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 more@ISIDEWITH7yrs7Y
No
@9FQLH8PRepublican 7mos7MO
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.
@9FR2KGHRepublican7mos7MO
This places an unfair burden on insurance companies effectively turning them into charities against their will
@ISIDEWITH7yrs7Y
No, it is immoral to deny health insurance to people with pre-existing conditions
@9DCZQXDLibertarian8mos8MO
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.
@PragmaticValentinaDemocrat8mos8MO
Why should healthy people pay higher insurance rates to cover unhealthy people?
car insurance is the opposite
@9G3PX8S 6mos6MO
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.
@ISIDEWITH7yrs7Y
Yes, and the government should not be involved in health insurance
@9FKZ8XM7mos7MO
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.
@9F4MZ98Progressive7mos7MO
Universal healthcare has proven to provide superior healthcare and reduce economic stress on all individuals, as well as increasing general productivity of the populous.
@MinorityBradyLibertarian7mos7MO
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?
@9FQLH8PRepublican 7mos7MO
Government sponsored health insurance can help reduce cost by leveraging huge negotiation power with medical service providers and pharmaceutical companies.
@9F8BQQZRepublican7mos7MO
There are certain Pre-existing Conditions that should be covered no matter what so the government should get involved to regulate it.
@ISIDEWITH7yrs7Y
Not enough information for an informed vote
@95L3J332yrs2Y
Yes, but they shouldn't be left high and dry.
@9CX2SSZNatural Law9mos9MO
No, and healthcare should be free.
@8FQ5VYM4yrs4Y
No, but they should be free to require people with preexisting conditions to pay more for the same coverage
@96BRTBW2yrs2Y
If they have health insurance and switch to a different health insurance no
@JakeV92212mos12MO
Yes, only non whites.
@VulcanMan6 12mos12MO
So you're just blatantly racist...
@9D8LFJF8mos8MO
At least you're honest about your bigotry. Still not cool.
@9GT9LJR5mos5MO
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.
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.
@9B8BFNG11mos11MO
Private companies should be permitted to write their own policies.
@99MBMYR1yr1Y
Yes. For private companies.
@8F4NBFN4yrs4Y
no but they should be able to charge higher premiums
@95J5J7B2yrs2Y
@8QJQ28V3yrs3Y
Health insurers should not exist.
@98WYC9D1yr1Y
They should have to disclose that before getting a rate.
@96BBG8C2yrs2Y
Yes, it's a private company. They have a right to make a profit.
The government should be involved in healthcare, and offer insurance which must cover everyone.
However, nobody should be obligated to participate in the government program, and should be allowed to choose private companies if they wish.
@9LKM64V2 days2D
No, but to an extent. If someone knows that they need very expensive treatment and then decide to switch to a plan that allows it I think that's a bit mean.
@9LJY92KLibertarian3 days3D
No. If someone is sick, should the company that is supposedly in business to help them when they are sick be allowed to say: “sorry it’s not in our interest to help you” Money is the root of all evil.
@9LG4RCG1wk1W
It depends on the pre existing condition. If you break your arm without insurance then subsequently buy insurance that shouldn't be covered. But a chronic condition can be treated differently.
@9LFW5MS 1wk1W
No but there should be a system where everyone pays an equal amount into the system starting at age 18 until death or unable to work any longer. Parents pay an equal amount for each child.
@9LDNCX7Libertarian1wk1W
It depends on the condition. If it’s self inflicted, absolutely bar a person. If it’s inherited and commonly treatable, don’t bar.
@9LBX4TC2wks2W
there are people in this world that are in pain and they need help from time to time to stay strong and healthy.
@9LBWF8XRepublican2wks2W
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.
@9LB8QBY2wks2W
People with pre-existing conditions should be evaluated for the severity of their condition and then given a rate based on their condition.
@9L8558S2wks2W
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.
@9L75WB83wks3W
Insurance companies should be abolished and we should create a National Health Service that treats everyone.
@9L6N4DT3wks3W
Companies should insure a certain percentage of people who have a pre-existing condition based on the size of the company.
@9L388VP4wks4W
Yes, however if somebody has a pre-existing condition and they can't find an insurer they should be helped by the government.
@9L2DDWQWomen’s Equality4wks4W
No, I think it's important to continue having it as it allows another person with the pre-existing as this includes more people into the new ACA act.
@9KWVG7J1mo1MO
Depends on the condition. However, as long as the price is fair and both parties are content then we have no room to talk about this topic.
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.
@9KTQ32SIndependent1mo1MO
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.
@9KSYN6D1mo1MO
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 1mo1MO
No, but they should be allowed to deny coverage to drug users, and increase rates for those with lifestyle choices affecting their health
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
