Healthcare is one of the key issues in this election. If we had a nickle for every time a speaker at the RNC said "Obamacare," we could cut the national debt in half. Yet, I don't think that average American has any real understanding of what Obamacare is, how much it will cost, how it will impact on the elderly and the unemployed, and how it will change the status quo.
I'm not even sure that Romney and Ryan have a real plan for something different. Over the weekend, Romney said that his plan would make sure that people who switched jobs weren't penalized for having a pre-existing condition. But he also said that he wouldn't deal with it. It's all so confusing.
Has Obama made cuts in Medicare? How does Medicaid affect special needs education?
We need some clarity about these matters. This week, I'm going to point to great websites and articles that neatly summarize healthcare and Medicare/Medicaid policies. If voters go to the booth, they really should know what's at stake, beyond slogans and name calling.
Apt. 11d 
“Over the weekend, Romney said that his plan would make sure that people who switched jobs weren’t penalized for having a pre-existing condition. But he also said that he wouldn’t deal with it. It’s all so confusing.”
Ezra Klein doesn’t think it’s confusing.
“The idea of “continuous coverage” is pretty much what it sounds like: Under the scheme Saul laid out earlier, an individual who kept buying insurance month after month could not be turned away by an insurance company. The goal is to create an incentive for healthy people, who don’t think they really need coverage, to keep paying monthly premiums — ensuring that they would have access to health insurance if their health should take a turn for the worse.”
LikeLike
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/09/romney-does-have-a-plan-for-pre-existing-conditions-heres-how-it-would-and-wouldnt-work/
LikeLike
As near as I can tell, Romney’s plan is basically that status quo as far as pre-existing conditions and he confused everybody by trying to make it sound like something more than it is.
LikeLike
Ezra Klein may not be confused, but I am confused by Ezra Klein. I think MH is right. “Continuous coverage” was the standard before Obamacare, due to HIPAA.
What exactly is the difference between “repeal Obamacare and go back to the default HIPAA rule on continuous coverage” and “repeal Obamacare and replace it with the Romney rule on continuous coverage”? It sounds like Romney is just saying that he won’t repeal HIPAA also.
LikeLike
Amy’s quote is from Sarah Kliff (writing on Ezra Klein’s wonk blog).
Saul (Romney spokesperson) is being quoted as saying that the governor supports ending pre-xisting conditions [with continuous coverage]. MH & Ragtime tells us that’s already true with HIPAA (a law I don’t understand particularly well, since it’s also the privacy law and the medical records law). Under Obamacare, pre-existing conditions are eliminated completely (without the continuous coverage requirement).
The difference, of course, is that if you’ve ever been uncovered by insurance,: From the same blog post: “That’s great for an individual who gets a new job. But continuous coverage isn’t so great for the individual who has spent sometime without insurance, perhaps because of difficult financial times. Continuous coverage won’t do much for you in that situation.”
LikeLike
PS: Another difference appears to be that HIPAA only applies to group coverage, not individual plans. So, if Romney really supports eliminating the preexisting conditions clauses for all insurance, the law would have to be changed to cover individual plan as well.
My reading is that HIPAA prevents a group plan offered by your employer from excluding coverage for previous conditions, as long as the individual had continuous coverage. But, if you buy an individual plan, you don’t have to be covered for pre-existing conditions. I think this is the loophole the horrible stories about individuals who were trying to buy short term coverage fell into. That is, an unemployed/or self-employed uncovered person bought a six month policy, and was diagnosed with an condition during that policy, and then denied coverage when they tried to buy the next six month policy.
LikeLike
Also, apparently the campaign clarified with the economist parachute argument for why no changes in continuous coverage law would be required: “in a competitive environment, the marketplace will make available plans that include coverage for what there is demand for. He was not proposing a federal mandate to require insurance plans to offer those particular features.”
(I.e. the economist parachute example, ’cause markets make parachutes appear in falling planes in a competitive environment).
LikeLike
the governor supports ending pre-xisting conditions [with continuous coverage].
Maybe Romney just wants to actually eliminate pre-existing conditions — like cancer or high blood pressure!
If he actually has a plan to get rid of pre-existing conditions (rather than just pre-existing condition exclusions from insurance companies), I might have to re-consider my vote.
LikeLike
Well, in a competive environment, the market should eliminate pre-existing conditions. I suspect the answer is less regulation and lower taxes. That should be the answer, to curing cancer.
LikeLike