There are two basic types of preexisting conditions and neither is insurable: the condition where a person was never insured and wishes to become insured on the way to the hospital, and the condition where a person has a chronic illness requiring expensive, ongoing treatment.
Few (hopefully) would argue that the first problem is worth anyones sympathy or tax dollars, but the second problem engenders sympathy from many and has caused us to give up our liberty to solve. Chronic illnesses costing perhaps thousands of dollars per month through no fault of the patient is a situation none of us would wish to find ourselves.
But consider: if a chronic illness costs, say, $10,000 per month to treat (perhaps for life), what would the premium have to be in order to cover it?
Obviously, anything less than $10,000 per month is a loss, yet that's just the start. An insurance company must cover it's overhead and a profit as well if it hopes to stay in business.
So what's being discussed here is not “insurance” at all, but a welfare benefit - and that's the key. We're allowing this problem to be defined as something it's not.
I am not sure this is true. Why couldn’t you purchase a 30 year level term medical insurance policy, the same as is available for life insurance? As this article proposes, portability would trigger a whole range of new offerings. This is done to some extent now under COBRA legislation. Why can’t this be extended.
On the other hand, I would certainly strip out all those coverages which are essentially pass through costs. For example, most dental insurance is not strictly speaking insurance and amounts to forced savings.
I think perhaps there is another kind of pre-existing condition: a congenital one.
While I am certainly not a proponent or supporter of ANY kind of government healthcare, I do have to admit that I am terribly worried about what will happen to my son when he turns 18.
Johnny is 14 right now, and was born with a serious heart defect. The defect was repaired with one very involved, very expensive surgery when he was a mere 6 months old. Tragically, before the surgery was performed, he suffered a stroke that caused some brain damage with attendant learning difficulties.
Since that time, he has had NO health issues — in fact, the only times he’s ever been to the doctor are for regular, yearly checkups — one with his pediatrician, and one with his cardiologist. He has NEVER been sick enough even for a call to the doctor.
BUT
He will never go to college. He will probably be able to get a job somewhere, but it is doubtful that that job would ever be able to support him or a family. I also doubt he would be offered any employer-based healthcare insurance, so when he reaches 18...I don’t know what we’ll do.
And I’m extremely worried about the Obamacare Death Panels. What will they say about our John when something goes wrong? Will they say, “Look at this one: he’s got a bum ticker and he’s mentally retarded. He’s never going to be a contributing member of society (or at least his contribution won’t amount to enough $$$ to cover his expenses). Why should we pay to treat him?”
It’s too bad we couldn’t just keep paying for him to stay on our insurance. WHY can’t we? Unless something really miraculous happens in the neurological sciences, he will most likely always be dependant upon his father and me, no matter how old he gets.
There has to be a way to get kids like Johnny, as they enter adulthood, covered by some kind of family plan. As others have suggested over the years, I wish we could divorce healthcare coverage from employment, and be able to purchase a plan just like a life insurance plan, that goes with you no matter WHERE you work (or even if you work at all).
Regards,