Cantor: We’ll have a preexisting conditions provision in our new health-care plan too

posted at 6:57 pm on November 30, 2010 by Allahpundit

Offered as a correction to this morning’s Headline item. Initially, the Hill reported that Cantor wanted to retain ObamaCare’s framework for preexisting conditions. Not so, as they now note in a postscript to the article: He wants to repeal the whole thing, then replace it with a GOP bill that will have its own, different preexisting conditions provision — but no individual mandate.

How that’s going to work in practice, I have no idea.

Cantor stressed that while he supports full repeal of the current law, Republicans share some of the same goals as Democrats, although they propose different ways of achieving them.

“We too don’t want to accept any insurance company’s denial of someone and coverage for that person because he or she may have pre-existing condition,” Cantor said, addressing a young woman in the audience who noted that she had a pre-existing health condition.

“And likewise we want to make sure that someone of your age has the ability to access affordable care, whether it’s under your parents plan or elsewhere,” Cantor added.

If you’re serious about covering people with preexisting conditions, you’re going to have to subsidize them one way or another. Either you do it by forcing everyone to buy insurance and use the larger premium pool to cover the costs of care for those who are sick, or you bite the bullet and treat this as what it is — welfare for the infirm, a.k.a. Medicare — and let the state pay for them, which means tax hikes to cover the cost. Both options are heresy for Republicans. In fact, so important is the mandate to paying for preexisting conditions coverage in ObamaCare that some think if the former is struck down in court, the latter will have to be tossed out with it. Ace is right that Cantor’s reassurances will make it easier politically to repeal O-Care if the opportunity arises, but what happens if the opportunity does arise and then suddenly the GOP can’t figure out a way to square the cost circle? Are we going to cut other programs to offset the costs for covering preexisting conditions? If so, which ones? He’s making some mighty expensive promises here.

Update: Philip Klein’s underwhelmed by those mighty expensive promises:

Overall, the GOP plan was not very ambitious and is not a true free market alternative. It does allow Americans to purchase insurance accross state lines, but it doesn’t remove one of the biggest barriers to the creation of a free market for health care, which is a tax code that discriminates against those who purchase insurance on their own instead of through an employer. Nor does it include any significant changes to Medicare and Medicaid.

While stopping short of forcing insurers to cover those with pre-existing conditions, the plan would force states to set up “qualifying” federally-subsidized high risk pools or reinsurance programs. It would also make dependents out of everybody through the age of 25, so younger Americans can stay on their parents policies longer. Under ObamaCare, the age is 26.

By all means, the first order of business for conservatives is finding a way to repeal ObamaCare. But winning the health care debate in the long-run will require much bolder solutions than Republican leadership has embraced thus far.

Update: John McCormack of the Standard reminds me of this Capretta/Miller piece from earlier this year about how high-risk pools for those with preexisting conditions might work.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

So what this really comes down to is that there are very few real stories to debate so lets rip somebody a new a** over a couple of sound bites about a bill that hasn’t been written yet based on the repeal of O care that hasn’t happened yet. The pieces are starting to get pretty weak around here or a lot of people just like puffing out their online chests just to show people how things are going to be. Yeah I said it, here I am, what ya gonna do?

Seriously, there seems to be a lot more dead space these days especially in the over night hours. It also seems that there are a lot more pieces based on their ability to get comments as apposed to the content or relevance of the piece itself. I say let some of the guest back in or try some new ones.

New Patriot on November 30, 2010 at 8:25 PM

Most corporate group plans do not have a pre-existing clause. The pre-existing clause typically applies to individual plans only.

My daughter, 23, was recently cut off from our group plan because she graduated from college, even with the passage of ObamaCare. When renewal came up she was eligible to regain the group plan, but we stayed with the individual plan we put her on because we liked some of its features even though a little more expensive.

I think there should be some sort of delay for coverage of a pre-existing condition to prevent buying a policy because the condition suddenly appeared. i.e. If you have some pre-existing condition the plan will cover other conditions from day one. Pre-existing conditions would be covered in six months or one year depending on the plan.

Dasher on November 30, 2010 at 8:33 PM

We need to end employer based health insurance, so that you do not loose your insurance when you leave your job.

I would suggest a law converting what the employer pays for insurance into monetary payments to the employees, with a tax adjustment so there is no loss to either party.

To lower the cost of health care over all, we need to bring cost back into the decision making process. For this I would suggest a large minimum deduction. I would further suggest that the equivalent of three months income be the standard, to evenly affect the population.

