Facts debunk opinions when the two are at odds, but only when folks actually see the facts and consider them. Take the much-discussed “pre-existing conditions” promoted by Democratic Party candidates—insisting that voting for Republicans means loss of protection for pre-existing conditions.
Sen. Kamala Harris took this argument a step further during her lecture to Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett on Tuesday evening, October 13. Harris insisted that reelecting Donald Trump would strip out protections for people with pre-existing conditions and cost 135 million Americans their health care.
Democrats assert that the 7 million Americans who have been diagnosed with COVID-19 will henceforth have a medical pre-existing condition. True, but to suggest they will lose health care (health insurance) because of it if Trump wins reelection is like saying it is certain that if Biden wins, Minnesota lakes will not freeze over this winter.
Harris is entitled to her opinion but not to her own facts, because the fact is, as all U.S. Senators agree to protect the prohibition on exclusions for pre-existing conditions. Trump has repeatedly promised to leave this protection untouched. As certain is frozen Minnesota lakes in winter, protection for pre-existing conditions will remain engrained in health insurance law no matter who wins the 2020 election.
Still, it is worth it to delve a little deeper into the question of forcing insurance companies to accept all health risk on an equal basis. The law currently requires them to do this with one exception – tobacco users. Insurance companies are allowed to charge more premium to tobacco users because medical science is fairly clear – if a person smokes, than he or she will be sicker than they do not smoke.
Medical science is just as clear that if you previously had a heart attack, have or once had cancer, are diabetic, obese, live with kidney disease, had a stroke and certain other “pre-existing conditions,” you will have more medical needs. That is, your pre-existing condition means it will cost more to provide you medical care than to someone who is healthier.
Imagine if you bought a car with a huge dent in the passenger-side door. Your auto insurance company will not pay to repair that door because it pre-existed your purchase of the car. Neither would you be able to buy car insurance after suffering an accident. If car insurance companies had to accept everyone on the same terms, despite the “pre-existing condition” of the car, or pay repair bills after you buy insurance, the cost of auto insurance would make it unaffordable for everyone. This is what has happened with health insurance cost, since the law prohibits insurance companies from considering an individual’s medical costs related to the risk of treatment when they calculate insurance premiums.
If I am obese with diabetes, losing my eyesight, and suffering from other medical complications due to my chronic disease, and you are healthy with no pre-existing conditions, you will pay far more for insurance so that I can pay far less. This is how today’s law prohibiting discrimination based on pre-existing conditions works.
Minnesota handled this problem well prior to the Affordable Care Act of 2010. Everyone, despite medical risk, could buy health insurance. Those with medical risk paid more premium because they would spend more on medical care. Yet comprehensive insurance policies were available for all comers. True, these policies did have waiting periods before they would pay for medical care but no one would reasonably expect an ill or injured person without insurance to buy it after the fact, without waiting at least for a period of time. Wait times were a reasonable way to encourage people to buy insurance before needing it.
Democrats who say Republicans will do away with the prohibition on pre-existing condition exclusions ignore the fact, not opinion, that there is more than one way to offer insurance to everyone. With the Affordable Care Act of 2010, which passed only with Democrat votes, lawmakers established a plan to help pay insurance cost for folks with high medical risks. The ACA set aside funds to pay for care with people who had pre-existing conditions who had no health insurance. Incidentally. Interestingly, only a small proportion of eligible people ever signed up for this help.
Bottom line. The provisions in law prohibiting health insurance policies to exclude pre-existing conditions is not going away despite who gets elected in November. Hopefully, once this election is over, bipartisan support can be mustered to pass new legislation to counterbalance the high cost of claims for individuals with serious, expensive chronic health conditions, reducing the cost of health insurance for all.
