In February 2017, Congressional Republicans issued a proposal to repeal the Affordable Care Act. The proposed plan would use tax credits to finance individual insurance purchases and cut federal payments to states which have been used to expand Medicaid. Conservatives who oppose the ACA argue that the plan did not go far enough in removing the government’s role in health insurance. They demanded that the new plan should remove the ACA requirement that health insurers could not discriminate against individuals with pre-existing conditions. Under the ACA health insurers cannot deny cove…
Read moreNarrow down which types of responses you would like to see.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Voting for candidate:
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
No
@9FQLH8PRepublican 2yrs2Y
Health insurers should not be allowed to deny people with pre-existing conditions because these people are the ones who need health insurance the most.
@9FR2KGHRepublican2yrs2Y
This places an unfair burden on insurance companies effectively turning them into charities against their will
@9XW8BRF5mos5MO
yes because I think that we need a good government because we want our country to be safe we don´t want to have people coming over the border eligley we want the boder to be shut down. and thats why i am voting for trump because he achally kepted our country safe he took down gas prices and food prices and he made our country 10x better. if you vote for kalma harris she will make everything 10x worse and she will rais up the prices and will let out eligle imingrants out of prison.
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
No, it is immoral to deny health insurance to people with pre-existing conditions
@9DCZQXDLibertarian2yrs2Y
How is it moral to tell any business how they must spend their money?
More practically, forcing insurance companies to cover people with preexisting conditions encourages people to wait until they get sick to purchase coverage, disincentivizes living a healthy lifestyle, and stacks insurers with predominantly sick people thereby raising costs. It is an economically UNSUSTAINABLE policy position.
@9RT98X78mos8MO
How do you propose people like me pay for medical care without insurance? I have MS, Lupus, Asthma, Psoriatic Arthritis, and medication-induced Primary Immunodeficency.
Why should healthy people pay higher insurance rates to cover unhealthy people?
car insurance is the opposite
@9G3PX8S 1yr1Y
Discrimination is the basis for insurance. Underwriting is how private companies can offer competing alternatives from one another, and establish niches in the marketplace. Imagine having to make a bet that you are not allowed much information on, and you're almost certain you're going to lose. This is why there are so few remaining health insurance companies. More competing companies would lower prices, increase quality, and increase attractive alternatives to a whole range of situations.
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
Yes, and the government should not be involved in health insurance
@9FKZ8XM2yrs2Y
If the government does not give health insurance a large portion of America will not be able to afford healthcare or medication for pre-existing medical conditions. A great example of this is Insulin witch costs less than 5 dollars to make but was charged over 1000 percent.
@9FQLH8PRepublican 2yrs2Y
Government sponsored health insurance can help reduce cost by leveraging huge negotiation power with medical service providers and pharmaceutical companies.
@9F4MZ98Progressive2yrs2Y
Universal healthcare has proven to provide superior healthcare and reduce economic stress on all individuals, as well as increasing general productivity of the populous.
In Canada and the UK, patients often face long waiting times for treatments and surgeries. This could be detrimental for those with serious conditions. How do you propose we ensure quality and timely care under a universal healthcare system?
Have you ever actually gotten healthcare in Canada or the UK, or are you just parroting what you’ve been told?
When I studied abroad in the UK several years ago, I had to go to the hospital twice. Both of those visits (at two different hospitals, by the way) were quicker than any hospital visit I’ve had back home in the States, and they did every single test onsite that day instead of having to refer me offsite and making me wait several more weeks just to get tests done, which is what the US is like now.
In what world do you live in where our current healthcare system in the US is fast and efficient with short wait times?
@9FJFPRC2yrs2Y
It is the government's responsibility to protect all Americans. Denying healthcare for any reason is a predatory behavior in a system where there is no alternative.
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
Yes
@9XW8BRF5mos5MO
That is why all the people in the united states should go vote for trump and not kalma hairris we want our country to be safe and secaure and not deathreating kalma will ruin our country and trump will fix it and i don think that all you people in the united states would want all the prices on everything to go up if you want the prices to go down then vote for trump there are many reasons why you want to vote for trump he will not make anything go up he will make it go down and he will not make taxas go up he will make them go down so if you don´t want everything going up vote for trump he is the right presdant for our country.
