Pre-Existing Conditions

This health care debate has been raging for quite some time.  Listening to the talk and the pundits and all the rest of ’em, you begin to filter out the chaff from the wheat.  It seems pretty clear that there is a general agreement that we all agree change has to take place; it is costing more than it needs to for medical care.  Equally clear is that there is a fundamental philosophical difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives.

One of the biggest I see is the issue of pre-existing conditions.

So much is being tied up over this concept.  So much good is not being done because of this.  So much anger and frustration.  Then it occurred to me.

“Is it possible we aren’t even arguing about the same thing?”

The issue of pre-existing condition can mean several things:

  1. Denial of coverage because an individual is asking to be covered for a condition that exits before the policy is enacted.
  2. An insurance policy is in place, many times for years, and when an individual makes a claim, the insurance company investigates and finds that the individual had “acne” 28 years ago and is now disqualified.
  3. An individual is covered by an policy, gets sick, and is dropped because they now have a pre-existing condition

If we are all talking about the same term but not being clear what we are talking about, I am afraid that we are missing a very VERY large opportunity for advancement.

I will admit, that in case #1, conservatives would argue that an insurance company has every right to deny coverage to a perspective client based on a pre-existing condition.  Imagine going out and obtaining car insurance only after you had an accident.

However, points #2 and 3–I claim that the insurance companies are acting in bad faith and ought to cover the individual.  While I understand that it is a slippery slope regarding full disclosure of prior illness and conditions, to go back and find fault for an unrelated and unreported trivial condition is absurd.

Case #3 is clear cut.  This is insurance.  The risks are understood by both sides.  On mine by acknowledging that I might die tomorrow of a heart attack and never require emergent medical care.  And on the part of the insurance firm that in fact, they may be required to pay the sum of my bills.  To do otherwise is illicit and in poor form.

I do, sincerely hope, that we are speaking about the same things when we are discussing pre-existing conditions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *