Obama Administration Warns That, Like, Probably Half of Everyone Might Lose Their Health Coverage Without ObamaCare, Maybe

Here’s Health and Human Service Secretary Kathleen Sebelius's latest defense of the administration's health care overhaul: If it were repealed, according to the headline from an HHS press release yesterday, “129 million Americans with a pre-existing condition could be denied coverage.” That’s roughly half of all Americans under 65 who might “be at risk of losing health insurance when they need it most, or be denied coverage altogether,” according to the release.

Or maybe it’s a little less. OK, perhaps even a lot less. The release quickly qualifies the headline estimate to indicate that it may be that as few as 50 million Americans—just 19 percent of the non-elderly population, rather than half—under 65 have “some type of pre-existing condition,” which apparently means everything from cancer to high blood pressure. It’s all rather hard to pin down, you see. 50 million. 129 million. It’s somewhere in there. With precision estimates like these, you know they’ve got the goods.

Fine. 50 million is still a big number. Should we seriously worry that almost 20 percent of Americans will lose their health coverage without the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act?

Not really. As the Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon points out, a 2001 study by none other than HHS noted that only 1 percent of Americans have ever been denied health coverage for any reason. And according to a just-published study in the health policy journal Health Affairs, “the fraction of nonelderly uninsured persons…who would be rated as actuarially uninsurable is generally estimated to be very small, less than 1 percent of the population.”

Meanwhile, as Avik Roy says, if HHS was really determined to solve the problem of coverage denials due to pre-existing conditions, a far better first step would be to de-link health coverage from employment by equalizing the tax treatment of insurance bought by employers and individuals:

Once people are buying insurance for themselves, rather than depending upon their employer, their insurance stays with them. If you lose your job or change jobs, your insurance will still be yours, just as your auto insurance and your life insurance stays with you regardless of where you work. And if you have insurance, like most Americans do, the issue about preexisting conditions is irrelevant: If you are sick, your insurance provides the coverage it is meant to provide.

We already have a real-world test of how many individuals are really looking to get coverage from an insurer that will give them a comprehensive market-rate policy despite pre-exisiting conditions. It’s not a perfect measure, but the PPACA created a network of high risk pools designed to serve those individuals between now and 2014, when health insurers selling individual policies through the individual market will be required to take all comers. Congressional Budget Office projections indicated that funding would run out early, and that about 375,000 people would enroll. It’s turned out to be underfunded; New Hampshire, for example, has already burned through the cash that was supposed to last until 2014. But the enrollment has turned out to be, well, a little less than expected. Instead of 375,000 enrollees, the program only has about 8,000—approximately 2 percent of projected enrollment.

In response, HHS, in conjunction with state governments, is beefing up its marketing campaign in hopes of finding more enrollees. That’s a little odd, even for Washington, which normally waits for a constituency to build numbers and influence before giving them a handout. But it suggests how few people are actually in the market for that type of coverage.

A relatively small percentage of individuals do have medical conditions that make them very expensive to treat, and thus very difficult to insure. But the coverage of half of all non-elderly Americans—or even 20 percent—won’t suddenly go away if the PPACA is repealed.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • The American People||

    Lie to me, bitch! Lie to me!!!

  • Raggedy Ann||

    That's what I said when I sat on Pinocchio's face and they kicked me out of the toy box.

  • Max||

    If you pull your head out of your ass too fast, Peter, it mat explode, and that's not currently covered. On the other hand, it would be a very small explosion.

  • Xeones||

    Eddddward. Eddddward.

  • sevo||

    Max|1.19.11 @ 12:25PM|#
    "If you pull your head out of your ass too fast, Peter, it mat explode, and that's not currently covered. On the other hand, it would be a very small explosion."

    So, Max, we can presume you agree that the administration is lying through its teeth? I mean you addressed the issue such that I'm reading between the lines here.
    Or are you just an ignorant asshole who can't read?

  • Xeones||

    It's the "ignorant asshole" one.

  • ||

    why u no like max he only 1 smart here

  • Pip||

  • Anonymous Coward||

    For a magazine called Reason, you certainly get some low-quality trolls.