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
Yes, insuring people with pre-existing conditions drives up costs for everyone
Not enough information for an informed vote
Abolish all forms of insurance. They’re nothing more than a middle man getting paid to tell people which providers patients can or cannot see.
The fact we even have to ask this question scares me. No, we should never deny a person the ability to live.
@DemocracyJayRepublican8mos8MO
It's important to consider how insurance works: it's a risk pool where everyone contributes to cover the few who need it. If insurers can't deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, they might need to increase everyone's premiums to cover those higher costs. This could make insurance unaffordable for many healthy individuals.
@9CX2SSZNatural Law2yrs2Y
No, and healthcare should be free.
@8FQ5VYM5yrs5Y
No, but they should be free to require people with preexisting conditions to pay more for the same coverage
@9D644HF2yrs2Y
Insurance is a parasite on society and must be taxed 100% for exploitation of victims and vulnerable individuals among many other disadvantaged groups
@95L3J333yrs3Y
Yes, but they shouldn't be left high and dry.
@9L4Z23BIndependent 11mos11MO
Yes, as long as health insurance is purchased outside of a window from November - December. This will prevent individuals from purchasing insurance only after they need it
@B2FNVYT3mos3MO
I have a pre-existing condition, and it is cruel to deny coverage to someone who suffers daily because of it.
@B27PKJW3mos3MO
No, but they should make acceptations to people who have pre-existing conditions such as cancer or aids patients.
no they shouldnt be allowed to deny that person or charge them more. nobody is choosing to have a condition.
@9ZGPCN85mos5MO
Yes, but charge them with higher tax rate or fee, and subsidize those that accept people with pre-existing condition
@9ZD3HXX 5mos5MO
No, Health insurance should be universal and free to all American citizens regardless of pre-existing conditions
@9L4Z23BIndependent 5mos5MO
No, as long as an individual purchases insurance during an open enrollment period, that person should be covered for pre-existing conditions
Yes, but only if the preexisting condition is because of an individuals choices (such as obesity or smoking).
@9S49TVC 8mos8MO
This is an inhumane question, we pay taxes and keep the US infrastructure running. The tax payers deserve to be taken care of.
@Ellie13Republican 10mos10MO
Yes, they should raise the premium for the person with a pre-existing condition. Also, the government should not be involved.
@9ND8RVVIndependent10mos10MO
Yes. Requiring companies to cover people with higher likelihood of requiring high-cost services means the insurance company is no longer an insurance company... it's a piggy bank. A separate publicly-funded insurance pool or government subsidization of some of their costs should be created to deal with individuals with this issue.
No, this defeats the point of healthcare, and we should have a single-payer system to improve healthcare
@B2LVZZW2mos2MO
Healthcare should be covered by taxes that are paid every month - so no insurance should even be needed.
@9GT9LJR1yr1Y
No, unless there is no effective treatment for a symptom and the situation is utterly helpless, then health care providers should not deny or increase the price of coverage.
@96BRTBW2yrs2Y
If they have health insurance and switch to a different health insurance no
@8SXMXB7Constitution4yrs4Y
No, and socialize healthcare
@B4GFNF94 days4D
No, but add penalties that are barely heavy enough to disincentivize seeking coverage at the last minute
@B4BKN351wk1W
No, they should not be allowed to deny care, or raise rates past their current rate for 65+ individual. They should carry a separate funding account that 5% of each agents commission amount from all sales goes to. This account would cover the needs for the client with pre-existing medical condition.
@B4B5FVS1wk1W
Yes, but only if we have single-payer healthcare system that prioritizes people with pre-existing conditions.
@9L4Z23BIndependent 1wk1W
No, and the federal government should adopt a risk equalization pool similar to Switzerland to prevent premium spikes for those with pre-existing conditions. This could be funded by a small tax on premiums (1-2%)
@B49PZ6K2wks2W
Depends on case by case, if you do it depends on case by case or increase insurance for those with conidition.
