Tag Archives: Pre-existing Condition

Pre-Existing Conditions – Who Should Pay

And the debate rages over health care again.  And the left is going to lie again.

I’m seeing many posts decrying the new health are bill being moved through congress.  Gaining special attention is people’s opinions of the concept of pre-exisiting conditions.

Before I go further, it is my position that government has no role in health care, medical care or health insurance.  None.  It’s also my position that insurance companies treat pre-exisiting conditions within the context of actuarial science.  That is, if an individual has a condition prior to obtaining insurance, either the cost of that insurance is higher or the condition isn’t covered.

That being said, the narrative being trotted out by democrats is absolutely false.  Namely that Trumpcare will do away with the requirement that insurance companies must offer a policy to anyone who applies.  If you had a pre-existing condition during Obamacare and were able to obtain a policy, so too will you be able to obtain a policy under Trumpcare.

So, that being said, who SHOULD pay for such pre-existing conditions?  I found a nice article and they explain it this way:

We have a tendency to use “pre-existing conditions” as a euphemism for “expensive health care needs” but the two aren’t quite the same.  If you and I are both healthy today, and both participating in the same insurance plan, the pricing of our insurance should already factor in the probability that one of us will someday face a health problem requiring expensive treatment – and the plan should be able to handle it when we do.  But a sick person without insurance (or looking to change plans) is in a different situation; their need for health treatment is a certain problem rather than a merely possible one, and hence the average expected cost is much higher.  Technically, what they need is not insurance against a possible, unknown problem, but rather help paying for a certain, known problem.

There’s no way around a simple truth: treating an expensive health condition costs (someone) lots of money.  There are four basic approaches that can be taken to this problem.

1)    Leave sick people to face the costs of their own treatment, whether out of pocket or through high-cost insurance, no matter how ruinous those costs become.

2)    Mandate that other, healthier people overpay for the value of their own health insurance, so that sick people can underpay for the value of theirs.

3)    Spread the costs of paying expensive health bills throughout society, for example by having taxpayers pick up the tab.

4)    Require a targeted group to shoulder the costs.

The aspect that I like about this article is that they take no position on the policy.  Only that there are a limited number of options – options that describe who pays.

An important note – if you are someone that already has insurance, are healthy and then gets sick, you will be covered under that policy.  You will be provided the medical care you require and do not have a pre-existing condition.


Choosing Not To Be Insured

Was listening to the boys in Greensboro again yesterday.  Topic made its way to health insurance and the ongoing debate.  The same ol’ arguments on both sides were mentioned with the exception of two.

The first was the idea Brad threw out there that there aren’t folks who actually decide not to buy insurance.  I think he literally asked for someone to  provide data on that topic.  Who would literally make the choice not to buy insurance?

The second was mentioned by Britt.  And this is the one of pre-existing conditions, what they are and the stance people have on ’em.

Continue reading

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.

Continue reading