3 ms·

Pre-existing condition protection lost under Trump?

• wahern 10y ago
  My guess is that Republicans will keep the restriction that insurance companies cannot deny pre-existing conditions. However, without the individual mandate that would bankrupt every insurer within short order. Avoiding that outcome is, afterall, the entire function of the mandate. So what I expect to happen is that Republicans will cover the insurance companies' losses with some kind of new Medicare/Medicaid programs. However, over time (or maybe in short-order) it'll effectively be a blank check for insurers, funneling money from the government into private industry. Typical of similar Republican-designed programs, it'll be an unfunded expense adding to the debt. (The GOP is still the party of Dick "the deficit doesn't matter" Cheney.) Though, I have no doubt it'll become fodder for more anti-entitlement rhetoric from the very same politicians and pundits who supported the program. I've already invested heavily in some insurance companies with proportionally large Medicare exposure. Unlike most health insurers, those companies actually took a nose dive yesterday, presumably based on the intuition that without Obamacare the Medicare/Medicaid spigot will shut-off. So, to my mind it was a doubly good investment, as companies like UnitedHealth were already up double-digits, making them less appealing to me (too much upside gone). It's definitely a gamble. Who knows what Trump will do. But many Republican leaders have already stated that they don't think it's politically feasible to remove the pre-existing condition limitation altogether. Likewise, they've made it clear the mandate will go. The logical way forward would be to back-door kickbacks to insurers through Medicare/Medicaid. And unlike Obamacare it's much more likely to provide out-sized profits for insurers. I suppose one alternative is just to allow people with pre-existing conditions to get on Medicare. But I think that's too openly pro-entitlement. Republicans like to grow entitlement programs like everybody else (it's what gets votes), but they prefer to obscure things so their policies and budgeting isn't openly contradictory with their rhetoric. (That's fair game, however it also makes it easier to hide deficit spending. When spending is out in the open the electorate is forced to make hard choices; when you hide deficits the feedback process breaks down--the electorate isn't forced to reconcile the specific costs of the program with the specific benefits.)
  • SemiTom 10y ago
    Seems like a single payor system might solve some of the problems...and create some new ones.. Trump needs to address this fear very soon as it impacts so many folks.
    • wahern 10y ago
      At the end of the day Congress controls policy, not the President. The Republicans control both houses of Congress, and a single-payer system is even more anathema to Republicans than Obamacare. The Democrats can stonewall, but that has it's limits. While the Democrats might be able to forestall the complete erasure of Obamacare, the individual mandate is certain to get the axe. Without the mandate, the insurance system will fold unless Congress funds the losses, forcing the Democrats hand. There's no reason to think Trump would oppose this or any similar scenario. And even if Trump wanted single-payer, it's simply not possible. No Republican Congress would pass that, at least not in the foreseeable future. For 6 years they've made it clear they'd sooner see the country burn than even acquiesce to Obamacare, let alone promulgate something more radical to their current political ideology.