  • ||

    I like Max.

    I think he's a feature, not a bug.

  • ||

    ARF!ARF!ARF!ARF!ARF!ARF!ARF!ARF!

  • Xeones||

    Who cares about facts or costs? We mean well!

  • Matrix||

    Road to hell... good intentions... all that!

  • West Texas||

    The takeaway here is that these fuckers are using an irrational - but totally understandable - fear that many people have of getting sick and going broke and using that fear to give themselves new powers and entrench themselves in office.

    Amiright?

  • ||

    using that fear to give themselves new powers and entrench themselves in office.

    Goddammit, Star Wars: Episode III was not a manual. I mean, 1984.

  • ||

    The emergency powers will be laid down when the crisis is abated. No, really, they will. I swear!

  • Michael Ejercito||

    The takeaway here is that these fuckers are using an irrational - but totally understandable - fear that many people have of getting sick and going broke and using that fear to give themselves new powers and entrench themselves in office.

    Amiright?


    Would not price controls on health care address these fears?

  • Hugo Chavez||

    Price controls always work.
    They never cause shortages.
    Shortages are caused by the free market.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Price controls always work.
    They never cause shortages.
    Shortages are caused by the free market.


    When prices for food and gas are capped, people tend to consume more food and gas.

    By contrast, if the price of chemotherapy is capped, people will not get cancer more often.

  • robc||

    You arent considering the other side of the supply/demand curve.

    When prices are on food or gas are capped, less food and gas are produced. When prices on chemotherapy are capped, less chemo will be produced.

  • Hugo Chavez||

    That is because of greedy capitalists.

    We need central planning to tell people how much food, gas and chemo to produce, or better yet we need to put all production in the hands of government.

    Since government can do no wrong, by definition of it being government, then the right amount will always be produced.

  • West Texas||

    By contrast, if the price of chemotherapy is capped, people will not get cancer more often.

    No, but they'll sure as hell opt for more tests just to make sure that they don't have cancer. And they'll go to the doctor more often in general if they perceive it as being cheaper.

    I'm guessing you think that insurance companies are just evil and greedy and charge what they charge because they want to get rich?

  • ||

    peter assumes a 10 yr old study is reliable & joins BOTH parties to assume anything desired.

  • DesigNate||

    Somalia!!!!1!!

  • sevo||

    OhioOrrin|1.19.11 @ 12:46PM|#
    "peter assumes a 10 yr old study is reliable & joins BOTH parties to assume anything desired"

    Got any data that says the study is wrong?

  • ||

    dont need data u no have facts like obama lol

  • sevo||

    OhioOrrin|1.19.11 @ 1:19PM|#
    "dont need data"

    So you're just a lying sack of shit? Thanks for making that clear.

  • ||

    data? like data fm a 10 yr old study? NOBODY HAS DATA ONLY ASSUMPTIONS...except for the seniors who got a $250 & the polling showing opposition collapsing.

  • sevo||

    OhioOrrin|1.19.11 @ 1:34PM|#
    "data? like data fm a 10 yr old study?"

    Let's be clear; unless you can show that study is wrong, you're just one more lying sack of shit grasping at straws.

  • ||

    show me where i directly wrote that the study is wrong. oh, and please do, as u say, be clear.

  • sevo||

    OhioOrrin|1.19.11 @ 1:56PM|#
    "show me where i directly wrote that the study is wrong."
    If it's not wrong, you fail.
    If it's wrong, you now claim you never said that so you fail.
    Sleazy............

  • marlok||

    Ur funnee, lol. Every poll (CNN, gallup, etc) shows strong support for repeal. Not collapsing, lol. :) Ur wrong + liar, troll. lol :).

  • ||

    After the hangover I had last weekend I swear I will never drink again, and if I do, may God strike OhioOrrin dead.

  • ||

    For a magazine called Reason...

  • ||

    OO's my drinkin buddy

  • AlmightyJB||

    I'll buy the first round.

  • sarcasmic||

    10 years old? That's, like, before the iPhone and stuff.

