
Pre-existing condition protection lost under Trump? - Lind5
There were clearly issues with Obamacare that need to be fixed and I hope they do.  However, there is a key provision that we should all be worried about.  The loss of the pre-existing condition protection.  If you are self-employed with pre-existing conditions and this provision is lost, you&#x27;ll be compelled to have to work for a corporation again (assuming you still have the protection there).  Hmmm.  I thought being self-employed with a very small business is part of what &quot;makes America great&quot;??
======
wahern
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
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
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.

