You're introducing another variable-
Not really, that variable is part of the equation in most insurance markets. Mentioning it is drilling down to greater detail, but not going off in totally new direction.
If your cancer is in remission, for example, then you don't have existing damage that has to be treated, only a greater probability of needing treatment in the future
But your cancer may not be in remission. I don't claim the analogy is perfectly apt for all situations, but it clearly applies to some. Pointing out exceptions doesn't shoot down the analogy.
Also if it is in remission, but you have an increased chance of getting it later, that increased chance is probably representative of "damage already done" to the fraction of additional people who get cancer. You have cancerous stem cells, or cancerous tissue on a low level that flares up again later.
For that matter if its solidly in remission I wouldn't say that you have a preexisting condition.
There are ways of dealing with the pre-existing condition problem even in an insurance paradigm. Higher premiums
The part that resembles "living in the flood plain" might be addressed by higher premiums, but many people seem to have a problem with that, they want subsidies from healthier people.
The part that resembles wanting to buy insurance for your wrecked car, can't be handled by higher premiums, unless higher premiums amounts to charging you premiums equal to the cost of repair + a modest markup, and then handing you back the cost - the markup.
Another is to have policies that cover everything but the pre-existing condition so that if you have atherosclerosis you can still be covered for a broken leg or a melanoma but not for a heart attack.
That's an idea, but I'm not sure its politically acceptable, esp. to those pushing for either single payer or "a public option". Even now we have extensive mandates for coverage in many states. |
