Many pixels have been spilled about how horrible it would be for those with per-existing conditions were ObamaCare to be repealed. There may or may not be much merit in that argument, but it neglects to address a more fundamental question:
How has ObamaCare been for those with these conditions?
To hear proponents tell it, O'Care has been a godsend for those with serious pre-existing conditions, offering a much improved experience vice pre-ACA days. But is this really true?
Well, we already know that O'Care has an actual body count, but is that a string enough argument agin it, at least insofar as those pesky pre-ex situations are concerned?
Turns out, not so much.
First, H H Manning alerts us to this excellent piece from Linda Gorman (director of health care policy at the Independence Institute, a free market think tank based in Denver):
"ObamaCare has failed patients with pre-existing conditions ... Estimates suggest that less than one percent of all people covered by private insurance have medically uninsurable conditions that would make them ineligible for medically underwritten coverage." [emphasis added]
Bingo. So we throw out the baby's insurance with the bath water. But that's not really the best part of this article. That would be this:
"The fact that so few policy makers have any actual experience with the individual insurance markets they want to regulate makes them particularly susceptible to snake oil salesmen with an agenda."
And I think "so few" is being far too generous: Congress boasts about a dozen or so doctors, yet there seems to be exactly zero insurance agents. Now, I don't believe that it's strictly necessary that only insurance agents get to vote on insurance-related matters (in that case, there was ever only 1 person who could have voted on NASA). But I do think it speaks volumes about the fact that no one there has actually been in the trenches, sitting down with moms and dad's and business owners, and thus able to offer insights and solutions that might actually, you know, work.
And by the way, if you still think that ObamaCare has been such a panacea for those very few uninsurables, well, Dean Clancy tips us to this insightful post from uber-wonk John Goodman, who actually co-wrote it with one of those aforementioned insurance agents:
"Obamacare’s destruction of the individual health insurance market has done enormous damage to the lives and finances of millions of people who purchase their own insurance."
Go on...
"Mandated health coverage is now the second most expensive item in many household budgets ... only about 10 percent of them were previously uninsured"
So, fewer carriers, more expense, very few first-time buyers.
Sure smells like #Winning, no?
How has ObamaCare been for those with these conditions?
To hear proponents tell it, O'Care has been a godsend for those with serious pre-existing conditions, offering a much improved experience vice pre-ACA days. But is this really true?
Well, we already know that O'Care has an actual body count, but is that a string enough argument agin it, at least insofar as those pesky pre-ex situations are concerned?
Turns out, not so much.
First, H H Manning alerts us to this excellent piece from Linda Gorman (director of health care policy at the Independence Institute, a free market think tank based in Denver):
"ObamaCare has failed patients with pre-existing conditions ... Estimates suggest that less than one percent of all people covered by private insurance have medically uninsurable conditions that would make them ineligible for medically underwritten coverage." [emphasis added]
Bingo. So we throw out the baby's insurance with the bath water. But that's not really the best part of this article. That would be this:
"The fact that so few policy makers have any actual experience with the individual insurance markets they want to regulate makes them particularly susceptible to snake oil salesmen with an agenda."
And I think "so few" is being far too generous: Congress boasts about a dozen or so doctors, yet there seems to be exactly zero insurance agents. Now, I don't believe that it's strictly necessary that only insurance agents get to vote on insurance-related matters (in that case, there was ever only 1 person who could have voted on NASA). But I do think it speaks volumes about the fact that no one there has actually been in the trenches, sitting down with moms and dad's and business owners, and thus able to offer insights and solutions that might actually, you know, work.
And by the way, if you still think that ObamaCare has been such a panacea for those very few uninsurables, well, Dean Clancy tips us to this insightful post from uber-wonk John Goodman, who actually co-wrote it with one of those aforementioned insurance agents:
"Obamacare’s destruction of the individual health insurance market has done enormous damage to the lives and finances of millions of people who purchase their own insurance."
Go on...
"Mandated health coverage is now the second most expensive item in many household budgets ... only about 10 percent of them were previously uninsured"
So, fewer carriers, more expense, very few first-time buyers.
Sure smells like #Winning, no?
Posts
