pay you.
Let’s face it. The whole concept of health “insurance” is DEAD anyway.
The country has basically decided, for better or worse, that health care is a “right”. Polling I have seen on the preexisting conditions ban shows approval north of 80%, across BOTH parties.
Remember how W got his head handed to him when he proposed to reform Social Security? THAT is what will happen to ANY politician who lays a glove on preexisting conditions.
Sorry to break that to you but it’s political reality.
>
The preexisting condition rider should included for the next two years, say, to cover people who are sick now. But within two years everyone needs to get health insurance, not wait, then when they get sick, then suddenly they want insurance.
>
Then you’re not talking ‘insurance’ (mitigate the UNKNOWN). And, sorry, but it’s there for 2-yrs, it’ll be there forever.
The existence of prior continuous coverage for a “preexisting condition” should be enough to require the current insurance company to cover the condition.
If one has had diabetes for 20+ years, but one has had continuous medical insurance coverage throughout the time, why should that be considered “preexisting”, where the insurance company can deny coverage?
I understand that a 20+ year diabetic that has taken poor care of themselves is an elevated risk to the company, but one who has taken good care is less so.
My main concern on this front is that people who try to do the right things - take care of themselves, keep insurance (even though the policies differed because of job changes), etc. - should not be punished due to those who gamble without insurance and lose their bet.