Do you think the government should take care of people with "pre-existing medical conditions?


Taxes paid are likely inversely related to risk profile since many with preexisting conditions have legit work challenges. So they are not paying taxes that cover their risk profile. They are receiving support far above what they pay in taxes, it’s welfare from their community.

I can’t help it if you can’t handle straight language and think it’s pejorative, that’s your issue.

We need both. Regular insurance provides it’s own incentive to reduce risk and costs. The issue is much more clear when you look at car insurance. With health or car insurance, If you want more coverage then you pay a higher premium.

We also need to support those in need, that includes people with pre-existing conditions. We may disagree on how much support to provide, but we agree some support (welfare) is very appropriate.


It’s an interpretation, not a personal “issue.”

I’d agree here. I was merely pointing out that “cover” or “coverage” sounds like a more objective term with fewer negative connotations.


The big difference though is that, at least in theory, you can go without a car. You really can’t go without healthcare if you have an ongoing condition. And what actually ends up happening is people at the lower end of the pay get health coverage they can’t actually afford.

Case in point: my last job people earned 25,000-30,000 a year, and the deductible was 5k and out of pocket was at the legal max of around 7.5k. This is in a fairly high COL area. I knew at least one person who was staying in what was clearly an abusive situation because she’d have had to stop getting medical care in order to move out.


It’s easier to go without health insurance than it is without a car. Also, support for pre-existing conditions shouldn’t include unlimited financial support. Nobody is owed perfect health or access to the best and latest cancer treatments.

Yes, ACA messed things up badly by doing away with catastrophic coverage. And people often stay in bad relationships for economic reasons, no surprise spousal benefits is one of the examples.


It’s easier to go without health insurance if you can stay in reasonable health without it. Keep in mind for many chronic conditions, if you remove the health care you’re also removing the person’s ability to hold down a job, or pursue an education that could get them a better job, or anything like that. So you’re basically locking them into a lifetime of dependence, simply because you’re removing their ability to actually work to better themselves. You can’t hold down a job if you’re stuck in bed from pain because you can’t afford your medicine, or if your mental health causes regular panic attacks at work but you can’t afford a doctor. Either of those could very easily run up against a deductible of that level, and giving someone like that catastrophic coverage would be pretty much useless.

And neither of those count as “emergency care” that you can get at an ER. If you don’t have health insurance and can’t afford to pay out of pocket, or can’t afford your deductible and/or copays, you absolutely will be denied care.


I agree with you. I’m a teacher too.


The thing is while we do have Medicaid which does help some to an extent, it doesn’t seem to help enough. Millions remain uninsured (more if you count the underinsured) and I am willing to wager, they’re not just folks who are opting out of insurance (for example, working class folks not covered by work who live paycheck to paycheck and would like insurance but have a difficult time penciling it out).

Additionally, I remember reading this statement which I will try to do justice by summing up; the problem with the current system in the United States is the fact that it lays the burden towards those most in need of care such as those dealing with medical issues having the hassle to deal (if not fight) with insurance.


Prior to Obamacare, people with no insurance sometimes received treatment on the hospital’s dime, sometimes they did not receive treatment. Those who were Veterans might receive treatment at the VA, with or without insurance.

Putting care under the auspices of the government can be problematic. There is a substantial risk that people depending on the government for treatment may find that the government, in order to control costs, have either eliminated cert matters they will pay for either as a cost cutting matter, or because they are not willing to pay real world costs. Over the past few years there have been more and more doctors getting out of certain government paid programs; and forgive me if I cannot recall which; either Medicare or Medicaid. It was a matter that the doctor was being restricted as to what could be paid for and what not paid for, and tightening of budgetary issues was not paying for the costs adequately, I don’t recall if it was Arizona or New Mexico, but one of the two (if not both) were getting to the point there were very few doctors who would take patients under the program, and those who were limited how many they would care for.


If the government doesn’t make the decision an insurance company does.


Yes. I’ve known multiple cases of private insurance companies disrupting established care or demanding someone switch to a medicine that works less well because they had a deal with that drug manufacturer. Or just out right refusing to cover sufficient treatment. It’s very common with migraines, for example, for insurance companies to ration treatment. So that’s not a unique problem to government care.


Insurance companies don’t cancel a specific procedure for all; they provide different levels of coverage. In other words, it is not one stop shopping, and the only things you can buy are what the government decides to provide.


Insurance companies might ration care; the government, if it is the only player, can simply say it it not covering the matter at all.

You really need to do some research on the availability of treatment, for example, in Great Britain, and look at how long it takes to simply be able to have an operation.


I’ve looked into it. And there are definite problems. The biggest I’ve heard personally is that it’s very hard to switch doctors (this particularly effects mental health treatment where fit is important).

But for people at the lower end of the scale, the problem isn’t having to wait. It’s whether it’s available to you at all. And my understanding is they are generally good at providing necessary care to keep people going.

There’s also stronger labor laws, which help. Much of the complicating issue in the u.s. is how the lack of adequate healthcare can impact someone’s ability to do their job. So if someone can’t keep working without medical care, they can’t save up money to get that care.


I don’t see any difference. If your insurance doesn’t cover your condition you either switch (good luck finding a company that will take you unless they are forced to), pay out of pocket or go without.


In all the talk about government “taking care of” this person or that, there are almost never any objective facts presented. It’s all “I feel that…” and so on. When Obamacare started, nobody knew how many people didn’t have coverage of some sort, let alone how many didn’t have coverage because of preexisting conditions or, among those with preexisting conditions, how long they were without coverage.

It matters, because supposedly we have some 30 million now with no coverage. Has the number actually been lowered or has Obamacare simply shifted who has insurance and who doesn’t? Are there, for instance, more people with preexisting conditions that are now covered and fewer young people who can’t afford the exchanges? Nobody knows.

Nobody knows what will be covered under single payer or who will decide. The government doesn’t administer any programs now except VA. I know a man who was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and given six months to live. There are treatments and he had them all. Cost a million dollars and he lived six months. Is the government going to pay for such things?

People with preexisting conditions must be given insurance after sixty days if an employer has a health plan. How many of the “preexisting” patients in the numbers are within the “no coverage window” and should we even count them in assessing the “need” for single payer?

I read today that the prime minister of Norway is greatly concerned that their welfare system is going to break down soon because there are too few births in Norway. Too many payees and not enough payers. Has anybody really assessed whether the U.S. can afford single payer and still pay, e.g., to keep the Russians out of Poland and the Chinese out of Taiwan?

Nobody knows. Or if they do, they don’t publish it.


Yes, Medicaid helps the old and the most needy. I think that is where scarce resources should be applied. I don’t think we have the resources to support the less needy with our current system.

I also agree those with the most need fight the system the most. But even in countries with socialized medicine, similar people are fighting for access to treatments that are not covered, or just to get scheduled for treatment. Both systems work to contain their costs.

Personally, I see a role for providing very basic health care, more affordable or free clinics and preventative care. Then let people buy insurance for bells and whistles.


Except in many states Medicaid explicitly does not help adults who are under retirement age, not pregnant, and not completely disabled. So if you’re “young and needy”, lots of places you’re just out of luck.


Yet it has been reported Medicaid pays for about half of U.S. pregnancies.


Yeah being pregnant is often one condition that means otherwise ineligible young women can get medicaid. It makes a certain sense (maternal health has a major effect on having healthy babies), but it’s still rather an issue.


I will try again: your insurance company might not cover soemthing; or it might cover it in another policy. And there will be policies which cover it out there whether or not you own that policy.

If the government says “ain’t covering that” no one gets it.

In the other scenario, all who have the policy get it.

So yes, there is a difference.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit