Unlike Obamacare, GOP New Pre-Existing Conditions are a Hoax!!
A bill was introduced last week to amend the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act by Senate Republican which would maintain coverage for people with pre-existing conditions in case, a lawsuit in Texas abolishes that protection. However, several critics including Sen. Susan Collins, R- Maine, assume the proposal was not as strong as Affordable Care Act provisions to protect against pre-existing condition restrictions where Collins was one of the critical votes against the abolition of the ACA last year.
Meanwhile, oral arguments on Texas v. The United States of America, a Republican-backed lawsuit which involves 20 states, begins next month. The states declared the ACA as unconstitutional because Congress scraps the original decree penalty which is starting in 2019. The Department of Justice in recent times has called the pre-existing condition protection and the personal decree "unconstitutional."
The press release from the senators states the law introduced prohibits "discrimination against assignee based on health status, including the prohibition against increased premiums for beneficiaries due to pre-existing conditions."
Sen Thom Tillis, R-N.C., who co-sponsored the bill, said that strong opinions from both sides are presented when it comes to how we should revamp the nation's broken healthcare system. However, what all agrees to one thing is that there is a need to protect healthcare for Americans with pre-existing conditions along with ensuring that they have access to good coverage. The legislation is a prudence solution that guarantees Americans with pre-existing conditions to have healthcare coverage, regardless of how the judicial system rules on the future of Obamacare. As the midterm elections approach in November, the bill faces the dilemma with GOP. Tough most Republicans on Capitol Hill oppose the ACA; they also know that taking away pre-existing condition protections may lead the votes to fall.
The Texas court case could result in wiping out the protections which according to the polls, is supported by most of the Americans. Removal of these protections would invade health insurance to the time when based on people's history; insurers rejected or raised rates on people. The state officials who took the law to court accused the Congress from stopping the individual mandate penalty which starts in January, making the remaining parts of the health law questionable.
However, critics Larry Levitt, senior vice president for health reform at Kaiser Family Foundation say the Republican proposal wouldn't offer much support as the plan is not nearly as healthy as the current law. Levitt said the bill wouldn't allow insurers base premiums on health. However, factors like age, gender, and occupation or leisure activities can be used. The law also provides pre-existing condition exclusion. To be specific, insurance companies would need to cover patient, services associated with pre-existing conditions would exclude.
There are now two views framing out with each other. One aspect supports the basic impulse of universal health care that every citizen should be provided relative access for generous coverage regardless of income or pre-existing conditions. The other view holds that lesser interference of government will be more preferable and people should be left with their own choice to choose their insurer which fit to offer the best.
Note: We or Providing in Healthcare Webinars