ideogenetic
New member
individual mandate? Republicans overwhelmingly supported banning pre-existing condition clauses in the new health care law. But they opposed the very heart of making that ban a reality, the individual mandate. Why don't they realize that without the mandate, you can't ban pre-ex clauses and expect insurance companies to run a profitable business, or avoid the unnecessarily expensive cost-shifting to responsible health insurance subscribers?
Competition does NOT solve the pre-ex problem because healthy people can still op-out of the insurance system.
Pre-ex clauses only exist because people remain outside the paying insurance pool until they become seriously ill. In order to avoid lowering profit margins or shifting the cost of those selfish insurance consumers onto responsible consumers, the pre-ex clause (usually 1 year of pre-ex review and denial if conditions are determined to be pre-ex) is added to subscribers who HAVE NOT HAD CONTINUOUS insurance coverage.
Nothing in a competitive market will solve that because no profit-motivated insurer has an incentive to pay for the health care of anyone who has never paid for that benefit.
"opt-out" should be read above
Competition does NOT solve the pre-ex problem because healthy people can still op-out of the insurance system.
Pre-ex clauses only exist because people remain outside the paying insurance pool until they become seriously ill. In order to avoid lowering profit margins or shifting the cost of those selfish insurance consumers onto responsible consumers, the pre-ex clause (usually 1 year of pre-ex review and denial if conditions are determined to be pre-ex) is added to subscribers who HAVE NOT HAD CONTINUOUS insurance coverage.
Nothing in a competitive market will solve that because no profit-motivated insurer has an incentive to pay for the health care of anyone who has never paid for that benefit.
"opt-out" should be read above