Executive Summary
Whether Americans with pre-existing conditions will be able to qualify for health insurance at a reasonable price without the benefit of new provisions contained in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, so called Obamacare, has emerged as a major issue in the presidential campaign. This paper analyzes both the effectiveness and the long term consequences of the approach to pre-existing conditions under Obamacare and contrasts it with the consequences of the alternative replacement plan proposed by Republican challenger Mitt Romney. It finds that, although the Obamacare approach guarantees coverage in the short term, it poses long term risks to the U.S. health care system. In contrast, the Romney approach holds the potential to solve the pre-existing condition problem by offering inexpensive individual insurance plans, and deals with problems faced by those who may currently lack insurance due to pre-existing conditions by extending and reforming current federal rules.
Introduction
Liberal critiques of alternatives to Obamacare often center on the problem of pre-existing conditions. Indeed, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof recently offered the poignant story of his Harvard roommate, Scott Androes, who fell between the cracks of the health care system when he was diagnosed with Stage IV prostate cancer while uninsured at the age of 51, as proof that “gutting Obamacare” will result in innumerable human tragedies. “The Mitt Romney philosophy, as I understand it, is that this is a tragic but necessary byproduct of requiring Americans to take personal responsibility for their lives,” wrote Kristof. “To me, that seems ineffably harsh.”
Such stories are, of course, poignant and worrisome. At the same time, however, they fail to acknowledge that those who would repeal Obamacare—including Mitt Romney—are not proposing a reversion to a flawed status quo ante. Indeed, Romney’s plan proposes to solve the pre-existing condition problem by addressing the key flaws in U.S. tax policy that leave a small but significant minority of Americans without coverage when they most need it. Insofar as this challenge is addressed correctly, no American with pre-existing conditions will be denied affordable coverage—solving a limited, but important health care problem without the adverse side effects that accompany Obamacare.
Read more: http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ir_28.htm#.UISSmIXJKt9
Whether Americans with pre-existing conditions will be able to qualify for health insurance at a reasonable price without the benefit of new provisions contained in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, so called Obamacare, has emerged as a major issue in the presidential campaign. This paper analyzes both the effectiveness and the long term consequences of the approach to pre-existing conditions under Obamacare and contrasts it with the consequences of the alternative replacement plan proposed by Republican challenger Mitt Romney. It finds that, although the Obamacare approach guarantees coverage in the short term, it poses long term risks to the U.S. health care system. In contrast, the Romney approach holds the potential to solve the pre-existing condition problem by offering inexpensive individual insurance plans, and deals with problems faced by those who may currently lack insurance due to pre-existing conditions by extending and reforming current federal rules.
Introduction
Liberal critiques of alternatives to Obamacare often center on the problem of pre-existing conditions. Indeed, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof recently offered the poignant story of his Harvard roommate, Scott Androes, who fell between the cracks of the health care system when he was diagnosed with Stage IV prostate cancer while uninsured at the age of 51, as proof that “gutting Obamacare” will result in innumerable human tragedies. “The Mitt Romney philosophy, as I understand it, is that this is a tragic but necessary byproduct of requiring Americans to take personal responsibility for their lives,” wrote Kristof. “To me, that seems ineffably harsh.”
Such stories are, of course, poignant and worrisome. At the same time, however, they fail to acknowledge that those who would repeal Obamacare—including Mitt Romney—are not proposing a reversion to a flawed status quo ante. Indeed, Romney’s plan proposes to solve the pre-existing condition problem by addressing the key flaws in U.S. tax policy that leave a small but significant minority of Americans without coverage when they most need it. Insofar as this challenge is addressed correctly, no American with pre-existing conditions will be denied affordable coverage—solving a limited, but important health care problem without the adverse side effects that accompany Obamacare.
Read more: http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ir_28.htm#.UISSmIXJKt9
No comments:
Post a Comment