Thursday, November 05, 2009

I don't think health insurance companies should be forced to cover pre-existing conditions... or, more to the point, I don't think people with insurance should have their premiums raised to provide medical coverage for pre-existing conditions.

If our elected representatives want to provide medical care to people with pre-existing conditions who don't have the money to pay for that care themselves, then they ought to acknowledge this and write the check directly.

But if our elected representatives want to provide this coverage, it is inconsistent to, as is being proposed, delay coverage for six months.

If Congress says it isn't right that people with pre-existing conditions can't get someone else to cover most of the cost of treating those conditions... doesn't Congress have the obligation to pay for that treatment from Day One? What rationale justifies saying to someone 'yes, you shouldn't have to pay for that treatment yourself, but we're not going to start paying for six months?'.

And it doesn't make medical sense either. Delaying coverage for six months will only lead to people holding off on getting care during the gap... which will lead to people needing more care once they get coverage. If keeping people from getting sick and needing care is a key component to reducing health care outlays, how does encouraging someone to do without treatment for six months going to help?