@An-Enby-American2wks2W
No, especially if these individuals were dropped by a previous insurer. This would fall under discrimination.
@B45YHFNIndependent2wks2W
The government should create a safety net program for people with pre-existing conditions that can't get coverage.
@B43W7B83wks3W
We need to investigate the reason prices are so high more than we should deny coverage or force companies to do things that are not in their best interests.
@B3Y3ZHY3wks3W
Yes, insurance is meant to socialize risk which is unknown to most participants. Insurance should not be used to pay for services that are regularly needed. People in high risk pools should be treated outside of an insurance or fee for services model with government picking up the cost.
@B3VGV2T 4wks4W
Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), health insurers are prohibited from denying coverage or charging higher premiums to individuals based on pre-existing conditions.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
Pre-ACA:
Before the ACA, insurance companies could refuse coverage or charge higher premiums to people with pre-existing conditions, making it difficult for many to access necessary healthcare.
ACA Protections:
The ACA, enacted in 2010, included provisions to protect individuals with pre-existing conditions, ensuring they could obtain health insurance without fear of being denied covera… Read more
@B3SFFDRRepublican4wks4W
There are circumstances that they should deny coverage but there are others that if it morally benefits the patient they should approve and apply the insurance.
@B3RM3PN 1mo1MO
Yes, but only if the government garentees Medicare coverage for those who can’t find privet coverage due to prior conditions
@B3RLSSYLibertarian1mo1MO
No, insurance companies that covered persons with pre-existing conditions as children should be required to continue coverage after the child becomes an adult.
@B3QWXWS1mo1MO
No, but there should be a vestment period To discourage people from not acquiring health coverage until they have been diagnosed with an illness.
@Name-IrrelevantConstitution 1mo1MO
It is wrong to refuse to help someone, but it isn't necessarily the government's role to regulate this.
@B39GYLG1mo1MO
I believe that there should be very few instances where they should be allowed to deny coverage. However, I do support higher prices for those with pre-existing conditions.
@Aeckert1532mos2MO
I can understand the argument for the denial of coverage for certain pre-existing conditions, but not all.
No, and for profit health insurance should be eliminated and we should adopt a socialized healthcare plan that covers everyone
@B2ZKFKG2mos2MO
No, it is immoral to deny health insurance to the people that need it the most. Denial of healthcare coverage to those with pre-existing conditions is eugenics.
@9LBWF8XRepublican1yr1Y
No people with pre-exsiting conditions like heart problems and sickness that they got through but their insurance screwed them over they should be able to switch to a different insurance if they want to.
@9LB8QBY1yr1Y
People with pre-existing conditions should be evaluated for the severity of their condition and then given a rate based on their condition.
@9L8558S1yr1Y
I think that they should cover individuals who have a pre-existing condition, however, the insurance companies that cover said individuals should receive subsidies in the form of tax breaks that are tied to how many people with pre-existing conditions they cover.
@9L75WB81yr1Y
Insurance companies should be abolished and we should create a National Health Service that treats everyone.
@9L6N4DT1yr1Y
Companies should insure a certain percentage of people who have a pre-existing condition based on the size of the company.
They should be able to deny coverage to individuals who have a condition impacted by their own choices. They should not be able to deny individuals who have pre-existing condition that could not have been avoided.
@9KTQ32SIndependent1yr1Y
It should be treated like any other risk factor that an insurance underwriter may use to determine if the company could reasonably support your policy during a time of economic recession.
@9KSYN6D1yr1Y
Yes, people have the option to deny coverage but they should still provide health care under the oath a doctor takes when they become a doctor.
@9KQ8LQLLibertarian 1yr1Y
No, but they should be allowed to deny coverage to drug users, and increase rates for those with lifestyle choices affecting their health
@9KNK34YLibertarian1yr1Y
Yes, if their pre-existing condition was self-inflicted. If it was a natural disaster like getting struck by lightning, that shouldn't be a factor.
@9KJQRX61yr1Y
Health ‘insurers’ should go out of business, and all the money spent on health care should go to the health care workers.
