Speaking of inflammatory speech, have you ever noticed how often people pushing HCR use the loaded (pardon the expression) word “discrimination” to refer to insurance practices such as failing to cover pre-existing conditions? The White House uses it, and Sebelius used it recently in a way that made the civil rights tie-in pretty unmistakable, “Americans living with pre-existing conditions are being freed from discrimination in order to get the health coverage they need.”
Wouldn’t a neutral word such as “denial” be more accurate? I guess not, if the motive is to imply that insurance companies are acting capriciously, cold-heartedly, and possibly maliciously rather than engaging in basic and time-honored insurance underwriting practices to reduce risk and keep their businesses viable.
And in late-breaking news, as the House passes the repeal of HCR, here we go again:
“Thanks to the new law, women do not have to worry anymore about being treated as second-class citizens or about being discriminated against for being a woman,” [Rep. Louise] Slaughter said, arguing that the health care law made it illegal for insurance companies to charge women higher premiums and would require that insurers provide coverage for victims of domestic violence.
When will all those auto insurers stop discriminating against men? We’re charged higher premiums for no reason other than our chromosomes!
Or, maybe it’s a legitimate risk factor, just like in health insurance.
The Democrats have successfully managed to get a lot of people to believe that insurance companies are health care providers like doctors or hospitals and that they therefore have a moral responsibility to “provide medical care” for everyone who ask. When people think of it that way, it does seem like insurance companies are discriminating.
In reality of course, insurance companies exist simply to provide protection against the financial consequences of unexpected medical events. Insurance simply doesn’t work mathematically for people with pre-existing conditions.