    What about that dusty old Constitution. That's, like, before color tv and stuff!

    I mean, that thing is old!

    Why do we need to follow something that is so, like, old and stuff?

  • ||

    that's pre-9/11 thinking

  • sevo||

    OhioOrrin|1.19.11 @ 1:37PM|#
    "that's pre-9/11 thinking"

    You should try thinking of any vintage.
    Well, maybe not; you could be harmed.

  • ||

    the 80M delta is a bit troubling however, this article does not account for the likelihood of pre-existing condition development as a function of our aging demographics.

    Also: "just as your auto insurance . . .stays with you regardless of where you work"

    Cuz those guys NEVER cancel you (or at least jack your premium to the moon) when you have a claim.

    Oh yeah, you 1 percent of the non-elderly unsurable, piss off.

    Obamacare is a POS - granted. But let's not act like there's no problem.

  • ||

    But let's not act like there's no problem.

    Looks like there's a 1% problem. Not, in the scheme of things, a very big one.

    The administration's argument in favor of ObamaCare always boils down to pre-existing conditions. To the extent we are going to use a federal program to address that (regardless of the lack of an enumerated power to do so), why not go with a program that is actually aimed at it, rather than a blunderbuss attempt to restructire and control the other 99% as well?

  • Michael Ejercito||

    The administration's argument in favor of ObamaCare always boils down to pre-existing conditions. To the extent we are going to use a federal program to address that (regardless of the lack of an enumerated power to do so), why not go with a program that is actually aimed at it, rather than a blunderbuss attempt to restructire and control the other 99% as well?


    Price controls can make health care affordable.

  • ||

    Non sequitur, Michael. The problem, as presented by the administration, is denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions.

    What does "price controls can make health care affordable" have to do with that?

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Non sequitur, Michael. The problem, as presented by the administration, is denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions.

    What does "price controls can make health care affordable" have to do with that?


    Consider this. Why do we need health insurance to afford to pay for health care at all? The only reason we need health insurance is because the price of health care is insanely high. Price controls will allow us to obtain health care without insurance.

  • Brett L||

    Or maybe health insurance made the price of health care insanely high. You know, when the Federal Government gave tax breaks to employers when they provided health insurance to employees.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Or maybe health insurance made the price of health care insanely high. You know, when the Federal Government gave tax breaks to employers when they provided health insurance to employees.


    How so?

    Are Geico and Mercury responsible for the recent rise in gasoline prices?

  • robc||

    We need health insurance for the same reason we need auto insurance or homeowners insurance. Better to pay a little each month than a lot all at once.

  • Trespassers W||

    Price controls will allow us to obtain health care without insurance.

    You're trolling for some reason, right?

  • Colonel_Angus||

    If more people had to pay for treatments for common pre-existing conditions out of pocket, then the cost of those treatments would be reduced significantly. Health insurance inflates the price of health care, especially when people think it is meant to cover things other than extreme emergencies.

  • sarcasmic||

    The administration's argument in favor of ObamaCare always boils down to pre-existing conditions.

    Stated goal and actual goals don't always jibe.

    Progressives are liars. That must be taken for granted. Anything that they say is to get you to believe something, and that something is never the truth.

    Just look at the consequences of the legislation if you want to know its purpose.
    The first thing that happened was insurance companies stopped issuing minor only policies.
    As other provisions kick in other policies will stop being issued.

    Then there will be only one insurer.

    But since that argument won't fly they focus on pre-existing conditions.

  • ||

    so im not progressive?...since progressives r liars acourse

  • sarcasmic||

    fuck off, troll

  • sarcasmic||

    Progressives fall into two groups.
    There are the clever ones who come up with the lies, and the stupid ones who believe them. The manipulators and the manipulated.

    You fall into the latter camp.

    Go fix the velcro on your shoe, mouthbreather.

  • ||

    ud make more sense w/o my dick in ur ear.

  • STEVE SMITH||

    STEVE SMITH LAUGH AT OO'S TINY COCK.

