Healthcare: Do we have a Conservative Solution to Helping People with Pre-existing Conditions ?

11/6/2009 | Vanity

[Frenchtown Dan]

Yes, it is very important, no doubt about that.
But, I will not support a government health plan.

What’s needed is Health Insurance Reform. Lower costs, and less restrictions. There’s lots of ways the government can regulate costs without controlling the care.

[SeekAndFind]

“A pre-existing condition cannot be “insured” because it has already happened and trying to do something like that will bankrupt the system and drive it to a government solution...which will be far worse in terms of quality of care and ultimately (due to rationing) in terms of extent of care.”

So this tells me that these are the only possibilities :

1) The main free market solution to the problem is to let the insurance company decide or not decide to cover the individual ( which is almost all cases will be NO ).

2) The individual has not choice but to depend on the government ( which conservatives don't like ).

3) The individual has not choice but to PAY for his drugs ( good fortune to him if his dad is as rich as Bill Gates ).

Anything else ???

[eclecticEel]

I have Asthma, I’ve never had problems being insured. I’m sure the same is true for people with diabetes.

[Jeff Head]

I do not agree with your 1st contention. Insurance companies, if freed from restrictions like not being able to fully compete across state lines, and from the enormous tort problems, would come up with solutions that people could afford and would buy.

Second, many people choose of their own free will not to be insured and that is their free choice, choosing rather to pay for services as required. That freedom should not be disallowed and they should not be forced by government to "get in a plan".

Fact is, in life, bad things happen. No government plan, no insurance is going to prevent all of that. What I do not want is goivernment agencies in control of it because that always leads to less efficency, bureaucracy, and more ccorruption.

Out system is not perfect...but it is the system people flock to. We can improve it and I welcome good, free market solutions that help. IMHO, government control of it will not improve it.

[Attention Surplus Disorder]

“Encouraging lifetime policies would help bring the overall cost down...Your parents buy you a policy at birth that you simply keep as long as premiums are paid. This is one that is owned instead of being a leased one from your employer.”

Sounds like a good idea, but what about indigents who insist on procreating so much?

IMO, they should get Norplanted.

But there are a lot of very low income single parents, and please don’t mistake my mentioning them as advocating on their behalf...but the guilt for this class which drives the silliness currently under consideration has to be addressed (a phrase I absolutely hate) or else we slip back into “for the chillin”.

[mnehring]

+1

[BfloGuy]

Legislate that insurance companies must cover people with pre-existing conditions and then stand back as premiums rise drastically to cover the losses.

Simple. Not very popular. But simple.

[longtermmemmory]

One option is to allow for a “no coverage” time for insurance on pre existings. After that time it is covered.

This allows the insurance co to collect money.

Also how relavent can a pre existing condition be? For example if you break one leg, does this preclude breaking the other leg? An insurance co would say yes.

This issue is also why insurance companies are heavy investors of our premium payments to not only collect our money but to have it make more money for them. (of course it is their money which we pay in return for service)

Perhaps want needs to happen is a move AWAY from the AMA coding system.

[longtermmemmory]

One teak is to make buying insurance non-taxable.

I am curious how much do people expect/want to pay per month for insurance?

$25

$50

$75

$100

$500

Even with all those nifty alphabet plans, a family paying another mortgage level payment for medical care is absurn.

How about coupling insurnce with a medical healthcare savings account? Then we as INDIVIDUAL FAMILIES can invest our money accordingly and allow that to be used for the preexisting first.

Of course they have to FIND OUT about the pre-existing first and for that they need the big brother medical information database.

[SeekAndFind]

Legislate that insurance companies must cover people with pre-existing conditions and then stand back as premiums rise drastically to cover the losses.

Simple. Not very popular. But simple.

I don't think ANY politician is going to win by saying this out loud. Is there any other solution ?

[Nea Wood]

Thank you! I did not know that.

[SeekAndFind]

Second, many people choose of their own free will not to be insured and that is their free choice, choosing rather to pay for services as required. That freedom should not be disallowed and they should not be forced by government to "get in a plan".

I think we can eliminate this group of people (i.e.,those who freely choose NOT to get insurance). The topic is about people with PRE-EXISTING conditions. People with these conditions WILL want to be insured.

The question is -- will insurance companies WANT to insure them KNOWING that doing so will COST them a lot of money ?

If the answer is NO ( and you said if competition across state lines are allowed, the answer will NOT BE, which we don't know ), I think the individual will have no choice but to depend on some public option. If this is not available, he/she is out of luck.

If a politician were to honestly present it the way I just did, I don't think he'll be elected on that basis. The thing is --- Most of the electorate want SOME KIND of help for such people. They don't want to leave them hanging.

[rite_on]

Here’s a definition of pre-existing conditions from WikiAnswers.

A pre-existing condition is a medical condition that existed before you obtained health insurance. In most cases, there is a 9 month waiting period for pre-existing medical condition coverage. That means that if a company offers you coverage, they may not provide coverage for that specific pre-existing medical condition for 9 - 12 months.

In many cases, if have had coverage in place for at least 18 months with no more than a 63 day gap in coverage, and you are just switching insurance companies, the new company will give you credit for having coverage in place and waive the waiting periods for your conditions. This allows you to switch plans if you need to.

The rationale for these policies is that medical insurance works the same way other insurances do-that medical insurance is to protect yourself in case something bad happens. You need to have coverage in place before something bad happens. An analogy is that just like you can’t buy auto insurance after an accident to cover the cost of the accident, medical insurance only covers issues that arise unexpectedly after coverage has begun.

[Jeff Head]

Sorry...we disagree. Most of the electorate realize that there are somethings the government simply cannot make better, and cannot address.

They realize that attempots by government to do so do not really represent an effort to "help", but much more, and effort to "control".

In addition, pre-existing conditions themselves vary critically in degree, type, and impact. Trying to paint all with one brush is over simplistice and does not allow for the ingenuity of the free market.

Certainly there are pre-existing conditions that can be treated, and done so effectively and efficently and within profit margins when realizing that to allow it to go further will only cost the individual or the insurance company much more. Preople also realize this, and therefore it would be possible to create "plans" depending on the particular situation, where a company could charge for covering treatment in such a way where both can benefit.

All sorts of cancer fall into this category depending on when they are "caught", but which also would qualify as "pre-existing".

As I have stated...the best way, IMHO, is clearly to let the free market address it and keep the government out of it as much as possible.

But now the arguement is getting circular. I have made my points and am content to let others read them and make their own decisions.

[jongaltsr]

Have the (Prior) insurance company help with the coverage since the problem started when they covered them but was not diagnosed till later (or had to wait for some medical/financial reason.)

Sound better.

[wordsofearnest]

No it doesn’t as part of COBRA it is the same as what the employer is paying with a 2-3% administrative charge.

[krunkygirl]

bookmark

[Ann Archy]

COBRA is dirt cheap now, I heard!!

[wordsofearnest]

Very good answer !! Also remember that insurance is to cover things you aren’t able to pay for upfront.

Where were all these people before they had a “pre-existing” condition. If they were chose not to be insured they gambled and they lost.

I was unemployed & under employed for 18 months back in 1996. I thought enough of my family to at least keep catastrophic insurance on them with a month to month policy.

[TenthAmendmentChampion]

I am able to get insurance at my company during open enrollment, even though I have ESRD and am in remission from multiple myeloma. Your Canadian friend doesn’t know what he’s talking about.