Big gaps in Romney plan on pre-existing conditions

WASHINGTON (AP) - Mitt Romney's plan to help people with pre-existing medical conditions: hang on to your health insurance if you want to be protected.
The GOP presidential candidate wants to help those who maintain continuous coverage, a fraction of a much bigger group of people at risk of getting turned down because of medical problems.
Here's the catch: If you had a significant break in coverage, an insurer still could delve into your health care record, looking for anything - from a bad back to high blood pressure - that foreshadows future claims. They'd be able to turn you down.
That's a contrast to President Barack Obama's health care law, which guarantees that people in poor health can get comprehensive coverage at the same rates everybody else pays, and provides government subsidies to help low- to middle-income households pay premiums.
Starting Jan. 1, 2014, an insurer "may not impose any pre-existing condition exclusion," the law says.
Romney is stressing his pre-existing conditions plan as he works to soften his public image in the homestretch of a campaign that has tightened since his strong debate performance versus Obama.
"I do have a plan that deals with people with pre-existing conditions," he said during last week's debate.
The Romney campaign has not spelled out details other than it would help those who have maintained continuous coverage. That would entail incremental changes to insurance laws and regulations, and may or may not whittle down the number of uninsured, 49 million nationally.
"It will solve some of the problems," said health economist Gail Wilensky, a longtime adviser to Republicans. "It won't solve the problem of people having gone for a long time without health insurance."
That's because many people aren't able to keep up continuous coverage. Losing health insurance is often connected to major life upheavals like job loss or divorce that drain household budgets. More than 70 percent of the uninsured have been without coverage for a year or longer, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Obama's answer - it's the law of the land unless repealed - is more like hitting the reset button. About 30 million uninsured people would gain coverage as the U.S. moves closer to other economically advanced countries that provide health care for all citizens.
The differences between Obama and Romney reflect a fundamental disagreement about the role of government in dealing with the nation's health care woes: high costs, uneven quality, widespread waste and millions uninsured.
Republicans are looking to individual initiative and private-sector solutions that government can encourage. Under Obama, government has taken the lead, framing a grand bargain in which insurance companies will have to accept all applicants in exchange for a requirement that virtually all Americans carry coverage.
Currently about 13 percent of people age 64 and younger who apply for an individual policy are turned away for medical reasons, according to insurance industry statistics. In 2008, that amounted to more than 220,000 individuals. The denial rate rises to nearly 25 percent for people age 50 to 64.
While Republicans are united in their desire to repeal Obama's law, there is no consensus within the party on how or whether to replace it.
Romney addressed what he'd do about pre-existing conditions in a recent column for The New England Journal of Medicine. "Regulation must prevent insurers from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions who maintain continuous coverage," he wrote.
But most Americans already enjoy such protection under a 1996 law signed by President Bill Clinton. It works fairly seamlessly for people who switch from one job-based plan to another.
It's harder for people switching from job-based coverage to an individual plan. They first have to exhaust a coverage option known as COBRA, which allows people with job-based insurance to keep their health plan for up to 18 months after leaving the company, provided they pay the full premium. Many can't afford that.
And there's no federal protection against being turned down for a pre-existing condition if you are trying to switch from one individual plan to another.
Romney could plug those two gaps, making it easier for people to switch from job-based to individual coverage and among individual plans. His campaign has not specified how.
In his journal article, Romney also proposed to allow all consumers who purchase coverage individually to deduct the cost from their income taxes, and he expressed support for purchasing pools and for allowing insurers to sell across state lines.
His campaign says states will have the flexibility and resources to design programs for residents who cannot afford coverage on their own.
Individual insurance market expert Karen Pollitz, who served in the Obama administration as a consumer protection regulator, says the components of Romney's plan are unlikely to provide as comprehensive a guarantee as the president's Affordable Care Act.
"The ACA just says insurance companies can't discriminate against you, period," said Pollitz, now with the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. "If you've been uninsured, you can come into this market on Jan. 1, 2014, no questions asked."
The GOP presidential candidate wants to help those who maintain continuous coverage, a fraction of a much bigger group of people at risk of getting turned down because of medical problems.
Here's the catch: If you had a significant break in coverage, an insurer still could delve into your health care record, looking for anything - from a bad back to high blood pressure - that foreshadows future claims. They'd be able to turn you down.
That's a contrast to President Barack Obama's health care law, which guarantees that people in poor health can get comprehensive coverage at the same rates everybody else pays, and provides government subsidies to help low- to middle-income households pay premiums.
Starting Jan. 1, 2014, an insurer "may not impose any pre-existing condition exclusion," the law says.
Romney is stressing his pre-existing conditions plan as he works to soften his public image in the homestretch of a campaign that has tightened since his strong debate performance versus Obama.
"I do have a plan that deals with people with pre-existing conditions," he said during last week's debate.
The Romney campaign has not spelled out details other than it would help those who have maintained continuous coverage. That would entail incremental changes to insurance laws and regulations, and may or may not whittle down the number of uninsured, 49 million nationally.
"It will solve some of the problems," said health economist Gail Wilensky, a longtime adviser to Republicans. "It won't solve the problem of people having gone for a long time without health insurance."
That's because many people aren't able to keep up continuous coverage. Losing health insurance is often connected to major life upheavals like job loss or divorce that drain household budgets. More than 70 percent of the uninsured have been without coverage for a year or longer, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Obama's answer - it's the law of the land unless repealed - is more like hitting the reset button. About 30 million uninsured people would gain coverage as the U.S. moves closer to other economically advanced countries that provide health care for all citizens.
The differences between Obama and Romney reflect a fundamental disagreement about the role of government in dealing with the nation's health care woes: high costs, uneven quality, widespread waste and millions uninsured.
Republicans are looking to individual initiative and private-sector solutions that government can encourage. Under Obama, government has taken the lead, framing a grand bargain in which insurance companies will have to accept all applicants in exchange for a requirement that virtually all Americans carry coverage.
Currently about 13 percent of people age 64 and younger who apply for an individual policy are turned away for medical reasons, according to insurance industry statistics. In 2008, that amounted to more than 220,000 individuals. The denial rate rises to nearly 25 percent for people age 50 to 64.
While Republicans are united in their desire to repeal Obama's law, there is no consensus within the party on how or whether to replace it.
Romney addressed what he'd do about pre-existing conditions in a recent column for The New England Journal of Medicine. "Regulation must prevent insurers from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions who maintain continuous coverage," he wrote.
But most Americans already enjoy such protection under a 1996 law signed by President Bill Clinton. It works fairly seamlessly for people who switch from one job-based plan to another.
It's harder for people switching from job-based coverage to an individual plan. They first have to exhaust a coverage option known as COBRA, which allows people with job-based insurance to keep their health plan for up to 18 months after leaving the company, provided they pay the full premium. Many can't afford that.
And there's no federal protection against being turned down for a pre-existing condition if you are trying to switch from one individual plan to another.
Romney could plug those two gaps, making it easier for people to switch from job-based to individual coverage and among individual plans. His campaign has not specified how.
In his journal article, Romney also proposed to allow all consumers who purchase coverage individually to deduct the cost from their income taxes, and he expressed support for purchasing pools and for allowing insurers to sell across state lines.
His campaign says states will have the flexibility and resources to design programs for residents who cannot afford coverage on their own.
Individual insurance market expert Karen Pollitz, who served in the Obama administration as a consumer protection regulator, says the components of Romney's plan are unlikely to provide as comprehensive a guarantee as the president's Affordable Care Act.
"The ACA just says insurance companies can't discriminate against you, period," said Pollitz, now with the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. "If you've been uninsured, you can come into this market on Jan. 1, 2014, no questions asked."
"Big gaps in Romney plan..."
Â
Big gaps in Romney.
- But he is the master debater.
.
And Kid Rock said this:Â
Making a pitch for why his fellow Michiganders should vote for the Romney-Ryan ticket, Kid Rock tapped into the complicated feelings some voters harbor in deciding whether to re-elect President Obama.
"I am very proud to say that we had elected our first black president; Iâm sorry--Iâm sorry he didnât do a better job, I really wish he would haveâI do, but the facts are the facts,"  the singer-songwriter said Monday in his introduction of Republican vice presidential pick Paul Ryan.Â
Having appeared with Mitt Romney on the campaign trail, Kid Rock threw some more star power behind the Republican candidates as Michigan polls conducted after the first presidential debate show a tightening race.
Kid Rock joked to the crowd of thousands gathered at Oakland University that he enjoyed Romney's face-off with President Obama so much that "I think I might throw a keg party for the Ryan-Biden debate," which is scheduled for Thursday.
The Grammy-nominated musician admitted to the audience that it's "a little difficult to put myself in this position knowing it may alienate a few fans."
"I really believe strongly that itâs okay to disagree on politics and the direction of our country without hating one another," he said. "I mean itâs no secret that I am embedded in an industry that leans very left."
Â
does Romney know how to tell the truth about anything? let's put him on the same medical plan he's suggesting for millions to use.
 @Misty He'd probably be denied - I doubt he has been on one for a long time, and his plan doesn't include those kind of people...
This comment has been deleted
 @the unvarnished truth  @Misty Well, you know - Obama tried to get the same plan that Congress has as part of Obama Care - but the GOP/TP didn't want it...
So what happened to Rommney Care being the blueprint for the nation?
Â
Oh yeah, he flip flopped.. again..
This comment has been deleted
@the unvarnished truth I guess you didnât notice that it was set up to be implemented in phases and parts over a number of years.
Please fast forward to Nov 7 when all this is over.
Letâs be honest about pre-existing conditions for once. The big lie being told or implied at the very least is that anyone with a pre-existing condition will be or are being turned down by health insurance companies and never be able to get coverage.
Â
For the majority of cases, health insurance companies have pre-existing condition clauses that make someone who had no insurance wait three to six months before they can get coverage specifically of a preexisting condition, not a forever exclusion. They can still get limited coverage for things not preexisting and after the waiting period, full coverage.
Â
It is to protect everyone from fraud. If no pre-existing condition clauses can exist, mom and dad can decide not to get medical insurance for their kids. Little Billy falls down the stairs and breaks his arm, so now they get medical insurance after the fact so they donât have to pay for the treatment. Or someone can come down with some illness that is going to be expensive to get treated and then decide to get coverage. That is the reality of it.
It would be similar to being able to buy auto insurance after you get in an accident.
The insurance companies need to be able to do this otherwise everyone elseâs rates will have to go through the roof to pay for it or services rationed for everyone.. kind of like where we are currently headed as all the provisions of Obama care start kicking in. Come January get ready for an excise tax on medical devices. That is right, that pacemaker your grandparent is going to need just went up in cost. Wait, I thought Obamacare was supposed to lower the cost⦠hmmm.
   Â
Also get ready for a $2,500 cap on healthcare flexible spending accounts. This really will be devastating to families with special needs kids and people with chronic health issues who currently have no such cap. These are going to hurt the middle and lower income brackets disproportionately.
Â
My cost of coverage has gone up since provisions have been kicking in so I haven't seen anything positive for me yet and don't expect to with Obamacare.
 @Nitroxman or for my daughter with type one diabetes...do you have any idea how expensive that disease is and it is 24/7 for the rest of your life. Right now she has insurance because of the part of the law that allows children to stay on their parent's insurance until they are 26. Anyone who thinks that insurance companies are in this business for their clients is delusional. Their sole purpose is to advocate for high salaries for their CEO's and to pay out as little as possible on their claims. I have no doubts about how hard it will be for my daughter to obtain insurance. Just the little test strips for the meters (and type ones test a minimum of 4 times a day) are over a $1.50 PER STRIP. Add in the insulin, syringes, lancets, emergency glucogen... Even now, every few months we get a letter from our insurance "wondering" if perhaps there might be another "responsible party-insurance". Yeah, the emergency room is a GREAT idea...I thought everyone said that that is what is driving medical costs up, so why would you advocate for that? and actually, part of the President's plan is to address that fraud. My guess is that Romney would replace with "his" plan which is essentially what we have now.
@dentalgirl57 @Nitroxman I am not advocating for using the emergency room. Where did I suggest that? Check out the link about the medical billing I posted.
Â
If your daughter gets her insurance through work they do not get hit with the preexisting condition clause in many cases at all. If she rolls into her own plan while still insured through you she can find companies that won't penalize her either.
Â
Again, check out the medical billing link I posted. There is the main reason why costs are so inflated.Â
 @OrcasThunder  @Nitroxman  @dentalgirl57 It's all about one thing and only one thing Insurance companies limiting there exposure to people with per-existing conditions.
The is fact that the Republicans want to help the rich and let the unfortunate, poor and sick flounder and die while there golf buddies get richer! I find it quick amusing that people compare car insurance to health care insurance considering one is about steal and metal and the other is about human beings.Â
Â
Â
 @Nitroxman  @dentalgirl57  @Nitroxman "I am not advocating for using the emergency room. Where did I suggest that?"
Â
When you stated: "For life threatening illness, a hospital cannot refuse to treat someone."
Â
It's been the ONLY place where a hospital HAD to provide life-saving service.
 @Nitroxman "The big lie being told or implied at the very least is that anyone with a pre-existing condition will be or are being turned down by health insurance companies and never be able to get coverage."
Actually, that's Romney's plan. If you haven't been covered recently, you are out of luck, according to one of Mitt Romneyâs top advisers:
"âWith respect to pre-existing conditions, what Governor Romney has said is for those with continuous coverage, he would continue to make sure that they receive their coverage,â said Eric Fehrnstrom, referring to existing laws which require insurance companies to sell coverage to people who already have insurance, or within 90 days of losing their employer coverage."
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/top-romney-adviser-states-will-have-to-cover-people-with-pre-existing-conditions-under-president-rom.php
Â
BTW, were you aware that having BEEN pregnant is a "pre-existing" condition, as well as being a victim of spousal abuse?
Â
@OrcasThunder So trying to get insurance to cover the cost of pregnancy care after the fact is ok?  What specifically are you talking about with the spousal abuse?  Is that like saying I get beat up really bad and need medical treatment I should be able to medical insurance after the fact?
Â
I am getting the impression that you think people should be able to get auto insurance after the accident.
Â
The talkingpointsmemo is a self admitted left wing perspective. Not exactly a non biased source. It would be like me using Rush Limbaugh as a source, I don't listen to him for the record.
 @the unvarnished truth  @Nitroxman IF the woman is denied care for her pregnancy, and the child miscarries, isn't THAT an abortion due to negligence by the health care system?
Â
But note:
Abortions are LEGAL.
We weren't talking about abortion.
We had to leave that to the one who is as thick as a bull's walt...
 @Nitroxman  @OrcasThunder "I am getting the impression that you think people should be able to get auto insurance after the accident."
WE aren't talking about automobiles, YOU PEOPLE ARE.
Â
"So trying to get insurance to cover the cost of pregnancy care after the fact is ok?"
If a woman is pregnant, why should she be denied health care?
If the woman IS denied, shouldn't the child also be denied? After all, you people say that life begins at conception - so isn't being an uninsured embryo a pre-existing condition?Â
Â
Â
 @Nitroxman "pre-existing condition clauses that make someone who had no insurance wait three to six months before they can get coverage specifically of a preexisting condition"
Yeah - tell that to the parents of the child who has neuroblastoma and needs their ongoing treatment N-O-W!
That is exactly what I mean about the dishonesty of the fear mongering and emotion driven factless discourse. If the familty has health insurance then they would be covered. If they didn't, they are trying to get coverage after the fact.
Â
For life threatening illness, a hospital cannot refuse to treat someone.
Â
There are private grants and organizations to help cover medical costs for cases like this.
Â
There are hospitals that treat children for free, no cost to the family, all over the country.