  • creech||

    If the free market can figure out how to price non-cancellable life insurance for an 18 year old, it can figure out how to price medical insurance. And a safety net for those reaching 18 with an uninsurable condition already (say MS) would be heck of a lot cheaper than what Obamacare will turn out to be.

  • cynical||

    But they're still bound to pay the claim, and the claim is for the incident.

    If medical insurers were required to pay for any medical "incident" that occurred while the policy was active, until the condition was cured (so, in the case of chronic/recurrent treatable but uncurable conditions, indefinitely) or the cap on the policy ran out, then losing coverage after a pre-existing condition would be less of a big deal.

  • Tman||

    It's almost as if the Administration rushed through this legislation hoping that no one would notice that they were lying through their fucking teeth about the justifications.

    Nice try assholes.

  • ||

    ull get the re-education u call out for

  • Jeffersonian||

    Aaron Wildavsky once proved that 371% of Americans are victims. HHS seems to be using his math as of late.

  • Pip||

    Good book, BTW.

  • ||

    If you lose your job or change jobs, your insurance will still be yours, just as your auto insurance and your life insurance stays with you regardless of where you work.

    Crazy talk!

    I used to know somebody (the wife of a friend) who bitched and moaned INCESSANTLY about her job. Every time I suggested she go to work for somebody else, she would tell me she could never get coverage because of her "pre-existing condition" whatever the fuck it was.

    So, yeah- throw off the shackles of employer-dependent health insurance, America!

  • ||

    Guess she never heard of Portability of Coverage for Pre-existing Conditions. As long as she has a window of less than 63 days between coverage, she'd be fine. In other words, existing unconstitutional laws already make Obamacare unnecessary, not to mention the fact that there are plenty of employers (usually large groups - aka evil corporations) that waive the pre-existing condition exclusion. Not that anyone would actually want to make a sacrifice of any kind to get the coverage they need.

  • Trespassers W||

    her "pre-existing condition"

    Even odds it was fibromyalgia.

  • Charlotte Sometimes||

    Well. . . I'd bet on HPV or herpes because her profound suffering with "fibromyaaaaalgia" would have been her favorite topic (other than hating her job).

  • ||

    The way people talk about the health insurance issue has seemed bizarre to me for years now; some small number of people has a problem, but instead of devising legislation/policy to help this small number of people, we have to overhaul the entire health care system and radically change the way every single person in the country deals with insurance providers and care providers. Why?

  • ||

    Something about Somalia being unfun or Sarah Palin is prettier than Democrats or some shit like that.

  • Phryxian Houndmaster||

    Because government agencies are subject to darwinian forces just like individuals, with the overall government analogous to a hive organism. Governments that solve problems as you just suggested don't propagate themselves as well as those that make more comprehensive changes. Either the government is outcompeted by rivals, or its own agents outcompete the ones holding it back. Either way, it grows better and better at using problems to advance its own growth, rather than actually solving them.

  • ||

    I don't know why nobody is dicussing options such as holding the original insurance company (if they had one) financially responsible for long-term treatment.

    I brought this idea up a while back, but it didn't seem to catch on.

    Doesn't it make sense, if a person was fully insured under company A, that if he (say) loses a limb in an accident and requires long-term care such as artificial limbs, phantom-limb treatment, wheelchair, etc. that company A should be financially responsible for the entire thing?

    It doesn't really make a lot of sense to me to EITHER say that company B should be required to take him, OR that the person should suddenly start paying much higher premiums, OR that company A can just drop him when he loses his job.

    Ethically and morally, the only thing that makes sense to me is: If you were fully paid with company A, company A is fully responsible for the entire cost related to a particular event. Even if the "event" is something that spans years.

  • sevo||

    "Doesn't it make sense, if a person was fully insured under company A, that if he (say) loses a limb in an accident and requires long-term care such as artificial limbs, phantom-limb treatment, wheelchair, etc. that company A should be financially responsible for the entire thing?"

    I'd say it depends on the contract. If you bought gold-plated, we'll-cover-everything coverage then, yes.

