Pre-existing conditions a thing of the past, right? - Well....

[kpete]

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3590/text?version=as&nid=t0:as:855

‘SEC. 2701. FAIR HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS.

‘(a) Prohibiting Discriminatory Premium Rates-
‘(1) IN GENERAL- With respect to the premium rate charged by a health insurance issuer for health insurance coverage offered in the individual or small group market--
‘(A) such rate shall vary with respect to the particular plan or coverage involved only by--
‘(i) whether such plan or coverage covers an individual or family;
‘(ii) rating area, as established in accordance with paragraph (2);
‘(iii) age, except that such rate shall not vary by more than 3 to 1 for adults (consistent with section 2707(c)); and
‘(iv) tobacco use, except that such rate shall not vary by more than 1.5 to 1; and
‘(B) such rate shall not vary with respect to the particular plan or coverage involved by any other factor not described in subparagraph (A).

.................

How does that work in this reformed system, you ask?

By more than doubling the maximum penalties that companies can apply to employees who flunk medical evaluations, the legislation could put workers under intense financial pressure to lose weight, stop smoking or even lower their cholesterol....

In effect, they would permit insurers and employers to make coverage less affordable for people exhibiting risk factors for problems such as diabetes, heart disease and stroke.

"Everybody said that we're going to be ending discrimination based on preexisting conditions. But this is, in effect, discrimination again based on preexisting conditions," said Ann Kempski of the Service Employees International Union.

The legislation would make exceptions for people who have medical reasons for not meeting targets.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/15/AR2009101503036_pf.html

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/12/17/815514/-Insurance-Reform-Pre-Existing-Conditions

[MaggieDee]

It's not discrimination based on pre-existing conditions...

It's rate discrimination based upon pre-existing behavior. Big difference. I wonder how long it will be for health insurance companmies to also discriminate based upon hobbies and occupation; i.e., bungey jumping and race-car driving. It seems only fair.

[unblock]

3. cholesterol levels, e.g., are not (merely) a function of "pre-existing behavior"

first, there's a genetic component to cholesterol; some people can have high levels even if they eat a tiny amount; others can have low levels despite eating gobs of it.

second, since when does medicine give a rat's ass about WHY you need medical care? shall we charge skiers double the price for broken legs? or check to make sure you used a shower mat before you slipped and fell?

no, you need medical care, you get it, no questions asked. even people injured while committing heinous crimes should be treated the same when it comes to medical care. it's simply wrong to do otherwise.


i'm as anti-smoking as they come, but i firmly believe any disincentives against smoking should NOT be linked to health care or health insurance. if you want to provide a disincentive against smoking, just keep jacking up the tax on tobacco products.

[flyarm]

1. the whole damn thing is a scam and it has been from the get go! eom

[sui generis]

2. rating areas are an interesting gimme

those were initially conceived to cover preferred provider availability in rural and underserved geographical areas, which also tend to have a higher rate of illness and injury.

Thus, by having a zipcode in the ghetto, you are automatically qualified to pay a higher premium than someone in a gated community.

AND WHY IN THE HOLY FUCK does your employer manage your health? Of all the peasant kingdom lord/serf relationships, this one is the most profoundly offensive and invasive.

Your medical stats are YOUR business, not your employer's business. If you take a drug test for nicotine or even just a simple physical, you are required to list your prescriptions. Your employer can require that you go to a clinic (partner) of their choosing, not your personal doctor. The testing company has a business relationship with your employer which essentially exempts them from prosecution for sharing your "voluntarily" disclosed health records with anyone they choose, anyone at all, and to sign and validate your test you essentially sign away your HIPAA protections.

This is not health care reform. This is actually making things worse for the people who need access to healthcare the most.

[Luminous Animal]

5. It enforces the primacy of the ownership class.

Yet another building block towards feudalism.

[democracy1st]

4. K & R