Â
Here is something to check out about the falicy of medical billing that can over inflate actual cost by 10 times. I know the doctor who did this and he is not a hack. It is worth the watch and is an eye opener.
Â
http://www.creativerhetoric.com/dynamic-storytelling/case-study-lappert-healthcare.html
Â
 @OrcasThunder If a corporation takes advantage of a loophole or break of some sort its called good business to capitalize on it. If a man needs a break to put food in his belly or medicine in his children, he is a scumbag looking for an entitlement and has no right to it. Thats what the people of this country have come to O.T. There is a special place for his kind.
What are you talking about with the never be covered? Didn't you read anything I posted? It is a short term exclusion. My mom has had cancer three times in her life and there were gaps in their insurance coverage. She had the pre-existing clause for six months and no she did not try to get insurance after finding out she had cancer again, it didn't come back until a couple years later.
Â
Allowing people to get health insurance after they find out they are sick is what will push up the cost of medical insurance and medical care for all of us.
 @Nitroxman "If the familty has health insurance then they would be covered. If they didn't, they are trying to get coverage after the fact."
Â
And in most cases when this happens it is because they HAD coverage when the wage earner was employed, but they LOST THAT COVERAGE when they were laid off.
And what if the child had been cured of the cancer - should the insurance company STILL be allowed to deny them? What does that do for the millions of cancer survivors in this country - people who HAD cancer and beat it? Should my 26 year old grandson NEVER be allowed coverage because he had cancer when he was 2 years old? Should a chile who was born with cystic fibrosis be denied coverage - after all, the condition existed before they were born.
Â
"For life threatening illness, a hospital cannot refuse to treat someone."
That is ONLY true in the emergency room, and does not cover extended treatment like chemo or radiation or CT scans. Hospitals can and do turn away people who have no insurance.
Oh, and forcing people to go to emergency rooms is what pushes up the costs of medical care for ALL of us.
Wow, our country is truly divided... Hooray for my side republican vs. democrat liberal vs. conservative what a crock... So many educated people unaware while you're bickering for the scraps at the table the enemy is completely taking away your liberties... No president can/will fix one thing pertaining to the economy, healthcare, social security, medicare, medicaid etc. as long as these war(s) continue. Where do you think this magic money is going to come from when states are going belly up? Do you honestly believe America can sustain these war(s) along with all our precious entitlement programs? The politicians don't care if you have social security... They claim it's your responsibility to have other finances besides social security... How many of you have 401k portfolio's to supplement your income etc.? Let alone a savings? Oh well, keep tooting your political horns and pounding your drums... whatever.
"Repeal and replace"? If you repeal it there is nothing to replace. Simply "Replace" would be more correct, and much more efficient use of words too.The only thing that politicians are economical with is the truth, and he's no exception.
Â
Some actual details on what he intends to replace it with would be nice though, even the whole Republican party is yet to come up with anything, ends up looking like a smokescreen designed to appeal to everyone - those who don't like Obamacare and those who'd like to keep all the good bits but don't mind getting rid of the rest.
 @therunner Some actual details!
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/10/09/why-mitt-romneys-plan-for-pre-existing-conditions-is-better-than-obamacares/
 @Antistatism Those aren't details, at best two or three actually have a goal and the others are vague ideas.
"Ensure flexibility to help the chronically ill, including high-risk pools, reinsurance, and risk adjustment" - what does that even mean?
 @Antistatism  @therunner You do realize that the person writing the report in an adviser to the Romney folks and therefore his view can not be considered as unbiased.
 @WildWesties  @therunner You do realize that the that was kind of the point as "therunner" couldn't seem to find any details on Romney's plans on healthcare. LOL
Yeah, no "gaps" in what Obummer said he was gonna do four years ago and what he actually did and DIDN'T do !
@ZIPPY Not like he could get anything done with all those helpful Republicans blocking everything he tried to do. The Republicans are absolutely useless.
@DDG Then why did he say he could?
He beleaved the Republicans wouldn't have been suck a bunch of dirty bums and that they would have helped the country instead of just keeping it stagnant.
