Posted on 09/09/2012 7:01:46 AM PDT by St_Thomas_Aquinas
"Of course there are a number of things that I like in health care reform that I'm going to put in place," he said in an interview broadcast Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press." ''One is to make sure that those with pre-existing conditions can get coverage."
Romney also said he would allow young adults to keep their coverage under their parents' health-insurance.
Those provisions have been two of the more popular parts of Obama's Affordable Care Act.
"I say we're going to replace Obamacare. And I'm replacing it with my own plan," Romney said. "And even in Massachusetts when I was governor, our plan there deals with pre-existing conditions and with young people."
(Excerpt) Read more at statesman.com ...
Wrong, no one will be insurable (eventually) if pre-existing conditions are NOT covered.
You're missing the point. Everyone eventually gets some form of disease (in the generic sense of the term) for which they're covered until they either lose their job, their health care plan changes, or some other factor. It's at that point that their "pre-existing condition" becomes un-insurable, and typically they themselves then become un-insurable.
If you're going to stick with your position, then you'd best hope you end up dying healthy and never needing insurance in the first place.
I'll add one other thing before I put my flame suit on: Anyone who thinks that we're "going back" to the old system where people get booted off their insurance policy or claims not getting paid for has a serious screw loose. IMO, that is the ONLY benefit of Obamacare passing in the first place.
By that I specifically mean repeal, replace, and REPAIR those parts of our health-care system that need repairing. No one in their right minds wants government-controlled healthcare, nor do they want to go back to what the Insurance companies have gotten away with for years, denying coverage for every little thing while taking our premiums in payment for a service they don't provide.
Personally, I pay $9,600 for health care insurance annually, and have a $2,500 deductible that I must meet before my insurance pays dime ONE of a claim. So why am I paying $9,600 + a $2,500 deductible every year for Health Care insurance when I typically spend about $800/year towards my deductible? That's insane.
The Health Care insurer (Blue Cross/Shield of IL) is getting $9,600 PURE PROFIT for zero service, and all because NOW the Government says I have to PAY for insurance. It's a LAW in Illinois that if your insurer provides health care coverage and you have no other means of insurance, and if you can't PROVE you have health-care coverage elsewhere, all employees are automatically enrolled in the Employer's plan and have NO CHOICE but to pay. That's GOVERNMENT MANDATED HEALTHCARE, long before ObamaCare existed! It's a protected MONOPOLY here in IL where a handful of insurers have locked up the market!
That ain't right. Bring on COMPETITION and let's see those premiums drop I say.
We have plenty of good people crying in the wilderness, but those who control the conditions have those potential leaders you eloquently described we need, under a tight leash.
These “overlords” hold great power and wealth as they run “the show” comfortably in the background. Not a conspiracy, just normal power grabs by lobbyists and Utopians who are either of the Marxists persuasion or practical planning of bureaucratic “compassion” with tax breaks thrown in.
Exactly! As I recall, the dims didn't even bring up BammyCare at their convention. Why go there, Mitt??
Exactly... Unless everyone is put into a national pool, and insurers are assigned customers randomly. Maybe something like that is the plan.
We pay for the uninsured regardless, because hospitals are required by law to accept the indigent.
Maybe this works in theory, but here in MA, rates are going through the roof.
I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing, but just what is a person to do if they have an existing illness and need to change carriers?
At least he can be lead around by the nose, unlike the Marxist. It would be an improvement. Yeah, pathetic, I know.
“One is to make sure that those with pre-existing conditions can get coverage.”
Think, folks, before you react.
First, the number of folks who can’t get coverage because of pre-existing conditions is relatively small. It is a small part of our health payment system crisis. Unfortunately, forcing guaranteed issue on insurance companies is a great way to make the problem much, much larger, especially without an enforceable mandate, which is something, I think, that would go away with the repeal of Obamacare.
But it’s probably one of the few points of Obamacare that garners widespread support. Most folks can’t stand the idea of some little kid, born with some hideous disease, unable to get good health care because his parents can’t obtain insurance for him.
That’s the sizzle selling the cowpie that is Obamacare. Poor little Johnnie will be able to get that life-saving treatment that otherwise would cost his family a gazillion dollars, forcing them to choose between his life and putting food on the table for their 11 other children.
But, notice what Gov. Romney doesn’t say: He doesn’t say, “We’ll continue with guaranteed issue.”
He doesn’t say that he’s going to force every insurance company in the market to issue health insurance policies to any and everyone, no matter what they’re health conditions.
He just says that his plan will ensure that even folks with pre-existing conditions will be able to get coverage.
If he doesn’t lay out a plan to deal with this relatively-small group of individuals, he will not garner the popular support needed to repeal Obamacare.
There are more ways to skin this cat than guaranteed issue.
Before I get all apoplectic about this, I’ll wait to see how he proposes to do this.
I remember Newt (the candidate I supported in the primary) making mention of the health care bill, saying that “about 300 pages were actually pretty good”.
We need to be objective here.
SOMETHING has to be done to help people with pre-existing conditions.
What is your solution???
What’s Romney going to say?
“I like your idea, President Obama, especially as you borrowed it from my health care plan when I was Governor of Massachusetts; there’s just a few minor things I would tweak if I’m elected.”
For instance, If she is insured at the time of her initial diagnosis and covered for the breast cancer, then the insurance industry can’t consider it a preexisting condition for future policies.
The best choice is to leave cases like this to charity. And in a free America, no one would fall through the cracks.
But there's a long way from here to there. In the interim, perhaps it would be possible to put the uninsurable into a pool for healthcare providers to bid on. This wouldn't be insurance. Simply bidding for care. The care would have to be tax-funded. Like Medicare.
In practice, Romneycare isn't working in MA. Rates are skyrocketing.
EXACTLY!
Unless your loved one has been dropped by an insurance company, you have no idea what this kind of nightmare is like!
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."-- James Madison, the father of the U.S. Constitution
Yes, but part of the reason that they are skyrocketing is because of health insurance. If everyone paid cash or could only afford by paying cash or layaway, the prices for medical treatment would fall overnight.
I'm making up for ten of you. We're out here.
That’s a ridiculous argument.
If your child came down with a dread disease, and you had to depend on “charity”(as another poster suggested) because your insurance company dropped his coverage, your life would be a freaking NIGHTMARE!
This is Romney’s “McCain” moment. When McCain suspended his campaign to support the bailout.
Well maybe if they used their noggin while they were younger on how government intrusion would drive up cost while insurance companies play their eventual part and VOTED TO PREVENT THAT, save money while health care was transformed from a service to a “right”, and at least appreciated the chance at quality care instead of the rationing that awaits next generations maybe the will feel sorry for the nightmare they created themselves. Voting has consequences and economics is the great equalizer when central planners play around with our resources.
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.