“Pre-existing conditions” are (should be?) at the heart of the debate about the two approaches to reforming healthcare financing on display from our Presidential candidates. I found this article by Avik Roy resonated with me.
No doubt there is an opposing argument from the Obama team about why Mr Roy’s analysis is flawed. I would be interested if anyone can point me to a well reasoned counter point of view. Please comment below.
I decided I should be able to read for myself what Mr Romney’s plan actually said. I found commentary in the blogosphere (see below). But not much about the actual plan, other than these principles on www.mittromney.com. It seems the candidate has a set of principles, rather than “a plan”. I guess the argument is that “the plan” actually needs to put together by congress, hopefully following along with the candidate’s general principles.
In fact, that seems like a reasonable approach to me. But then, surely all these frenzied articles in the media about what Mr Romney’s “plan” would or would not do are just conjecture? What am I missing?
- Mitt Romney’s Plan For Pre-Existing Medical Conditions-Good For The Rich, Useless for Middle Class (forbes.com)
- More from Avik Roy on Romney’s plan
- 36M Left Out in Romney Pre-Existing Conditions Vow (bloomberg.com)
- Top Romney Adviser: States Will Have To Cover People With Pre-Existing Conditions Under President Romney (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com)
- Romney Lies. All the Time. About Everything. Why Do You Ask? (delong.typepad.com)