Nice job of selecting "news" KOMO. Â Your bias is showing.
 @al_wa If you want to be coddled, go watch Fox News. If you want the truth, read other stuff.Â
This comment has been deleted
 @the unvarnished truth Explains your stupidity.
 @the unvarnished truth We watch it partially so we know what tomorrow's talking points will be, and partially for a laugh
This comment has been deleted
@Funky-Munky Your bow string broke.
 @Funky-Munky  I didn't personally attack "al_wa" and I didn't attack you either. Not sure why you want to make it personal, but that's your choice I guess.Â
Â
Â
Any Republican comment is a minor comment.
 @caphillkid You see kid... I got you... it was like playing a fiddle... Truth be told most of us commenting from day to day here should... thanks... you're the equivalent to a political party groupie... Have a day... man child.. Ha!
 @Funky-Munky Somebody needs to get a life.Â
It's beyond all comprehension that Americans honestly believe either candidate will better America... As long as there's war(s) nothing can or will improve healthcare, economy or your way of life. good luck debating. America has/is hemorrhaging massive amounts of your money, along with your children's futures each day and will only continue to snowball as Iran jockeys for power. In spite of what many believe the war between Israel and Iran will bring many combatants to the table. Where do you think all of this cash is coming from to fight these war(s)? Your friggin' leaders put them on the your rest of everyone's lives CREDIT CARDS!
Yep, its not our battle. If Israel attacks Iran the rest of the muslims in the area will make sure Israel doesn't exist any more. If we keep poking Pakistan they might decide to end life as we  know it on the planet. What a horrible foreign policy we've had for the last 50 years. And we still ship all these terrorists billions of dollars in foreign aid every year. @Funky-Munky
 @Blindman Gotta send them butt loads of cash to help enslave, destroy and finally reduce our general population by war(s).
I really like this plan.Â
Â
Especially these two proposals: Consumers who purchase coverage individually can deduct the cost from their income taxes, and allowing insurers to sell across state lines.
Â
I would still like to know if adult children can still be covered under their parents plan while in school.
Â
Â
 @ducky:Â
".... I would still like to know if adult children can still be covered under their parents plan while in school ...."
Â
In most cases, yes. If your insuraqnce is an employer plan, it would defined under the dependent eligible for covergae part of the policy. They would probably require that a statement of full-time student status be submitted. Many of the policies I worked with over the years required a copy of the schedule showing their credit load if they were in college/over 18.
 @LocalLady  @ducky: That's the case for ObamaCare - where does it state that in the Romney plan?
 @the unvarnished truth  @OrcasThunder  @LocalLady  @ducky: Bush's # accomplishment. TFTFY!
 @LocalLady  @ducky: Oh. wait - Romney doesn't really HAVE a "plan"...he's just "planning" on having one...after the election.
 @Ducky You can already deduct your health care, and Obama Care allows cross State coverage.
This comment has been deleted
 @the unvarnished truth  @Ducky Actually, if you look at it as a percentage, 10% of a rich person's gross might be larger than 10% of yours.
Â
OTOH, do you really think that Ryan's "plan" to remove deductions is going to leave that one intact? He's already hinted that the home mortgage deduction is on the chopping block...
@OrcasThunder @Ducky Obama Care didn't fix the In state mandates that make it nearly impossible to afford or buy the independent coverage you want. Washington state tried a version of ObamaCare in the 90's when it forced insurance companies to cover all its residents and the companies bolted for the border. Many states prevent you from buying anything out of state. For example, If I lived in NY I could not buy out of state insurance, unless it was group coverage. Right now, I am in group coverage and my Ins. comes from North Carolina, BUT if I wanted to go independent to save money, I'm not sure I could find the same coverage for a lower cost because I am not even sure what the mandates are now here in WA.
 @Ducky  @OrcasThunder Obama Care allows States to decide on a State by State basis if they will allow interstate coverage.
Â
Are you saying that you want a FEDERAL MANDATE that REQUIRES States to allow it?