Heard Nancy Pelosi say that insurance companies discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions. She described as “scandalous” the Republican proposal because she says it does not end this discrimination.
I agree we need to come up with a solution that ensures folks have access to health care and that we need to help folks with pre-existing conditions, but is it really scandalous if the government does not force insurance companies to cover folks with pre-existing conditions?
To use the auto insurance analogy, how many insurance companies would give you insurance on a car AFTER you crash it into a fire hydrant? Think we should force insurance companies to cover us for pre-existing conditions like dented fenders?
Why should insurance companies be forced to cover someone AFTER a condition manifests? Isn’t insurance, by definition, something we purchase as a defense against risk? If an event has already occurred doesn’t seem like there is much of a chance it won’t occur… what’s to stop folks from waiting until their house burns down, saving years of premium payments, before buying insurance for a few hundred bucks so that the insurance company can rebuild their house?
That’s just foolishness and folks like Pelosi are being ridiculous.
In any case, I was under the impression the Republican bill does address pre-existing conditions if not the x% (the number appears to be a moving target) who have no insurance and either want or need it. I have not read the proposal, but my understanding is they set aside money to fund premiums for folks with pre-existing conditions. Where it appears to fall short is with folks who are not insured.
However, since the Republican bill comes in at around $61 billion and the Democrat bill comes in at over $1 trillion… is the bill proposed by the Democrats really so much better than the Republican bill that it is worth that extra trillion or so dollars? If the main difference is the coverage of x% of people without insurance, does it really take $1 trillion to cover those folks? I’m thinking the answer is probably no.
Oh… and it appears that, unlike the Democrat’s proposal, the Republican proposal will LOWER PREMIUMS according to the Congressional Budget Office.
So what would it cost to make sure those folks have access to health care? Let’s say it’s $300 billion.
Take that figure, add it to the Republican bill, and poof… health care for much less than half of what the Democrats are proposing without blowing up the system and without establishing a “public option”.
Another problem solved.
|
|
|
|