Slowburn on November 30, 2010 at 8:36 PM

Politicians seem to have a hard time grasping the basics of insurance.

Chazz on November 30, 2010 at 7:04 PM

Not only politicians but most of the general public too!

If “children” are allowed to stay on parents coverage until age 26, then they are still “children” and should not be able to vote.

Hobbes on November 30, 2010 at 8:39 PM

K now THIS I can get behind. The whole thing needs to be repealed then we can work out replacing it with something that makes sense and doesn’t bankrupt the country and insurance companies.

What it be? I have no clue.

jawkneemusic on November 30, 2010 at 8:54 PM

How can a credible insurance plan include a pre-existing condition provision? Insurance is predicated on risk-sharing, and the obligation to accept a pre-existing condition irreconcilably comprises the risk-sharing presumption.

Blacksheep on November 30, 2010 at 9:07 PM

comprises = compromises.

Stupid spell check.

Blacksheep on November 30, 2010 at 9:07 PM

How about HHS being dissolved(defunded and eliminated) and give individuals the same tax break they give employers for providing plans, that way I can buy what I need and not be strapped with paying for shit I don’t need or want just because someone in the company is or has a female in the family of child-bearing age. I’m over 55 and my wife is also over 55 and has been suffering with menopause for at least 10 years, and she has had her tubes tied and I had a vasectomy. It’s time to reset the whole thing and quit trying to make one-size fit all, except of course you are a member of Congress or member of the union or your company can get a waiver or ….I wonder how many other exemptions there are that make us all treated equally except some groups are a little more equal.

belad on November 30, 2010 at 9:14 PM

Um, how can it be called insurance if they’re forced to cover anyone?

Why aren’t the R’s gunning for reform like selling across state lines and leaving it at that? If they only changed that, it would be a 100% improvement over anything that’s in ObamaCare, and it’s one less bureaucratic nose in the health care sector.

Eric Cantor is on my radar with this ridiculousness. Watch it, you’re only a state removed from me, mister.

citrus on November 30, 2010 at 9:23 PM

Cantor: We’ll have a preexisting conditions provision in our new health-care plan too

What happened to the free market, Cantor?

Proud Rino on November 30, 2010 at 9:29 PM

Folks, the children-until-26 ‘feature’ is just as much a lollipop as the pre-existing conditions. There’s no logical reason for it other than to sell people on Obamacare. This is what the progressives are doing, putting together bundles of goodies to sell their crap, which by the way we have to pay for. You think covering children until 26 is somehow ‘free’? Who was asking for that goodie before the democratics pulled it out of their butt?

We need to leave the states’ insurance regulation framework as is, but also allow insurance companies to also allow national plans that they can sell in any state, with no mandates. They can sell catastrophic-only insurance, which is what insurance should be. They can allow employer-like purchasing groups to form up as well, and if they get big enough they may allow pre-existing. They can define a ‘group’ as your entire clan if they want to. Let the market come up with options that the customers can choose.

slickwillie2001 on November 30, 2010 at 9:33 PM

Statist.

AshleyTKing on November 30, 2010 at 9:34 PM

So people will still be able to buy health care insurance on the way to the hospital with a costly injury?

amerpundit on November 30, 2010 at 7:02 PM

Hey, maybe Government Motors can add a feature to On-Star that will automatically sign you up for both collision and health insurance when you wreck! What a great idea!

slickwillie2001 on November 30, 2010 at 9:36 PM

Wait a minute! I thought we just threw out legislators for voting for the healthcare behemoth. Do these Congressmen not understand that we do not want healthcare run by the government? That’s why they have been touting “repeal and replace” to our “repeal”. Cantor still doesn’t get it. If he keeps this up, he will be voted out in 2 years.

Sxyrzrbck on November 30, 2010 at 9:37 PM

How would a pre-existing condition provision be any different than say using zip codes for auto insurance rates?

Auto insurers “force” you to share the risk based on where you live (except here in California) yet I don’t hear conservatives whining about the unfairness of it all.

If there has to be a compromise anywhere, I’d rather it be on PE conditions.

I doubt most Americans would have a problem with it since most Americans over the age of 30 have various forms of PE conditions.

The Ugly American on November 30, 2010 at 9:42 PM

Long overdue for the Republicans to address the PEC problem.

It’s a joke and by not addressing it, the Pubs opened the door for the Dems to jam Obamacare up our collective colon.

rickyricardo on November 30, 2010 at 9:50 PM

Cantor still doesn’t get it. If he keeps this up, he will be voted out in 2 years.