@9KJCVX51yr1Y
No, but people with pre-existing conditions that can be related back to addictions (i.e. smoking, excessive alcohol use, drug use) should be reviewed.
@9KJ4KQB 1yr1Y
No, but if the individual lies about their pre-existing conditions, then that should be an exception.
@9KH977J1yr1Y
Health insurance should not be an industry. Insurance that everyone gets the Healthcare they need is all we need to worry about.
If the pre existing condition is caused by previous ill decisions then it should not be covered. But it is immoral to deny coverage to someone who is sick and has no decision in their health.
@9KC893XLibertarian 1yr1Y
Yes, however, there should be a system in place to provide coverage or care for those who are not eligible for normal forms of insurance.
@9KBYNKK1yr1Y
No, but the risk involved with insuring such people would be minimized by spreading it across the entire population through universal single payer health care.
No, pre-existing conditions are just medical history and should not deny anyone the right to healthcare
@Rev.-CPW 1yr1Y
We should socialize healthcare and let everybody, regardless of pre-existing conditions benefit from the same system.
@9JVYNS61yr1Y
No. But they should be allowed to raise or lower premiums and out of pocket costs based on pre-existing conditions.
@9JVJFPC1yr1Y
Companies have the right to deny any customer they choose to. However, healthcare should be affordable to all without the use of insurance.
Regardless, healthcare insurers should be abolished in favour of a single-payer healthcare system where everyone is covered.
@9JQR7QW1yr1Y
NO. I get locked up if i try to kill myself right? Otherwise euthenasia must be legal and readily available for those with permanent conditions. No one has ever asked to be born, but we keep insisting and then tossing them in the gutter. hypocrites
@9JQNM3V 1yr1Y
Yes, it is immoral but it is ultimately a private business. There are religious and crowd sourced options that can be utilized as well.
@9JPFXR2Libertarian1yr1Y
The mandates for health coverage are what drive up costs, we should deregulate health insurance and only require the coverage of emergency care, and unexpected health complications, not due to age or behavioral habits such as overeating.
@9JLWNJW1yr1Y
I think everyone should have the right to healthcare but at the end of the day companies have to protect themselves to
@9JL9Q8N 1yr1Y
Yes, health insurers should be able to deny coverage or charge more if the pre-existing condition is correlated with the use of illegal substances (drug abuse) or clinically discouraged habits (tobacco use, certain sexual behaviors) by the individual under consideration. Exceptions for people born with conditions beyond their control.
@9JKQG9N1yr1Y
No, but it should be a small factor in choice at most and should vary depending on severity and frequency of the condition.
@9JBS9RS1yr1Y
Yes, I would hope that health insurers will help people regardless of laws. I know this might not happen, but I don't think the government should require businesses to do this sort of thing.
@9J8Z7PV1yr1Y
This is a hard one to answer, I side with private businesses being able to deny any customer but I also believe it to be immoral not to help someone in need
@9J5V6G31yr1Y
Yes, but ensure that people who are denied insurance have access to adequately funded high risk insurance pools.
@9J36DH21yr1Y
If there is a public coverage option, private insurers should not be compelled to enroll individuals with known, significant, late-stage, costly pre-existing medical conditions. But any rule would have to be detailed and nuanced.
@9J2TPYT1yr1Y
Yes, but there should be a federal program in place for people that fall into this category, but it can not be a result of negligence in personal health - i/e people born with disabilities
@9J24H3WLibertarian 1yr1Y
No but it could affect costs when conditions are due to personal choices (e.g. habitual drug use, gender reassignment etc)
@9HZ8SG71yr1Y
No, but they should be able to exclude the preexisting condition from coverage or be allowed to offer additional riders for that condition
@9HZ45ST1yr1Y
Potentially if the condition would be used to ensure benefit to the person, i.e. if they know they have to lose a kidney in the next year, an insurer shouldn't have to insure that
@9HY5G9P1yr1Y
Yes if the pre-existing condition is detrimental like cancer. If it's something they'll have for the rest of their life like diabetes, then no.
@9HXTPLZ1yr1Y
The grounds of this should depend on severity of the pre-existing condition and if it can be preventable.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
