As one of the commenters on my blog wrote after describing her friends who can't get insurance because of pre-existing conditions, "we are all one job loss and major illness away from personal financial ruin."
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

Advocates for health care reform typically emphasize either restraining cost or covering the uninsured. I understand the practical and moral facets of both arguments but believe advocates are dramatically underemphasizing the most potent issue: the tendency for insurance companies to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.

The ranks of the uninsured include both people who want to have insurance but can't and those who don't want insurance -- in other words, both the needy and the comfortable.

By contrast, most everyone who had been turned town for coverage because of a pre-existing condition is suffering. And on a gut moral level, the idea of denying someone coverage because they had cancer last year ranks just as high in my book as the abstract argument that a just society should "cover everyone."

As one of the commenters on my blog wrote after describing her friends who can't get insurance because of pre-existing conditions, "we are all one job loss and major illness away from personal financial ruin."

Solving the pre-existing condition issue may require a broader coverage base but to me we have the cart before the horse both ethically and politically.

I heard Kathleen Sebelius on the Daily Show the other night and once again she was emphasizing the uninsured and "costs." I remain baffled as to why health care advocates don't stress the pre-existing condition issue.

Popular in the Community

Close

What's Hot