Sxyrzrbck on November 30, 2010 at 9:37 PM

Nonsense. Anyone who is self employed knows PEC’s are a serious issue and a damned vexing one.

rickyricardo on November 30, 2010 at 9:51 PM

What happened to the free market, Cantor?

Proud Rino on November 30, 2010 at 9:29 PM

Late to the party, eh? Politico is walking this story back now.

Try and keep up.

fossten on November 30, 2010 at 9:54 PM

How would a pre-existing condition provision be any different than say using zip codes for auto insurance rates?

Auto insurers “force” you to share the risk based on where you live (except here in California) yet I don’t hear conservatives whining about the unfairness of it all.

If there has to be a compromise anywhere, I’d rather it be on PE conditions.

I doubt most Americans would have a problem with it since most Americans over the age of 30 have various forms of PE conditions.

The Ugly American on November 30, 2010 at 9:42 PM

I see nothing wrong with using Zips for health insurance rates, just as they are used for car insurance. Similarly, your existing state of health should be used for health insurance just as your driving record is for car insurance.

One is a personal risk assessment, the other is a regional one.

“…most Americans over the age of 30 have various forms of PE conditions.” I would not say most. Maybe 10-20% over 30, if you take a very wide view of what a PE is.

slickwillie2001 on November 30, 2010 at 10:00 PM

Update: John McCormack of the Standard reminds me of this Capretta/Miller piece from earlier this year about how high-risk pools for those with preexisting conditions might work.

Fantastic article.

First one I’ve ever read that manages to tie in HIPAA’s relevance with ObamaCare.

I’ve been on various California-based HIPAA plans for going on 12 years now and I still don’t understand how it all works.

All I know is that they’re incredibly expensive and getting more so with each passing year.

The Ugly American on November 30, 2010 at 10:06 PM

How are the politicians going to solve this mess when they don’t know the fundamentals, like say, the difference between health insurance and health care?

PackerBronco on November 30, 2010 at 10:26 PM

Hey, maybe Government Motors can add a feature to On-Star that will automatically sign you up for both collision and health insurance when you wreck! What a great idea!

slickwillie2001 on November 30, 2010 at 9:36 PM

LOL.

j_galt on November 30, 2010 at 10:57 PM

Folks, the children-until-26 ‘feature’ is just as much a lollipop as the pre-existing conditions. . . . You think covering children until 26 is somehow ‘free’? . . .

slickwillie2001 on November 30, 2010 at 9:33 PM

That’s so right. This will end up costing EVERYONE alot more in the long run. Nothing is free.

If the kid can’t afford the COBRA payments, then the parents can pay for them until they get a job. (or the grandparents or the kid could get a lower pay job with benefits in another field.)

I just paid my daughter’s for 4 months from when she graduated till she started working in September.

So now I have to pay for everyone else’s children too? For the rest of my life?

And have health care costs increase for everyone because of this? I thought the idea was to decrease costs.

Kids this age are rarely sick and one can get cheap catastrophic care insurance.

Elisa on November 30, 2010 at 11:10 PM

Most corporate group plans do not have a pre-existing clause. The pre-existing clause typically applies to individual plans only.

My daughter, 23, was recently cut off from our group plan because she graduated from college, even with the passage of ObamaCare. When renewal came up she was eligible to regain the group plan, but we stayed with the individual plan we put her on because we liked some of its features even though a little more expensive.

I think there should be some sort of delay for coverage of a pre-existing condition to prevent buying a policy because the condition suddenly appeared. i.e. If you have some pre-existing condition the plan will cover other conditions from day one. Pre-existing conditions would be covered in six months or one year depending on the plan.

Dasher on November 30, 2010 at 8:33 PM

I agree.

Elisa on November 30, 2010 at 11:15 PM

The reality is that the Pre-existing conditions part of Obamacare is the ONLY thing the public likes about it. And they wildly love it.

Any GOP plan that does not guarantee coverage for Pre-existing conditions means that the party will get HAMMERED by the electorate on health care and the ball will swing back into the Dems court for more socialism.

AngusMc on December 1, 2010 at 12:22 AM

This is the second time this Cantor person has said something I don’t like. I am beginning to think he is a RINO….

theaddora on December 1, 2010 at 2:09 AM

Cantor comes across as a slick, overly ambitious, lying politician and I don’t trust this self described “young gun.” I hope I am wrong about him, but the proof is in what he ultimately delivers. Only time will tell.

Done That on December 1, 2010 at 5:56 AM

What happened to the free market, Cantor?

Proud Rino on November 30, 2010 at 9:29 PM

Cantor is both proud and RINO.

