Skip to comments.Pre-Existing Ignorance
Posted on 09/10/2012 1:17:08 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Im frankly a little puzzled by the kerfuffle over Mitt Romneys statement Sunday morning that his version of health reform would also make sure people with pre-existing conditions had access to coverage. Lots of political reporters and analysts have taken this to be some kind of new position, or a concession, or a backing away from the commitment to repeal and replace Obamacare.
........For as long as Romney has had a campaign web site with a section on health care, for instance, it has listed among the elements of his proposal to replace Obamacare Prevent discrimination against individuals with pre-existing conditions who maintain continuous coverage. And Romney has talked about this point himself before too, as Katrina notes below. His reference in all these instances to protecting people who are continuously insured also tells us that hes not talking about a system that would involve an individual mandate to work, but rather one that would use the protection of those with continuous insurance (combined with reforms of the tax code and other steps to make it possible for people to remain continuously insured) as a powerful incentive for the young and healthy to obtain insurance.
This kind of mechanism, using high-risk pools combined with prohibitions on pre-existing condition exclusions for the continuously insured, has been part of just about every conservative health-care proposal in recent years, including John McCains in 2008, the Ryan-Coburn alternative to Obamacare, and the congressional Republicans Pledge to America before the 2010 elections (as well as older proposals in the Bush years). The basic structure of these different proposals is very similar, and is based on many years of conservative policy proposals along these lines--heres a great detailed overview of how this would work.....
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
"...as Katrina notes below
...."based on many years of conservative policy proposals along these linesheres a great detailed overview of how this would work....."
P.S. A full read of this article is advisable before comment.
I posted this reply earlier today on a thread that had many Romney attackers for saying what he did on Meet the Depressed on TV this morning. What Mitt said was he would back coverage for pre-existing conditions, and for 26 year olds being allowed to be on their parents’ health insurance coverage. As this thread is about Mitt’s position on these topics, I am putting my earlier reply on this thread for general consumption. Thanks Cincinatus’ Wife for posting this article. Here’s my comment:
There isnt going to be a repeal in any health insurance plan of the future for coverage of people with pre-existing conditions. Most Americans want it, period. Now, how Romney achieves this is another thing, but he will. Probably via high risk pool insurance, which is doable. And by being able to choose policies intra-state. Or by other cost effective methods. Not as a giveaway. But if anyone thinks that any Pub politician would say no to coverage of people with pre-existing conditions, including Gingrich, Santorum, Cain, Perry, any of them, you are deluding yourselves.
As to letting young people stay on their parents policies, who gives a hoot. So what. Theres no coercion involved, in fact it is highly capitalistic. If the parents want to keep their kids on their policy, its their money they choose to spend, no one is forcing them, the insurance companies make money, the hospitals dont have to worry about treating someone who has no insurance coverage, and the young person has some peace of mind. A win win, from my perspective. I couldnt care less if parents put a son or daughter of theirs even if 50 years old on their policy. As long as they are paying for it, and not the state or federal govt, so what? They can also choose not to, to say no to their kid, go out and get a job and pay for your own. Its the parents choice. You dont have to pay anything out, they are. Its the parents money to do with what they want, whether it be a smart move or a dumb move from your perspective. Its their business, not yours.
And its perfectly capitalistic. They are choosing to do with their money what they want. Not you, not the state, not the federal govt, so wheres the beef? I think it is just because the idea started under the Obama Admin, therein lies the rub. Well, it was one of the few ideas that doesnt gouge Joe Sixpack with a mandate, more of that kind of thinking should be encouraged. It leaves the expenses of who to insure for whatever reason up to the consumer, as it should be.
Santorum said it on the campaign trail. He'd deny daughter Bella coverage because of her pre-existing condition.
Newt echoed the 2010 Pledge to America and what Romney's now saying. Keep the broader goals that are universally liked from ObamaCare and rewrite the hows and everything else.
What really gets under my skin are the Freepers who spend all their energy attacking the one team able to stop Obama and none of it trying to prevent his second term.
They are Pontius Pilate voters and the political equivalent of homicidal bombers, ready, willing and able to inflect casualties on their own side for the sake of purity in the name of their cause.
Did Pam Bondi really defend RomneyCare?
Romney also said he would allow young adults to keep their coverage under their parents health-insurance.
Boo Hiss ! [/sarc]
I'd also add the ability to get health care insurance from any provider just like auto insurance.
May 11, 2011: “As first act, out with ObamaCare”:
.....”Step 3: Focus federal regulation of health care on making markets work. This means both correcting common failures in insurance markets as well as eliminating counterproductive federal rules. For example, individuals who are continuously covered for a specified period of time may not be denied access to insurance because of pre-existing conditions. And individuals should be allowed to purchase insurance across state lines, free from costly state benefit requirements. Finally, individuals and small businesses should be allowed to form purchasing pools to lower insurance costs and improve choice.”
It has nothing to do with providing insurance protection for these young adults with major medical expenses, folks. The whole purpose of this mandate is to inflate the number of young people with minimal claims to help bolster the pools of insured people for insurance companies who must cover an increasingly older population. The premiums charged by the insurance companies for these people, most of whom will go through their entire life from the ages of 14 to 26 without facing more than one or two insurable medical events, are major sources of much-needed revenue for insurance companies.
Local Orlando, Florida tv station WFTV just reported on some “raised eyebrows regarding Romneys remarks on keeping some parts of Obamacare after he had been saying he would repeal it...”
Mitt Romney On Obamacare: ‘I’m Not Getting Rid Of All Of Health Care Reform’ (VIDEO) [UPDATED]
UPDATE: 8:45 p.m. — A Romney aide told the National Review that he does not support the Affordable Care Act’s ban on discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions, despite suggesting on “Meet the Press” that he supported that part of the law.
They're holding out for that pure conservative to ride in on a white horse to save the country in 2016. Only problem is that 2012 was supposed to be that year. It didn't happen.
And in 2016 when a similar gaggle of marginal candidates line up to stroke their egos for the privilege of losing to Hillary, the same "let's just wait four more years" people will still be waiting for that white horse in 2020.
And the one candidate everyone was hoping for has traded in her white horse for a white limousine.
You forgot the rest of the quote. Paragraph 2 of the update from your link:
“Instead, the aide added, there has been no change in the Republican nominee’s position. “[I]n a competitive environment, the marketplace will make available plans that include coverage for what there is demand for,” the aide said. “He was not proposing a federal mandate to require insurance plans to offer those particular features.”
Based on Obama’s “logic,” it’s wrong that homeowners insurance companies “discriminate” against people who wish to buy a policy the day after their house burns down.
Yes. That is a very important paragraph and thanks for posting it. I just posted what they highlighted in yellow to show what they are emphasizing in the news.
Employer provided insurance (EPI) is THE REASON we are even discussing this issue. There is no reason your insurance should be provided by your employer. NONE! This is a gov’t invention.
Beyond the dilemma of PEC, EPI does nothing for the unemployed or self-employed. It limits the mobility of the workforce, & enriches the unions. It burdens business with paper work that does nothing to further the interests of the business, adding a level of bureaucracy & invasion of privacy that is totally unnecessary.
Now I'm not much in favor of gov’t involvement in health care beyond an advisory role. But, as we do have a Social Security system, as poor & broke as it is, I favor making
SERIOUS, life threatening, conditions, “pre” or not, disabilities under Social security, until a better, free market system is developed.
Let's face it. If we are gonna have to pay to help these people & we are, I'd rather do it thru SS than thru a gov’t manipulated, profit seeking, monopoly business. Health insurance companies are quickly becoming quasi-governmental organizations, so regulated as to be part of the gov’t. How will that EVER work well for the sick or taxpayers? We all know from experience: IT WONT WORK!
Open health insurance to the free market & in a generation PEC will disappear. Until then, we are gonna have to pay for the problems another bad, gov’t inspired system has produced.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.