Health care should be as simple as this:

[mw]

Reduce the debate to one, simple aspect:

Outlaw discrimination on the basis of health.
That means providers and insurers can't make coverage or care decisions based sickness, health, and/or pre-existing conditions.
Period. That's it.

Do this, and in no time, insurance companies will be SCREAMING to make coverage mandatory, and soon, because if they can't deny anyone based on health, people will only get insurance when they're sick, and insurance companies lose. It will become a sort of Kobiyashi Maru move, in that we'd create an environment where the health industry would be spending their money TO ACHIEVE one of our goals: mandatory coverage.

Outlaw health discrimination, and it will shake up the debate in future years, tame (somewhat) the death-for-profit industry, all while stepping us far towards the direction we need to go.

[mdmc]

1. well said

:)

[Rosa Luxemburg]

2. Congress should make this mandatory - eradicate the pre-existing condition clause

Congess could make it mandatory that no insurance company or hospital make decisions based on pre-existing conditions. why haven't they passed legislation on this. why wait?

[mw]

4. For one, if there's such a clause, then coverage becomes mandatory

When the insurance companies can't turn you down for being sick already, then what's to stop people from just NOT getting health insurance until they're sick, then they waltz into an insurance company and demand coverage?

But I'm saying who cares. Pass the law banning health discrimination, then let the insurance companies lobby later (from their new weak position) to make insurance mandatory.

[quantass]

7. I agree but congress will find it an easy sell to mandate all...

to protect the poor po' insurance companies from people taking advantage. I say you cant have one without the other. Insurance companies will like that part. Heck, +20% in premiums a year later as a thank you to the greater pool.

Things would be so much simpler with Single Payer like Canada

[jesus_of_suburbia]

3. I totally agree. nt

[Schema Thing]

5. I've said for a couple of years now "Pre-existing condition" should

be archaic language in America. The next generation shouldn't even recognize the term.



And another thing, there should be zero difference between the cost of insuring a 2 year old and the cost of insuring a 102 year old.


We're either all in this together, or we're not.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

6. why didn't congress deal with this years ago?

[DrToast]

8. Insurance companies already want coverage to be mandatory

And they're okay with not discriminating based on pre-existing conditions.

I'm not exactly sure what this post is supposed to mean.

[mw]

10. No they don't.

Insurance companies may salivate over mandatory coverage--then they can charge as much as they want. But health discrimination is the foundation of how the health industry makes its money: charge healthy people, cancel sick people, make money.

There is zero agreement from the insurance industry on "no health discrimination".

[Sebastian Doyle]

9. I can make it simpler than that.

Medicare can no longer "discriminate" on the basis of age. Problem solved.

[nc4bo]

11. +1 nt

[area51]

12. +2 (n/t)

[mw]

13. Actually I agree. Too bad Obama can't executive order it nt

nt

[slipslidingaway]

14. Age ratings in proposed legislation...

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/obamas_consumer_protections.php

"...To help journalists and the public understand all this, I contacted Mila Kofman, the insurance superintendent for the state of Maine, who knows insurance regulation as well as anyone. A few takeaways: while some of Obama’s eight protections may be a real benefit to policyholders, others already exist, and reporters need to keep a careful eye on what happens to all of them as Congress and the special interests start fiddling with legislative language. Herewith is my consumer protection primer:

No discrimination for preexisting conditions. That’s a good thing, and insurers have agreed to eliminate health status as a factor for granting coverage in the individual market if every American is required to carry insurance one way or another. Right now, a few states restrict preexisting conditions clauses; the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), passed in 1996, gives people the right to buy a policy in the individual market without regard to health problems if they do so within sixty-three days of losing coverage and if they have used up all their COBRA benefits. HIPAA, though, didn’t say anything about premiums, and so insurers in most states charge higher rates to discourage people with preexisting medical needs from signing up.

What to watch for: Lobbyists inserting language that limits insurers’ risks, like the restrictions in the HIPAA law that still make it difficult for sick people to obtain coverage. President Obama has been silent on the question of age rating, which serves as a proxy for using health as a factor in charging higher rates. Older people are likely to present more health risks and cost the insurers money. “As long as they can rate people up for age, that’s a proxy for health rating,” Kofman says..."


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6267263&mesg_id=6267263

"...Health insurers will no longer be able to deny coverage to people based on pre-existing conditions or to charge them more based on health care conditions, health care usage, or gender. These system reforms will allow more Americans to purchase the health insurance they need.

Insurance companies will, however, be allowed to charge higher premiums based on age (age rating). Unfortunately, age rating may be a proxy for pricing insurance premiums based on health status, especially on chronic conditions. The House of Representatives Tri-Committee draft bill allows insurance companies to charge older people twice as much as younger people. The Senate Finance Committee is contemplating letting insurance companies charge up to five times as much based on age..."