Free market? Nope.

R Senators have become too arrogant after November 2010. They think that the “usual Rs” won.

The sword of the next primaries are all upon them.

TheAlamos on December 1, 2010 at 6:11 AM

Kids this age are rarely sick and one can get cheap catastrophic care insurance.

Elisa on November 30, 2010 at 11:10 PM

Not allowed in O’care!

You vill hav vut ve tell you to hav!

belad on December 1, 2010 at 7:46 AM

Am I allowed to insure my house after a fire, and have the Insurance Co. pay for the repairs? Or get comprehensive coverage for my car after a tree fell on it, and have them pay me a replacement vehicle? That wouldn’t be right, right?
Eric Cantor, oh my! One of the so called “young guns”, that organizes gatherings in antigun venues that gladly keep gun owners outside,(in Virginia!) and then claim to be fighting for our rights. I am looking forward to seeing a congress with most of their members with a (T) after their names, and why not, a few (D)s, just so it would keep some discussion going on. R(inos) and their first cousins, the Blue Dogs, are on their way to certain (and well deserved) extinction.

mile66 on December 1, 2010 at 7:58 AM

Pre-existing conditions would be nice…. but who pays for it? This is basically free catastrophic coverage that forces the insurance companies to pay for.

And to keep 26 year old “children” on your insurance is ridiculous. If you are 26, you have been an adult for 8 years! I do see a reason to have an exemption for students, but that is a little different.

jeffn21 on December 1, 2010 at 8:34 AM

Cantor sounds like he’s all for big govt telling, mandating what a business must or must not do. The R’s still haven’t gotten the message. All this guy does is spout talking points trying to sound intelligent. Listen to what he says next time they shove a camera in his face.

Kissmygrits on December 1, 2010 at 9:26 AM

“Young gun” Cantor promises everyone a pie in the sky.

Get socialist programs OUT of government.

CUT FEDERAL SPENDING.

Medical care costs will be forced down only when insurance is no longer there to inflate and prop costs up.

Pass Tort Reform to hit the lawyers’ legal fee take rather than victims’ compensation.

maverick muse on December 1, 2010 at 9:28 AM

Cantor is just another RINO. No Conservative. Young gun? My azz. Just another warmed over, relabeled hack.

SilentWatcher on December 1, 2010 at 9:45 AM

Why do I feel that young gun Cantor’s idea is somewhat too old for his age?

This guy’s been brainwashed already by his senior fellows.

Can’t trust this guy anymore.

TheAlamos on December 1, 2010 at 10:07 AM

I (gasp) voted for the DEM over Cantor this time, in keeping with my policy of voting the incumbents out. Cantor is a liar and a professional politician (redundant?). He will not answer e-mails, he will not answer letters, he is not a supporter of the 2ndA, he has close ties to the banking and health care industries (surprise! not).

Vote ‘em all out. Start over every two years in the House and six in the Senate.

Term Limits!

riverrat10k on December 1, 2010 at 10:11 AM

The GOP hasn’t even officially taken the gavel in the House and they’re already blowing it. Gravy. Just Gravy.

dczombie on December 1, 2010 at 10:26 AM

That’s right – cut federal spending! No more Medicare or Medicaid! How many of you posting here have ever received unemployment checks or used Medicare or Medicaid? None? Really? I assume you all would refuse to accept such socialist government handouts if you ever were offered them, right? How about military pensions? You certainly wouldn’t accept that socialist nonsense, would you? Cut it! VA health insurance?! Get rid of it! It’s pure socialism! Oh wait, those are American heroes, so they deserve some socialism? Explain that one to me…

pm123 on December 1, 2010 at 10:57 AM

Some of you must self employed or are independent contractors, so you know this but, COBRA is not available for independent contractors. So if you are between projects long enough and can not afford to pay your health insurance, then any previous ailments that you had will no longer be covered when you can afford care.

Pre-exisiting conditions has to be, at the least clarified as to prevent abuse and, in my view, included in any healthcare bill. In my view, it will help stoke the entrepreneur spirits, allowing people the freedom to move from job to job, and location to location as the market dictates. It provides the freedom to retrain and re-educate. The workforce won’t be trapped by the benefits provided by an employer. I believe it is worth the cost.

In California, you would remain un-covered for those ailments until you have been continuously enrolled in your healthplan for one year. After that year, then you are considered insured. Of course, that does not prevent them from denying coverage, and since self-employed do not have the power of group plans and union plans, this sometimes occurs. I’m sure that some states are better but I’ll bet most are worse.