  • ||

    Right ok. But a lot of people get coverage through employers and don't have have the option of selecting a plan that will keep covering them after they leave.

  • sevo||

    "...a lot of people get coverage through employers and don't have have the option of selecting a plan that will keep covering them after they leave."

    My experience has been that when I left the employment of X, I simply started paying the insurance company myself.
    I've had the same coverage for something near 40 years, and only about half that time did I work for a company that offered my coverage. The rest of the time, I just made the payments.
    Is it really unusual to be able to just keep the coverage? Just asking.

  • ||

    My understanding is that it is. This is why COBRA was passed - so individuals could keep their coverage-for a limited period of time.

    But, my argument is that even if you stop making payments, if you got cancer before you lost your job, the insuance company should still be liable to pay for your cancer treatment.

    And similarly for long-term chronic conditions. If you were insured at the time it started, you should be covered for all the standard expenses for managing it.

  • sevo||

    "And similarly for long-term chronic conditions. If you were insured at the time it started, you should be covered for all the standard expenses for managing it."
    I don't think you, me or for that matter the US government could afford the premiums on a contract that included *that* clause.
    An insurance company offers contracts that pay X in the event of Y; they're not and can't be the guarantor of 'no harm'.

  • ||

    I don't think you, me or for that matter the US government could afford the premiums on a contract that included *that* clause.

    I don't think anyone has done the calculations involved to make that kind of assertion.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    But, my argument is that even if you stop making payments, if you got cancer before you lost your job, the insuance company should still be liable to pay for your cancer treatment.


    That makes sense.

    After all, suppose auto insurance were tied to employment. If you lose your job, the insurance company is still on the hook for any valid claims prior to the loss of the job.

  • ||

    Which is an excellent argument for giving individuals the same tax breaks as corporations for purchasing health insurance. To incentivize the individual to purchase their own plan seperate from employment.

  • ||

    I agree, it's a perverse effect of the employment based system. I just think that we're not going to get the ideal state, it's a vastly "less bad" option than the ban on pre-existing conditions exclusions.

  • ||

    Which is an excellent argument for giving individuals the same tax breaks as corporations for purchasing health insurance. To incentivize the individual to purchase their own plan seperate from employment.

  • ||

    I don't know why nobody is dicussing options such as holding the original insurance company (if they had one) financially responsible for long-term treatment.

    Because that would be a violation of contract? Their original company is liable for what they contracted for.

    Indefinite liability for expenses after the expiration of the policy is not one of the things the company contracted for, or (and this is important) that the beneficiary paid premiums for.

  • ||

    Yes, but suppose the expenses are due to an event that happened BEFORE that policy expired?

    Just for example ...
    Let's say that an individual has a life insurance policy with company A.
    Now person X goes missing, and stops paying life insurance premiums. He hasn't been declared dead, so his widow can't collect the insurance.
    Five years later his body turns up in the woods. Date of death is eastimated to precede when he stopped making payments on his policy.

    Under any reasonable interpretation, wouldn't the insurance company be required to pay up?

    How is this really different than needing (say) continuing surgery for an accident that occured BEFORE the policy expired?

  • sevo||

    "Under any reasonable interpretation, wouldn't the insurance company be required to pay up?"
    Yes, they'd pay the stated amount.

    "How is this really different than needing (say) continuing surgery for an accident that occured BEFORE the policy expired?"
    Because the contract says coverage ceases when you don't pay your premiums.

  • ||

    Then it's an unfair contract.

    Not to mention, the employee isn't the one agreeing to it, except indirectly by accepting employment.

    Obviously this a perverse effect of the employer-based system, as I've argued before. But in order to get us out of that crap, why not restore a semblance of what insurance contracts probably would look like if we didn't have those perverse incentives? I mean, we can look at any other insurance industry and note that nowhere else does this kind of thing happen.

  • X||

    So the CBO estimate was 50 times too low per patient?

    Has the non-partisan CBO ever overestimated the cost of a program?

  • ||

    This is one the feds way underestimated. 100% of us have a pre existing condition. We all began dying the day we were born.

