You’re a sick, pathetic scumbag, Krugman. You’re the # that held Palin responsible for the Tucson massacre. You’re #ing POS.
And a non-related point: who the hell thinks mandating coverage of kids through age 26 was a good idea? Mandate an expansion of coverage, express shock and moral outrage when rates go up. One was designed to cause the other and force people into a single-payer plan.
Why not mandate that hospitals provide treatment of all “pre-existing conditions” for a flat rate of, say, $20 an hour, all drugs and tests included?
If you mandated the latter, hospitals would go out of business because their business would no longer be profitable, and you would have no place to go to get your condition treated.
Maybe Obama can mandate that gasoline be sold for no more than $1.50 a gallon. That will solve gas prices in the same way Obamacare is solving our medical costs mess. Everyone has a right to $1.50 gas but no one can actually find any.
I don't want to trade my healthCARE for somebody else's health insurance and that is what ObamaCare amounts to, IMO.
-----------
The first thing to note is that Paul Krugman (and others of a like mind) lack an understanding of the definition of insurance. The first rule of insurance is that the risk of loss must be aleatory (that's a Latin term which means there must be an element of chance). If there is no element of chance to the risk of loss, it isn't insurance. It's simply a transfer payment.
For an example, let's take a look at home-owner's insurance. When we buy home-owner's insurance, we are trying to cover ourselves against the risk of loss of our home due to unforeseen circumstances (fire, wind, fallen trees, et al). If we didn't have to already have insurance before the covered event occurred, we could simply buy insurance when our house catches on fire to make the insurance company pay for our loss instead of us. Clearly, that is a business model that makes no sense for the insurance company. Their whole ability to pay claims comes from the premiums paid by their customers and the diversified risk of loss among them. If the chance of loss is 100% among the risk pool... let's just say they won't be able to meet their obligations and will stop providing coverage.
In the healthcare insurance debate, the first thing the Democrats have successfully done is to equate insurance with healthcare. People lacking insurance are not automatically lacking healthcare. In fact, one significant reason healthcare costs in this country are so high is because our hospitals may not turn away someone in need. If that person is unable to pay, the expense often gets written off and those who do pay make up the difference to allow the hospital to keep functioning. Relative to care, our system is the envy of the world. That isn't the case on the side of cost but you and I have already talked extensively on the many factors (many of them government-driven) which have made our healthcare system so expensive.
Obamacare introduced the idea of "no pre-existing conditions may be excluded" into the healthcare insurance debate. However, as even my liberal Congressman was forced to admit in a conversation with me, that approach makes absolutely no sense from an insurance standpoint. The insurance companies can't survive the scenario laid before them. If you read the law, you find that citizens will be fined for not having health insurance coverage. The cost of the fine is initially set below the cost of insurance. Rational people will simply pay the fine and get the "insurance" when they need it. That tips the risk pool for the insurance company toward a certainty in regards to claims-paying. They will simply go out of business and we will be left with the government for our insurance needs. This is known as "single-payer" coverage when the government is the sole source. It is the purpose of Obamacare and the reason these provisions begin next year... so they occur after this election. It is an absolute lie that we will be able to keep our current insurance plan. This one provision of Obamacare will decimate the industry by itself.
Although I am not in favor of the government's deep involvement in healthcare, it is involved already. The question now is between one plan or another. Gov Romney's plan is at least more sensible in regards to pre-existing conditions. You may not be denied coverage as long as you keep your insurance in force. If your family had health insurance as you were growing up and you kept coverage as you matured, you will maintain coverage... even if you have a terrible disease. The argument against this approach by Krugman is that you must first have had coverage and have been able to keep up with the premiums. It's a fair question to ask whether he or President Obama have read the Obamacare bill. Their approach is to mandate all citizens buy insurance or be fined by the government. It's the same approach as Gov Romney--but without the liberty to decline. If they are so concerned about the premium-paying ability of their constituents, they picked a funny way to show it. The fine is initially set lower than the cost of insurance but it rises over the years to be very significant... when the government is the sole insurer. If the criticism of Gov Romney's plan is that you must maintain continuous coverage... how does Obamacare escape such criticism?
Gov Romney's approach is more sensible, allows citizens their liberty in participation, and is in keeping with a true definition of insurance. Again, he is a businessman at heart and understands the insurance industry better than those who are forcing it to function outside of its business model.
These vary from state to state...BUT:
Insurance carriers often honor each other’s preX when an insured party changes companies.
A preX usually imposes a waiting period...like six months, NOT an outright denial of coverage.
I live in liberal Maryland, and the state of Maryland runs a high-risk pool for the otherwise uninsurable. It provides excellent insurance coverage at a competitive rate for those who otherwise couldn't get insurance at affordable prices. It subsidizes the premiums for low-income folks (the premiums are competitive, but they still run many hundreds, or even over a thousand dollars per month - might not be affordable for someone making $25K per year) so that anyone who wishes to have insurance can have it. All without forcing folks to buy what they don't want!
And Gov. Romney actually explicitly lays this out as part of his solution.
Here is a quote from Gov. Romney's website:
Restore State Leadership and Flexibility
Mitt will begin by returning states to their proper place in charge of regulating local insurance markets and caring for the poor, uninsured, and chronically ill. States will have both the incentive and the flexibility to experiment, learn from one another, and craft the approaches best suited to their own citizens.
- Block grant Medicaid and other payments to states
- Limit federal standards and requirements on both private insurance and Medicaid coverage
- Ensure flexibility to help the uninsured, including public-private partnerships, exchanges, and subsidies
- Ensure flexibility to help the chronically ill, including high-risk pools, reinsurance, and risk adjustment
- Offer innovation grants to explore non-litigation alternatives to dispute resolution
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care
To say that Gov. Romney hasn't spelled out a plan to cover individuals with pre-existing conditions is a lie. A plain, indecent lie. Those telling the lie are evil.