Coming from New Zealand where we have a public health system (with problems, but it exists), my reaction to a lot of the proposals has been: “Huh” or “that’s so fucked up” or “that’s making things better than they are now?”<\/p>\n
I’m not an incrementalist, But I thought I understood why people did support the bill. I thought that the trade-off was about ensuring that people could get coverage. I thought the mandate (which seems to me like a rort for the insurance companies) was part of the policy because of the requirement that insurance companies cover people with pre-existing conditions. I thought the ability of people<\/p>\n
But then I discovered that that although insurance companies have to cover people with pre-existing conditions, there will be no limit on how much extra they charge because of those pre-existing conditions.<\/p>\n
If insurance companies can charge what they like for people with pre-existing conditions, and people have to buy health insurance. Isn’t that basically an penalty payment on having an impairment, a body, or a life, that the insurance company deems non-standard?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Coming from New Zealand where we have a public health system (with problems, but it exists), my reaction to a lot of the proposals has been: “Huh” or “that’s so fucked up” or “that’s making things better than they are … Continue reading