  • ||

    plus ur retarded w cranial inversion syndrome

  • Pip||

    Jesus what a useless cunt.

  • ||

    "only 1 percent of Americans have ever been denied health coverage"

    It's not the denial. Of course they will accept you and take your money. The problem is when you need them to pay you for a major procedure and they drop you for pre-existing conditions.

    Are you really that naive, Peter? This is how all insurance works, life, medical, car. Warranties. You name it.
    You pay them for years and years then when you file a claim they deny it.

    This is not red/blue issue. You can be a libertarian or anarcho-capitalist or corporatarian and still hate the insurance industry. (And should...even if you work for it.)

    Not saying Obama needs to get involved, but I'm definitely saying our side doesn't need to skew the facts, either.

  • creech||

    Gee, then how do you explain the fact that most insurers pay out claims at close to 100% of their revenues? The insurance company profits come mainly from investing the temporarily excess cash. {disclosure: I'm a director of a small insurance -non-medical - company.}

  • ||

    You pay them for years and years then when you file a claim they deny it.

    I've never had an insurance claim denied. Not one. Not for auto accidents. Not for health insurance. Not for homeowners insurance.

    I work for a health system. The vast majority of our claims (and I'm talking north of 98%) are paid on first submission. Of the ones that are denied on submission, we still wind up getting paid on the vast majority.

    So, no, that isn't the way all insurance works.

  • ||

    There's really nothing to discuss, here. It's a fact, this is how the insurance company works. They want to maximize payers and minimize payouts.

    One way to do that is to accept someone for insurance, then drop them if their coverage becomes expensive. Preferred method is the "pre-existing condition."

    * * *

    As for the other thing, absolutely everyone I have ever discussed insurance with--no exceptions whatsoever--in multiple states with multiple insurance companies and plans, all see the same thing.

    Sometimes the insurance company will send you a bill, even though it was covered. Like for an MRI or something. So you simply ignore it, and they send another one, a little bit smaller than the first. Repeat again and again until the amount gets to zero (or your co-pay or deductible or whatever).
    For some insurers, you may have to call and be pro-active.

    For the most part [I'm willing to give you 98%] in the end, they pay. But if you were stupid or naive or not patient or stubborn, and paid the first bill they sent, then they didn't pay...you did.

    They should never have sent that bill (or the 2nd bill, or the 3rd...) in the first place, but why not take a stab in the dark, maybe make some free money? Caveat emptor. A sucker born every minute. Etc.

    I've never heard an exception to that bill-pay scenario from someone with personal experience. Ever. I'm 40 years old.
    And whenever I talk to them about they all just accept it matter-of-factly as though it's just the way of the world, and everyone else they have ever met tells the same story.

    I'm not sure what working for a hospital would have to do with it.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    One way to do that is to accept someone for insurance, then drop them if their coverage becomes expensive. Preferred method is the "pre-existing condition."


    Why is that in quotes?

  • Trespassers W||

    And even then, there's surely an inclination for folks to just go ahead and file a claim for something even if you're not really sure it should be covered. (I'm pretty sure I've had that happen for dental.)

    Of the denials, what proportion are seriously contested (or contestable)?

  • ||

    I'm north of 55, and like RCDA I have never had an insurance claim of any kind denied. Nor have I ever had a warranty or extended warranty on a product denied.

    Mind you, I've had hassles with insurors and other capitalist entities (most often involving human error), just as I've had hassles with government entities (ditto).

    Maybe I'm just too charming to be subject to these woes that are so common in others' experiences.

  • ||

    Just for the record, it wouldn't surprise me if half the people in this country who are currently on private insurance lose their coverage--as a result of ObamaCare.

    If we don't change things dramatically, bad things really are going to happen. The system as set up by ObamaCare is untenable. It really is.

    That's why ObamaCare should be scrapped. Speaking as a self-employed person with a preexisting condition--we can all do better on our own.

  • sarcasmic||

    Just for the record, it wouldn't surprise me if half the people in this country who are currently on private insurance lose their coverage--as a result of ObamaCare.

    Uh, that's the point.

