Huckabee was blathering yesterday about the republican plan to revoke the 'pre-existing condition' clause in the new health care bill. The one that no longer allows insurance companies to refuse to cover a person because they either have a condition or have been treated for it in the past. Say, you were treated for colitis years ago, and have had a recurrence. An insurance company can refuse to pay for your treatment now and can reject you for insurance. Cancer treatment makes you pretty much uninsurable for any other insurance coverage. People get dropped from insurance rolls, and cannot get reinsured, because of this loophole in the insurance regulations that favor insurance companies.
At any rate, he compared the requirement that insurance companies cover pre-existing conditions to homeowners insurance companues being required to cover your burned-down house. Oh, it would be a nice thing, but it's patently ridiculous, he sneered.
No, you slack-jawed moron. Your analogy is absolutely wrong, and patently dishonest.
The analogy should be: Having an insurance company refuse you coverage because of a pre-existing condition is like trying to get homeowners insurance when your house burned town ten years ago, and you have rebuilt it, and they refuse to cover your existing house for fire because you once had a house fire.
What Huckabee is describing is what happens when you have no insurance, and finally end up in the emergency room trying to get treatment and pay for a condition that you currently have. He has completely misunderstood (or misrepresented, more likely) the entire issue. But it makes a nice soundbite, though, so I'm sure it will be touted as "truth" in no time.
Once again, the modern conservative movements credo is shining through: I've got mine, screw you. Look, if you dislike the idea of requiring insurance companies to provide insurance, regardless of pre-existing conditions, then argue against it; that's you're right. But do it honestly, eh? If you've got facts and evidence, provide them. If not, fanning the flames of fear and anxiety is not an acceptable alternative.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment