Covering a per-existing condition is not insurance. It is akin to selling fire insurance after the hose has already caught fire.
What do you call a pre existing condition on the scenario below which is very real:
An individual goes to work full time at age 22 after completing 4 years of college. He works for three different companies during his career. During that time he had employer health care coverage to which he contributed. Economic theory would suggest the employer paid portion of the health care insurance coverage was part of his compensation.
At age 51 he is stricken with cancer while still employed. After a lengthy treatment, the cancer goes into remission but there is the potential for it to occur again at a later date. His endocrine system is damaged due to the cancer and he must take drugs daily for the rest of his life.
At age 55 the company executes a downsizing and he is involuntarily terminated. He immediately starts an aggressive job search and begins paying 100% of his health insurance coverage under Cobra. He is unsuccessful in finding full time employment but is able to find part time consulting work with two companies at a much lower income level with no benefits. After 18 months the Cobra insurance expires. He cannot find a private insurer to cover him and his family due to the preexisting condition even with an expensive high deductible policy.
Here is a person who has participated in the US health insurance system and paid into the system for 30 years. He has also been a taxpayer his entire working career, even now when he is working part time doing what he can in this tough economy. Since has worked for multiple employers he has been covered by multiple insurance companies, so he has no long standing relationship with any one insurance company. His preexisting condition occurred while he was a paying participant in the system. He is willing to continue paying for insurance, even at a high cost, but is being denied coverage due to preexisting conditions. What is your answer for this person?
1) Tough luck. That’s the way it is. Have a good life if you can. In this case the “market” fails to cover a few people and you just happen to be one.
2) A government mandate insurance companies cover citizens with preexisting conditions (i.e. the 2014 Obamacare requirement).
3) A high risk pool with extremely high premiums, deductibles and copays for people with preexisting conditions. If this is your choice, who should administer it - private companies, the states, the federal government? If you choose private companies and they don’t provide the pool, what do you do then? If someone has paid into the system for years, why should that person necessarily pay a higher cost for insurance?
4) Another idea?
We have a situation today where average middle class people who pay into the system for years can end up with a preexisting condition that prevents them from getting insurance. These people pay taxes and vote. If the conservative answer is “too bad the market doesn’t provide you insurance, tough luck” then Democrats pick up at least one additional voter and perhaps many given that most individuals have extended families and friends.
Do you have an answer other than “too bad”?
Home, Auto etc is based upon your risk. If we had a one size fits all HSA for Catastrophic Insurance, i.e. rebuild your leg after a bus ran over it, it would be relatively cheap for everyone.
If you have a pre-existing, sometimes in Life Insurance their are niche carriers that will insure you for X ailment, but they will change you more.
Obama's model would work better at Church where we take care of each other, then gain, he wants us to worship the State.
Speaking of Churches, both Churches and Credit Unions are successful 501(c)(3) natural groups, they could offer health insurance, and would have been my way to go instead of Obamacare...