Perspectives About What’s At Stake: Preexisting Conditions Guarantees, Medicaid And More
The fears of patients with existing health issues prompts some opinions while other writers look at important coverage issues that could be changed by Republican efforts on the health law.
The Wall Street Journal:
The Simplicity Of A Health Deal
As Washington continues to boggle the nation with the complex minutiae of health-care reform, the contours of an actual deal aren’t nearly so mystifying. The success of the GOP effort comes down to one simple question: Will the most conservative members of Congress accept that the politics of health care have changed? Or more simply yet: Will they acknowledge that any reform must include continued protections for pre-existing medical conditions? (Kimberley A. Strassel, 6/29)
The Washington Post:
We Thought Our Daughter Had Escaped Her Preexisting Condition. We Were Wrong.
Of course, this wavering approach to our health isn’t a problem as long as we realize that medicine is not a perfectly understood science that always offers neat answers. If the politicians who make the laws that deal with who gets access to health care also understand this reality, we would be in decent shape. But those now holding the keys to the gates are painfully unaware of the fickle nature of the beast, and as a result, millions of patients with preexisting conditions will suffer if the proposals Congress is considering to repeal the Affordable Care Act become law. (Elizabeth L. Silver, 7/5)
San Jose Mercury News:
Caveat Emptor: Health Care Hardship If Pre-Existing Condition Limits Return
In today’s corporate America, employees in their 50s and 60s have a reason to feel as vulnerable as a coach. ... Many needing to buy private insurance who have not yet reached the sanctuary of Medicare are out of luck if pre-existing conditions are once again introduced to the purchase of insurance — because most of these folks are no longer in perfect health. (Steve Butler, 7/3)
The New York Times:
Medicaid Worsens Your Health? That’s A Classic Misinterpretation Of Research
What is the basis for the argument that poor Americans will be healthier if they are required to pay substantially more for health care? It appears that proponents like [CMS administrator Seema] Verma have looked at research and concluded that having Medicaid is often no better than being uninsured — and thus that any private insurance, even with enormous deductibles, must be better. But our examination of research in this field suggests this kind of thinking is based on a classic misunderstanding: confusing correlation for causation. (Aaron E. Carroll and Austin Frakt, 7/3)
Cleveland.com:
For My Cleveland Patients, Medicaid Expansion Has Been A Matter Of Life And Death
Since Ohio expanded Medicaid in 2014, many of my patients who were previously uninsured are among the 700,000 Ohioans who can now afford medications and treatments, get their chronic illnesses under control, return to work, and become more engaged in their families and communities. Many of them call the Medicaid expansion a lifesaver. (Dr. James Misak, 7/5)
Los Angeles Times:
Republicans Say Medicaid Doesn't Work, So It Should Be Cut. Here Are All The Ways They're Wrong
The dirtiest little secret of the Republicans’ Obamacare repeal campaign is that its genesis has nothing to do with the Affordable Care Act as such, but with a long-cherished desire to gut Medicaid, which predated the ACA by nearly a half-century. (Michael Hiltzik, 7/3)
The Washington Post:
The Biggest Winner In The Current Health-Care Debate: Single-Payer
We still don't know who will ultimately prevail in the debate over the future of American health care: the Republicans who want to overhaul Obamacare, or the Democrats who want to keep it in place. But after weeks of debate, there is one clear winner so far: single-payer health care. (Aaron Blake, 7/1)
The Chicago Tribune:
Elderly May See Drastic Cuts In Medicaid, Medicare Services
Older Americans may be in for a rough ride if the changes Washington politicians are considering come to pass. Because good, explanatory journalism is in short supply and TV shouting matches don't tell you much, I decided to use this space to discuss some of the possible changes that could soon affect millions of people in their 60s and older. (Trudy Lieberman, 7/3)
Los Angeles Times:
If You're On A Spouse's Health Plan, What Happens If The Worst Should Happen?
My wife and I were chatting the other night about Republican efforts to reboot the U.S. healthcare system as a horror movie — stripping health coverage from more than 20 million Americans, boosting premiums for many and gutting Medicaid. She finally brought the conversation home by asking: “What happens if something happens to you?” (David Lazarus, 7/4)