    They can't pass Single Payer directly, so instead they pass rules and regulations designed to force insurance companies to drop coverage or go broke.

    This will be blamed on the free market, and then Single Payer will come to pass because it will be that or nothing.

    "The right thing to do never requires any subterfuge; it is always simple and direct."
    --Calvin Coolidge

    Obama and the Democrats is not big fans of Mr Coolidge.

  • ||

    I wish I could be that cynical about this but I'm pointing to Occam's razor on this one...

    Why presume malevolence when ignorance and incompetence explain it just as well?

    I don't think the Obama Administration is smart enough to trick us into being so angry at them, that we'll let them take us to single payer.

    I do think they're sufficiently incompetent to paint themselves into a corner though. ...and I think that's what they've done.

  • Trespassers W||

    Hanlon's [sic] Razor, to be precise.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor

  • sarcasmic||

    I never said anything about malice.

    I truly believe that these fuckwads mean well.

    They know that they can't pass Single Payer in an honest way, so they are doing it through deception.

    Deception is not the same thing as malice.

    The People are too stupid to accept Single Payer, so it must be foisted on them for their own good.
    One way to do this is to burden the health insurance industry with rules and regulations to the point where they go belly up, and then sweep in like superheroes to save the day!

  • ||

    The release quickly qualifies the headline estimate to indicate that it may be that as few as 50 million Americans—just 19 percent of the non-elderly population, rather than half—under 65 have “some type of pre-existing condition,”

    Depends. Is "Congress" a "pre-existing condition?"

  • Colonel_Angus||

    I AM CORNHOLIO!

  • ||

    well that's covered since its a pre-existing condition

  • Matrix||

    ARE YOU THREATENING ME?

  • ||

    From a purely political perspective, the Repubs could easily neuter the Dems on health care reform by passing some kind of fix for pre-existing condition denials.

    High risk health pools have been around at the state level for years. They are essentially an answer to the problem of pre-existing conditions/uninsurability.

    The Dems only card to play is the parade o' victims, and all the victims tell the same story about having a pre-existing condition. Take that off the table, and the way to repeal of ObamaCare is paved.

  • Granite Sentry||

    Geez, does this even SOUND true? Just a carefully constructed statistic specifically launched to gin up panic in the streets at the prospect of altering Obamacare. Everyone please get out your paper bags and begin breathing in them.

    When you feel better, read a bit about the HCR Act's new Accountable Care Organizations at www.granitesentry.com. You may need the bag again, for real this time.

  • ||

    My experience is hardly evidence of an industry-wide practice, but when my daughter, who is extremely fit and has a job which involves climbing along mountain ridge-tops setting off avalanches with dynamite charges, was turned down for medical insurance because of a relatively trivial medical condition, that suggests to me that there was a real problem with the system. This was not a case where they refused to cover some pre-existing condition... she simply could not get any insurance until she could show that the problem had been resolved and there was no reccurance for a year.

  • ||

    Was it a urinary tract infection or bacterial vaginosis?

  • ||

    That was mean-spirited. I'm reporting you to Olbermann.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    My experience is hardly evidence of an industry-wide practice, but when my daughter, who is extremely fit and has a job which involves climbing along mountain ridge-tops setting off avalanches with dynamite charges, was turned down for medical insurance because of a relatively trivial medical condition, that suggests to me that there was a real problem with the system.


    Why could not your daughter simply get insurance that would cover medical conditions aside from that particular condition?

    There is no reason why a person with pre-existing diabetes should not be able to get insurance for cancer or heart attacks.

  • sevo||

    Yeah, this sort of sniffs funny. *No* insurance?

  • ||

    Umm, you might want to remove heart attack from your list. Check out the incidence of heart attack among diabetics vs the general population.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Umm, you might want to remove heart attack from your list. Check out the incidence of heart attack among diabetics vs the general population.


    Still, that should simply lead to higher premiums for heart attack coverage, since, like death itself, one can not predict exactly when one would get a heart attack.

  • ||

    Ditto with stroke, renal failure, etc, etc...

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement