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


No one has insurance without someone paying a premium. You can have the best insurance known to man and either your employer is paying a premium, or you and your employer are paying a portion of the premium.

Since these frequently go up yearly and aren’t tied to assisting the ED visits of the uninsured, an interesting look into the yearly increases of the CEO salaries of the Health Insurance Organization is an eye opening experience :wink:.


Unfortunately, there are a few not so good stories to share with those that have the traditional insurance in the States as well. Denials are problematic, expensive premiums, and caps on chronic condition management, giving a whole new meaning to the term “lifetime cap”…Also, Insulin and other common medications are quadrupled what the cost in Canada is.

I have had excellent medical insurance. If I need “same day” appointment it might be an emergency in which case I would go to the ED. My doctor is usually booked, that is how it works.


You are attempting to redefine free market. I can’t afford a mansion but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a free market in homes.

I meant what is a more wasteful institution. There is no more wasteful institution than the state.


There is an existing safety net in Medicaid. It should not be imposed on all Americans. We want choice.


The power of the purse should be kept with we, the people. We can make our own decisions.


I think people are really overestimating how much medicaid actually covers. In many states non-disabled adults (by SSI standards) are completely ineligible for medicaid. So if you’re capable of working 30h a week at walmart if you take your meds, you don’t get medicaid. Even if you can’t afford those meds on what walmart pays.

Even in states with higher coverage, there’s a large gap between those who are eligible for medicaid and those who can afford to pay thousands out of pocket yearly. Medicaid doesn’t cover many of the working poor who make enough to get by but don’t have employer health insurance.

Pre-ACA you would hear a lot of stories about people deliberately limiting their income to stay on medicaid. Because if they made more money they would lose benefits long before they made enough to afford care on their own.


The government could be involved with something like the federal employees health benefit program.
It pays partial premiums for your choice of several insurance plans with varying degrees of coverage.


I have private insurance through my employer and pay $640 a month for it. That is with my kid’s and the generic prescription plan. I cannot afford the real prescription plan as that would be $1200 a month. That is 1 1/2 times one take home pay check for me. We EMTs don’t make much money at all. I have to work 16 hours overtime a paycheck in order to have over $700 for take home pay a paycheck.

My problem is that I have asthma and there are no generic inhalers. I about afford my inhalers and the programs that they have don’t reduce it enough for me to afford the payment.

I have been lucky in that my mom doesn’t use her rescue inhalers and my ex-wife’s boyfriend gave me his maintenance inhaler. Not sure if he’ll do it again when this one runs out. If they take my mom off of the rescue inhaler she gets, I’m not sure what I will do.

It is almost like insurance companies don’t care if someone can breathe or not and would rather it cost them thousands of dollars when I go to the emergency room and get admitted into the hospital.


If you take it to an extreme–a market where the seller’s price is so high no one can buy the product–clearly this is not a “market” in the economic sense. You could say that the cash-only clinics are a free market for a certain segment of the population, but not in general. Same for your mansion. And then you would also have to factor in things like location. If there is only 1 cash-only clinic within 100 miles, there is no practical competition and no free market.

An interesting philosophy, but I would certainly love to see statistical evidence. I have never worked for the government, but I can certainly give a lot of example of waste where I did work. Waste is everywhere, and I don’t think the “government” (whatever that means) has a monopoly on it.


People are called to take care of one another. Sometimes that is person to person, other times it is through social networks we all must contribute to.
And the details are messy, as is every other thing in the human condition.

One of the barriers to compassion is the fear of being taken advantage of by the needy.
We like to calculate, and compassion, per se, is not subject to calculation.


I just want to put this out there again.


Why on Earth would a seller make his price so high no one can buy his product? Anyway, there is a free market clinic and it’s prices are less than the hospitals.

We don’t need statistics. The government is a monopoly. It can tax people to cover its waste. Private endeavors can’t do that. But if you doubt this you can find plenty of stories of waste in the news each and every day. If that doesn’t convince you drive by road construction where you can see waste and inefficiency first hand.


Yes. I do think so.


There is generic levalbuterol. I use it. It saves me a lot.


I just checked the drug list that they’ll cover and while levabuterol is on there, it is only in nebulizer form that they pay for.

A nebulizer while at work will not work for me!


I just want to add a few thoughts…this has been an interesting discussion!

Non profit hospitals aren’t about not making a profit. They just don’t have shareholders wanting to benefit from the profits. You will notice that non profit hospitals in successful areas use the profits to reinvest in more facilities and equipment. Often they build stand alone ER’s or day clinics on the wealthier sides of town. One thing they never do is lower their prices!

On the government vs. private insurance: Private insurance is in the business to make money. The CEO may have a heart of gold but his/her business model is to produce returns on investments. Governments have to regulate the insurance market otherwise they would cherry pick their customers so that their profits would be outrageous…as has happened in the past. One of the issues with the ACA was not only capping profit but requiring a basic level of coverage. Many people lost their old plans under the ACA because the coverage was terrible. Yes, the plans were more affordable until you reached some low limit or acquired a condition that wasn’t covered and often, even if covered, they were quickly dropped if they became an expensive patient.

Government coverage is not profit motivated and we elect our government so there is always some accountability. Governments move much slower than industry, however, so fixing issues that arise is a much more slow and conservative process. We don’t have to copy any other countries health care plans. We can create exactly the type of plans we can agree to. So, we could have a base level plan covering basic services, a catastrophic plan for excessive cost type issues, keep our physicians out of the system or in the system, oversight for abuses and anything else we, the people, determine is in our best interests…except profiting from illness and disease.

Any major change to our current system will be very disruptive to some industries but we must do something. Our current mishmash of private vs. public, profit vs. non profit, business provided vs. personal provided is unsustainable and can border on cruel to some of our citizens.

Private charities can not provide healthcare for all the citizens. It would be nice but it is far beyond their ability. All they can do is help a bit and try to fill in the cracks in our current system. Keeping discrimination out of certain charities is also an issue. Catholic charities are pretty good at being inclusive but even they draw lines which exclude some. A government plan would assure the most fairness, even if not perfectly.

Change will be extremely hard no matter what path we choose. There is too much money to be made on sick, desperate people. At some point we have to decide as a nation whether healthcare is a right or a privilege. It won’t be fun and the more everyone feels the pain of change, the more likely it’s a better solution. IMHO!


When I was young, working and very healthy; pre-existing conditions wouldn’t be covered for 365 days unless you could prove you had ongoing health insurance.

I had co workers that skipped out. Young men and women, my friends! They said things to me “Why pay for it I’m never sick?” With the new rules, someone like this can choose to skip out on insurance for YEARS, break their leg, go buy health insurance the next morning and have their leg needs completely covered. Then they can cancel their insurance until the next emergency comes along.

I don’t know the answer, I know we need a safety net. I read the stories about saving lives. There are also many stories about young people that simply don’t feel like paying and why should they. I know if I could turn back the clock I wouldn’t give the insurance companies a dime unless I had an emergency.


I don’t drive carelessly and have never had an accident that was my fault.

I have car insurance.

I have never had my house burn down or someone slip on my sidewalk.

I have homeowners insurance.

I am not currently young but I was once and was always healthy. Until I wasn’t.

No one plans on being sick but nonetheless everyone will need healthcare at some point in their life.


Someone has to. In most respects, life is a pre-existing condition. Everyone I know has a pre-existing condition. What separates people is whether they have insurance or not.


We want choice.

And for those without choices such as those between Medicaid eligibility and being able to afford their coverage? Honestly, I would be happy to a solution that ensures universal coverage? Let’s get to 100% and if not that, maybe at the very least 99% or 95%.

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