Here’s the thing: health insurance is supposed to be a policy for the catastrophic. This is a brilliant article from Powerline on the issue of pre-existing conditions:
Once the facts became clear, of course, we won the case. You can’t buy insurance against something that has already happened. You can try to make someone else pay your bills, maybe, but you can’t buy insurance. The fact that that plaintiff’s building had burned down was a preexisting condition.
It’s no wonder that health insurance policies have historically excluded coverage for preexisting conditions. You can insure against the risk that you might get cancer, but if you already have cancer, it’s not a risk, it’s a certainty. Yet there are several reasons why the analogy to my plaintiff who changed his mind about insuring his building isn’t fairly applicable to the current health care debate.
For one thing, the fact that health insurance is conventionally linked to employment–the curse of our present system–creates huge distortions. If an employee changes jobs, the consequence may be a change in insurance companies. A condition that was covered under the old plan is preexisting from the standpoint of his new carrier. Unlike my plaintiff who regretted his decision not to buy insurance on his building, the employee who changes jobs is entirely blameless and didn’t set out to assume a risk.
Sebelius “women are paying higher costs often with less coverage and being discriminated against by insurance companies.”
Um, could this be because women HAVE BABIES? Geebus – I’m having a Mugatu moment here, “am I on crazy pills?” Gosh, I just don’t know WHY I could possibly be charged more than a man, you know, just because I’m having a baby and require services respective to my vagina and uterus, things men don’t have, to care for my in-utero baby!
I don’t like it when the race card is played, I don’t like it when the chick card is played, either.
As I’ve said before, I DON’T have insurance right now. We’re shopping around to find the best policy for us, something we will be barred from doing if we’re forced to go on a restrictive government policy. I’ve also gone through things as scary as what Michelle Obama described – I once drove 90 mph to the hospital because my oldest was having an asthma attack. His lips were blue and I was terrified. He was on oral steroids afterwards and his asthma problems have decreased being that it was triggered by allergies which he received treatment for and is outgrowing.
My mother-in-law was dumped by her insurance company upon discovery of a rare disease called POEMS. She wasn’t denied care; quite the contrary: she received care and help with her bills from fundraisers, et al. St. John’s hospital even wrote off some of her lab expenses (one hospital of many where she received treatment) as certain hospitals actually provide for this annually in their budget. My mother-in-law would have died on a restrictive, government-forced health care plan. She would not have had the freedom to seek better care elsewhere.
The scare tactics and the chick card are unappreciated. We’ve all been through the same, if not worse.
Also, from Hoft:
What First Lady Michelle forgot to mention was that women with breast cancer have a 14 percent higher survival rate in the United States than in Europe. Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States, and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Breast cancer mortality is also 9 percenthigher in Canada than in the US. Less than 25 percent of U.S. women die frombreast cancer. In Britain, it’s 46 percent; France, 35 percent; Germany, 31 percent; Canada, 28 percent; Australia, 28 percent, and New Zealand, 46 percent.
For some reason she forgot to mention these facts in her video.
Also, aren’t liberal women supposed to be pro-choice? Why support something that limits women’s choices?