HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Romney Admits His Health ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 09:27 AM

Romney Admits His Health Plan Would Not Prohibit Discrimination Based On Pre-Existing Conditions

from HuffPo: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/13/mitt-romney-health-care_n_1594711.html


____ In his Tuesday speech, Romney said that under his plan, a person who is covered by his or her employer and has a pre-existing condition could not get dropped after switching jobs. The Obama campaign's policy director, James Kvaal, argued in response that such a concept was already law. Under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, a person can't be excluded from health insurance coverage because of a pre-existing condition provided that he or she has had continuous coverage.

Romney aides insist that their proposal is more tailored to the modern economy, making it so that even individuals who leave big companies to start mom-and-pop shops won't be at the whims of insurers who discriminate.

The devil is ultimately in the details of the actual plan -- though as the Washington Post's Ezra Klein notes, there are precious few available. But even when (or if) that plan is produced, it will include an obvious hole.

For starters, there is the question of what happens to individuals with pre-existing conditions who lose their jobs rather than move to a new one? Often, COBRA coverage doesn't fully cover treatment costs or last long enough. Another, perhaps more pertinent question is what happens to people who enter the insurance market already suffering from a pre-existing condition?

Andrea Saul, a spokesman for the Romney campaign, addressed the latter point in a statement to The Huffington Post.

Fixing our health care system means making sure that every American, regardless of their health care needs, can find quality, affordable coverage. That is why Governor Romney supports reforms to protect those with pre-existing conditions from being denied access to a health plan while they have continuous coverage. And for those purchasing insurance for the first time, he supports reforms that empower states to make high risk pools more accessible by using cost reducing methods like risk adjustment and reinsurance. Beginning on his first day in office, Governor Romney is committed to working with Congress to enact polices like these that protect Americans’ access to the care they need.


The statement confirms that under a Romney presidency, there would be no federal prohibition barring health insurers from discriminating against pre-existing conditions. Instead, his administration would push reforms that help eat away at the problem. It would allow "reinsurance," in which insurance companies pool resources for a joint plan to cover high-risk patients (essentially an insurance policy for health insurers); provide block grants of Medicaid dollars to the states while giving them flexibility to cover their uninsured population; and encourage the creation of high-risk pools.


read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/13/mitt-romney-health-care_n_1594711.html

12 replies, 3274 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to bigtree (Original post)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 09:53 AM

1. Any Democrat who voted for HCR needs to justify why there is a 6 month waiting period without

insurance before you get covered for a pre-existing condition

It baffles me how they are both trying to hurt the ones that need it the most

For romney, if you lose your job, and were covered by health insurance they have to cover you for pre-existing conditions. However, if you didn't have insurance and have a preexisting condition, you are screwed.

For the Democrats, if you lose your job, you have to wait 6 months before you will be covered by health insurance for pre-existing conditions.

The Democrats version is only better because if you survive without insurance for 6 months, you can eventually be covered. In repukes say if you didn't have insurance and have a pre-existing condition you will never be covered

Both sides however, go out of their way to penalize those that need it the most

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #1)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 11:20 PM

10. That's why we need single payer system so everyone has coverage

just like the NHS

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rosa Luxemburg (Reply #10)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 11:43 PM

11. I agree but until we get real progressives it won't happen. / nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #11)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 11:52 PM

12. More like, no lobbying by health insurance companies etc.

If there were no Republicans and companies were begging and had no influence we would have a better America. All the progressives in the world won't fight off the powers that be. The powers need to be removed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 10:18 AM

2. They should ask him, why does he favor govt. run over private company insurance???

Isn't that what "state high risk pools" are?? Govt run health care?? Sounds like socialism to me.

Of course there has to be a waiting period of 30 days or something for preexisting conditions, but you can't just exclude people altogether, that defeats the point of insurance and risk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 12:27 PM

3. what used to happen before there was health insurance?

It is a wholly manufactured extremely & complicated criminal enterprise that has everyone convinced they must have it. On account of insurance companies medical costs have gone up. Fear of the unknown keeps people paying money they really don't have and very well may never see again.

I know there are cases where having insurance turns out to be a wonderful thing but I've never experienced it, personally, and their very existence makes me crazy, if I think about it, which I don't much any more.

I can either afford to eat healthy food and take good supplements and take good care of myself, or I can afford to pay for the other kind of health insurance. My one experience of having insurance pay costs was for a completely unnecessary transport to the hospital & associated costs (I fainted at a restaurant, and shouldn't even agreed to the transport.)

One of the reasons I don't like the whole medical and insurance establishment is that it encourages people to be helpless and ignorant and afraid. My deepest apologies to the many great people who work within that system. I know it is full of good people and there is a lot of good care. Please excuse my biased rant.. I have never had a good experience or outcome with the overall system so I'm not a big fan. I lived as a landed immigrant in Canada for ten years and was always given necessary health care at no charge. I suppose that may be changing now in Canada with the crazies taking over up there too.

edit to add that Romney strikes me as one of the slimiest people I've ever seen run for president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Voice for Peace (Reply #3)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 12:48 PM

5. You can eat healthy, take good supplements, take care of yourself and still get MS

which will bankrupt you without insurance.

Or CP, or asthma, or have a car accident and suffer catastrophic injuries, or have a child contract leukemia, or... (insert calamity here that has nothing to do with healthy living or supplements).

Fact is, life happens. My husband is a poster child for healthy living and eating as a professional athlete and he got lymphoma. His treatment has cost a small fortune which would have destroyed us if we didn't have insurance.

I agree that the whole insurance industry is a racket. It MUST go. It infuriates me to be sitting next to someone at the hospital who is as deserving of medical care as my husband but they can't afford it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #5)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 03:58 PM

6. I do realize that, but if I have to make a choice, which I do

I choose to take care of myself now, invest in the quality of my present life.
I don't have the funds to invest against a future catastrophe which may or may not happen.
The people who can easily afford insurance are the people who probably need it the least.
I know people who go to a doctor for every little sniffle and bump, because insurance covers it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Voice for Peace (Reply #6)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 06:33 PM

7. But, a newborn doesn't have the opportunity to make a choice like that.

My wife and I both took good care of ourselves, she did all the prenatal stuff that she was supposed to. Our son was born with a birth defect, and had his first surgery within 12 hours of his birth. He then spent a month in NICU. It wasn't a matter of maybe he could have lived without the surgery, he would have died within 48 hours without the surgery.

That first month (over 30 years ago) was just over $1,000 a day. That's not including the surgery costs. Then, there were checkups, and several ER visits. At 11 months, he had additional surgery, and then monthly checkups for about 5 years.

We could not have afforded that kind of care, without insurance. Due to our having insurance, we have a healthy son, and two lovely granddaughters, instead of a grave to mourn at.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HuskiesHowls (Reply #7)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 06:44 PM

8. that must have been so hard to go through

and I'm happy things turned out well for your family.
I have a niece who started life in a similar way. I don't know
if they had insurance but the families had tons of money so
they could afford the needed care, and today she's a wonderful lady.

I'm not against insurance altogether, but against for-profit insurance
that hardly anyone can realistically afford but everyone is terrified
to live without.

That's why I asked, what did people used to do? I don't recall
anything like health insurance when I was growing up. We just
went to the doctor and paid him if he helped us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 12:43 PM

4. And Romney doesn't understand the Medicare doughnut hole

He calls it the Medicare "goodie".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Thu Jun 14, 2012, 09:41 PM

9. Of course, because he is an elitist shithead

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread