Pre-Existing Condition
Today, another reminder hit the newswires that the biggest pre-existing condition in Washington is lying.
In a blatant and starkly obvious bit of timing, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released a report estimating that as many as 129 million Americans under the age of 65 could be suffering from some sort of pre-existing condition.
Is it any wonder that people have so little faith in government?
Just one more scare tactic employed to convince people of the efficacy of an Obama policy. Remember the good old days when the world didn't hang in the balance with each and every stroke of a government pen?
If that 129 million number were in fact true, shouldn't we be throwing a ticker tape parade for insurance company executives? They'd have to be miracle workers for premiums to be at current levels with one out of every two plus people in the pre-existing condition bucket.
Coincidentally, only a few months ago Democrat congressmen Henry Waxman and Bart Stupak published a memorandum detailing coverage denials for pre-existing conditions in the individual health insurance market. In their memo they found that "...from 2007 through 2009, the four largest for-profit health insurance companies, Aetna, Humana, UnitedHealth Group, and WellPoint, refused to issue health insurance coverage to more than 651,000 people based on their prior medical history."
Admittedly, they're talking about four providers (although four that happen to encompass a huge percentage of the market), but it's quite a leap from 651,000 to 129 million.
Never let the truth get in the way of your ideology.
The fact that denials exist should not lead one to conclude that a government takeover of an industry is required. Insurance companies run private, for-profit businesses. They have a right to determine the profile of a customer that fits within their business model (subject to reasonable regulatory requirements). The government does have a role, though. That role, however, is not to force insurers to accept customers who will either destroy their business or force them to raise premiums across the board in order to mitigate the increased risk. The government's role should be to support/subsidize high-risk insurance pools for those who fall outside typical parameters, but who still require coverage. That is how a pragmatic social safety net works.
It is sensible, market-oriented solutions, underpinned/augmented when necessary by reasonable government policy (such as the aforementioned), that allow our economy to flourish, not the stifling government-first approaches that seem to be reflexive for the Obama administration.
Otherwise, Obama might as well just start ending every speech, with "Yeah, that's the ticket."
In a blatant and starkly obvious bit of timing, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released a report estimating that as many as 129 million Americans under the age of 65 could be suffering from some sort of pre-existing condition.
Is it any wonder that people have so little faith in government?
Just one more scare tactic employed to convince people of the efficacy of an Obama policy. Remember the good old days when the world didn't hang in the balance with each and every stroke of a government pen?
If that 129 million number were in fact true, shouldn't we be throwing a ticker tape parade for insurance company executives? They'd have to be miracle workers for premiums to be at current levels with one out of every two plus people in the pre-existing condition bucket.
Coincidentally, only a few months ago Democrat congressmen Henry Waxman and Bart Stupak published a memorandum detailing coverage denials for pre-existing conditions in the individual health insurance market. In their memo they found that "...from 2007 through 2009, the four largest for-profit health insurance companies, Aetna, Humana, UnitedHealth Group, and WellPoint, refused to issue health insurance coverage to more than 651,000 people based on their prior medical history."
Admittedly, they're talking about four providers (although four that happen to encompass a huge percentage of the market), but it's quite a leap from 651,000 to 129 million.
Never let the truth get in the way of your ideology.
The fact that denials exist should not lead one to conclude that a government takeover of an industry is required. Insurance companies run private, for-profit businesses. They have a right to determine the profile of a customer that fits within their business model (subject to reasonable regulatory requirements). The government does have a role, though. That role, however, is not to force insurers to accept customers who will either destroy their business or force them to raise premiums across the board in order to mitigate the increased risk. The government's role should be to support/subsidize high-risk insurance pools for those who fall outside typical parameters, but who still require coverage. That is how a pragmatic social safety net works.
It is sensible, market-oriented solutions, underpinned/augmented when necessary by reasonable government policy (such as the aforementioned), that allow our economy to flourish, not the stifling government-first approaches that seem to be reflexive for the Obama administration.
Otherwise, Obama might as well just start ending every speech, with "Yeah, that's the ticket."
Right now, I'm eating an oreo dipped in peanut butter. THATS a pre-existing condition.
Its humorous that folks my age have no idea what's going on in government when it comes to health care. What's even FUNNIER is that NO ONE in my industry has a clue either.
Within the last year, suppliers have faced MAJOR cost increase and are forced to pass on some of these increase to our customers (Hospitals, Surgery Centers). For example, our raw cost of cotton has increased about 40% since last November and there is no end in sight. The same can be said for Latex (For Surgeons and Exam gloves [please keep your mind out of the gutter]).
At the same time, reimbursements from Insurance companies and Medicare/Medicaid have seen drastic decreases as well. Increase in materials cost, decrease in reimbursement, equals less profit. In my opinion, as that gap shrinks, theres a better (definite) chance for the government to come in and "save the day."
Combine that theory with the inability for anyone in government to agree to Tort reform, we're on our way to incredible, undeniable, mediocre socialized health care.
Your thoughts?
Reply to this
Agree. If you look at the top 30 industries, healthcare ranks near the bottom in terms of profit margin. The fixes are relatively simple and private-market-oriented. Allow competition across state lines. Enact serious tort reform. Promote medical savings accounts. And, have the government support/subsidize high risk insurance pools for those with chronic pre-existing conditions and the indigent.
Reply to this
amen brother!!!!
Reply to this