The preexisting condition provision in the bill was thrown in as a bone

[bigtree]

. . . as a hook to keep us on the line.

The provision should be expected to survive in any bill or form this Congress with all of the momentum behind it. It should be an expected right of Americans to be protected against this type of discrimination. It's a damn sham that, in this case, (by design, I believe) it's the main hook used to justify passage of this horribly compromised legislation by so many advocates.

[Kitty Herder]

1. K&R

[DailyGrind51]

2. As a cancer survivor who was denied individual coverage for that reason,

it is enough for me to support the legislation. To me and others similarly affected by insurance discrimination, having insurance means remaining alive.

[TorchTheWitch]

3. those with pre-existing conditions will be priced out of coverage

Because there is nothing in any of the bills that says they can't raise premiums for those people with pre-existing conditions so high they won't be able to afford the coverage and will have to drop it themselves. Anyone that thinks the insurance companies will not take advantage of this loophole is not paying attention.

[pschoeb]

4. pre-existing coverage would be upheld by the courts for a mandate regardless of the bill

The insurance companies gave nothing up. Currently there are differences between group and individual policies rules, group policies cannot discriminate on pre-existing conditions. The courts would have found that government mandated consumers constitute a group policy(because they are not voluntarily purchased), and so must follow all the provisions of group policies. Pre-existing and recissions are only possible in individual policies, not group. Insurance companies know they most likely would have been forced by the court to follow group policy rules for mandated consumers.