2013
The following was contain in a White House e-mail I just received:
Right now, Americans who were previously locked out of the market due to preexisting conditions or other discriminatory practices are getting enrolled for coverage.
“Discriminatory?” So we are all on the same page, here is the common definition of “discriminatory.”
dis·crim·i·na·to·ry adjective \dis-ˈkri-mə-nə-ˌtȯr-ē, -ˈkrim-nə-\
: not fair : unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people
The fact is accepting, without consequence, those with pre-existing conditions and presumably guaranteed medical expenses is costly to every other insured person. The practice was prudent, not discriminatory. That’s all beyond us now, these people need coverage.
What bothers me is the constant drumbeat from this Administration pointing fingers in an ongoing effort to put a positive light on anything and everything rather than let the facts speak for themselves.
It seems to me that if excluding those with pre-existing conditions or charging them more or otherwise recognizing their greater risk was discriminatory, then the same is true for those who pay more because they smoke or are older than age 49, or only allowing those under age 30 to buy catastrophic coverage.
Isn’t it discriminatory that my home owners insurance has a $20,000 deductible applicable to hurricane damage? Are drivers who pay more for insurance because they have a bad driving record discriminated against?
One of the fundamental, if not the fundamental problem in dealing with health care costs is separating emotion and objectivity. Likely an impossible task. The real issue never discussed is how did people with pre-existing conditions get that way before they had insurance. Like I said, that’s beyond us now.
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 