[ElenaM]

Yes, I’m very familiar with HIPAA.

I’m asking as a moral question because that’s how it’s being pushed. Moral and pure emotion—who could be against covering a child with a condition?

[Blueflag]

I can see why a healthcare company would happily provide ( for a fee or otherwise) health care to a child with a ‘condition.’ But *WHY* should an insurance company (they are in the business of covering risk) be required to cover a 100% risk? THAT’s what YOUR CASH is for.

If you are at AT RISK (obesity, adult-onset diabetes, COPD, etc) of potentially developing a ‘condition’ then I can sell you insurance at a rate I deem worthy of the risk. Tough nuts if it’s not affordable. THAT is the logical issue.

Now MORALLY, if society wants to decide to provide FREE or lower-cost healthcare to people with ‘conditions’ then THAT IS a MORAL and SOCIETAL question.

Just don’t try to argue that insurance companies OWE people coverage. (not that you are doing that) To do so is antithetical.

[dalereed]

“Moral and pure emotion—who could be against covering a child with a condition?”

ME!!!!

[gogeo]

I’m asking as a moral question because that’s how it’s being pushed. Moral and pure emotion—who could be against covering a child with a condition?

If posed as a moral question, I think it's immoral to demand free stuff as a matter of right...even if children and puppy dogs are involved.