So if you get sick or have something that can be classified as pre-existing, you will end up in some sort of public care system anyway, that is after the system has stripped you of all your assets, and then you become a burden on society.

Independent contractors and the self-employed are a vital part of the workforce, but they are regularly forgotten in the discussions of health care because they do not have any voice.

They are also often excluded from the tax benefits that employers have access to when buying health insurance, but that’s for another discussion.

JeffVader on December 1, 2010 at 11:13 AM

Coverage for pre-existing conditions was in effect before ObamaCare was passed. It was federal law. States had to have an insurer of last resort. Most states had high risk pools which work well. Few people know this because it served the left’s purposes to ignore it.

Hopefully Mr. Cantor knows this and plans to use this method, rather than guaranteed issue, to provide coverage for pre-existing conditions.

secant on December 1, 2010 at 12:02 PM

Hello, the rabbit died and can I get me some quick pregnancy insurance?

Say does being pregnant ever before,qualify as a pre-existing condition?

Don L on December 1, 2010 at 12:48 PM

maverick muse on December 1, 2010 at 9:28 AM
SilentWatcher on December 1, 2010 at 9:45 AM
TheAlamos on December 1, 2010 at 10:07 AM

What kind of 47-year-old man calls himself a “Young Gun,” anyway?

DrMagnolias on December 1, 2010 at 12:55 PM

Requiring one person to pay another’s hostpital bills is wrong. That is all one is doing when one requires an insurer to “cover” a pre-existing condition. Insurance is pooling against risk. Covering a pre-existing condition is not pooling against risk, but transfering the known costs from one entity or person to another. In other words, it is a “taking” by gov’t. If the gov’t orders me to pay your mortgage, that is teh gov’t taking my money. How is it any different to order an insurance company to pay for someone’s known present and future health care when that person did not have insurance when the condition developed?

It is absolutely unfortunate that some people may get really sick without having insurance. However, we have to decide whether we want a socialist health care system or not. The only way to insure that every single person is covered, pre-existing condition or not, is with a socialized system where the gov’t controls it. that is – everyone is forced to pay in and everyone is covered. Which then means that the gov’t is in charge of rationing care, etc.

I, for one, don’t think that is the way. I think we can perhaps create gov’t programs for some of the people in such situations (medicaid) and charity has to step in for others, but there will always be those who slip through the cracks. We cannot enforce coverage for everyone without some kind of socialized system. I, for one, don’t think it is the gov’t's job to provide health-care. I don’t believe that health care is a “right” that everyone is entitled to.

Socialized health care will be what it is everywhere (and what socialism does for everything) everyone will have it, but it will on average, be less quality and less accessible for people and likely will be more costly overall (through taxes, etc.). But, everyone (except the very rich and politicians) will have equal health care.

Every time a republican talks about covering people with pre-existing conditions, he is giving in to the road to socialized health care and it should be a non-starter. If we are going to force insurers to cover pre-exesting conditions, don’t bother repealing Obamacare.

Monkeytoe on December 1, 2010 at 1:11 PM

In other words, buying into requiring insurers to cover “pre-existing conditions” is buying in to the idea that every person is entitled to have someone else pay their medical bills. It is buying in to health-care as an entitlement that gov’t must provide. Which means it is buying in unltimately to socialized medicine.

You cannot have a free market system and require coverage of pre-existing conditions.

Monkeytoe on December 1, 2010 at 1:14 PM

Probably, the biggest costs were in the no cap on benefits clause. That surprised me. Many illnesses when not taken care of properly will cost millions more, per patient. So that clause actually adds costs.

AnninCA on December 1, 2010 at 1:41 PM

You cannot have a free market system and require coverage of pre-existing conditions.

Monkeytoe on December 1, 2010 at 1:14 PM

The pure free-market trial period is over, and people don’t like it much.

It was a scam.

AnninCA on December 1, 2010 at 1:42 PM

The pure free-market trial period is over, and people don’t like it much.

It was a scam.

AnninCA

Hey look, a moron. How’s the weather in your fantasy land, dumdum? Seriously, are you a habitual liar, or just a complete idiot?

I usually have sympathy for the mentally ill, but damn.

xblade on December 2, 2010 at 1:21 PM

“We too don’t want to accept any insurance company’s denial of someone and coverage for that person because he or she may have pre-existing condition,” Cantor said”

Then start your own insurance company, and cover as many folks with pre-existing conditions as you want.

xblade on December 2, 2010 at 1:24 PM

58-7

OhEssYouCowboys on September 27, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Comment pages: 1 2