Pre-existing archeology isn’t science. It’s law. And law wasn’t growing grapes in Eden with classy cows. Did I do that right?
I haven't had the chance to read through this thread but I'm guessing this is what prompted your other thread about what the Founding Fathers believed in. For me personally I am leery of the idea of health care as a right mostly because we don't have the resources to provide unlimited health care. It's unfortunate but to keep a system that serves everyone solvent we will have to ration care especially at the end of life. What I think health care is is a good. If we're going to look back to Locke and the philosophy of the Founding Fathers health care would be considered a good as part of the commons that every citizen should have a right to access and that it is in the interest of society overall that that good is maintained overall. In other words a healthy society is something that government should look to maintain.
I don't have the time or inclination to read through the whole thread so apologies if this has been brought up. The biggest problem I have with GOP line that they are saving pre-existing conditions is that I have yet to see a mechanism that does so that can also address long term viability of private insurance. It's basically an unfunded mandate at this point on private insurers. As long as we depend on private insurance we will need some way of expanding the pool of payers into the system. Under the pre-ACA system and we are seeing this now following the stripping of the mandate from the ACA is that costs and access to care will rise as those without health insurance still access the system but very inefficiently through things like emergency rooms. Ultimately that care has to be paid for and the only way to recoup that costs is to charge more for everyone. The only ways I can see addressing this are either through a new mandate and / or a public option that everyone get's enrolled in if you don't have private insurance. Otherwise through a single payer system that completely removes, or greatly limits, private insurance. Republicans are against all of those but have yet to come up with an alternative for how to deal with uninsured or under insured people using health care. To head off the inevitable, I'm young and healthy so why should I need health insurance. Being young and healthy doesn't prevent someone from having an accident or occasionally getting sick. There is a lot that we can't control such as you might be the safest driver out there but that doesn't mean that other drivers aren't safe. Insurance is there to deal with what we can't control.
As I understand things... ACA currently covers pre existing conditions and will continue to do so. It is possible that if you have a private plan that you purchased prior to 2010, a preexisting condition may or may not be covered. Trump signed an executive order that will preserve preexisting conditions if the ACA is struck down or dismantled. There are doubts as to whether or not the XO has any teeth. I don't think either party wants to eliminate preexisting condition coverage.
The overall goal of the ACA is to reduce costs. Everyone has insurance, everyone sees the doctor, costly emergency visits are therefore reduced Unfortunately even that simplicity is too complicated for a lot Americans to follow
For me personally, ACA has increased costs tremendously. However, I know a lot of people who have an incredibly low (or zero) cost due to ACA.
Insurance companies will recoup the lost revenue from covering those with pre-existing conditions some way. Whether it's direct or indirect the cost to the totality of americans is the same. The only way to reduce the total burden on the american people is to remove significant amounts of people from the system (not cover pre existing conditions) or remove insurance companies.
One thing I recently learned, is that if insurance companies (at least in Florida) do not spend a certain percentage of their premiums on actual health costs, you get a rebate. I recently got a rebate of around $750. That is about 3.5% of my annual premium cost. At least it was something.
Facts. But, I think that ship has sailed. We work longer hours and have longer commutes than other western countries. And, more importantly, have food engineered to make you fatter. Sometimes I eat healthier in other countries just because their junk food sucks.
I think there are other potential ways for providing high quality care to all at possibly lower cost. What if health care is made to compete on quality and health? They must provide health care to everyone in their group and cannot drop anyone. They get a regular scheduled payment by the people in their group (directly or as some tax transfer [through the government] from that group to them). Anyone that is sick enough to stop working would dry up the payment, but they must maintain care for the sick. Retired folks are covered by the government through their SSC or existing system, but a similar principle apply - keep them healthy to get payment. Their incentive is to keep the group healthy. That could mean a greater emphasis in preventative care and high-quality care with greater health outcome. Didn't do any math on it, just throwing out an idea. We do know that preventative care is the most cost-effective care, by many order.
