undefined | Better HN

0 pointsplatz9y ago0 comments

With regards to pre-existing conditions, Ryan's plan talks about continuous coverage policies. Under a "continuous coverage" policy, a person with a pre-existing condition would need to avoid having any gap in insurance coverage in order to avoid paying more for insurance or being denied outright.

So if you lose your job and your health coverage, insurers would be able to deny you coverage.

But if you never have a gap, then you can't be discriminated against.

Rep. Steve King said " If we guarantee people that we will - that there will be a policy issued to them regardless of them not taking the responsibility to buy insurance before they were sick, that's the equivalent of waiting for your house is on fire and then buying property and casualty insurance.

0 comments

2 comments · 2 top-level

hackerboos9y ago

So turn the entire population into H1B visa employees. Leave and you lose your health coverage forever?

jly9y ago

I think what Steve King said makes sense to me - protections like 'blanket no denial for pre-existing conditions' could incentivize waiting to purchase insurance until a condition arises, which compromises the system.

The gap solution, though, is not a great idea. If someone falls under a certain level of economic or other hard times and incurs a gap for even a very brief duration, it is in my opinion a very harsh penalty to use that as an excuse to deny them coverage. This is especially true when many families pay a large amount for existing coverage.

The only tenable solution is to force everyone to have coverage. If that's the answer, I see no better implementation than single-payer.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse