Health care article tells only part of the story

TO THE EDITOR:

The article on (“Health care reform’s impact on UNC students,” March 24) confuses what the health care bill actually does by first referring to pre-existing health conditions with regards to children, and later referring to “medical problems” with regards to adults. I had to look up the bill online to understand that it bans discrimination on all citizens of this country based on pre-existing conditions.

The two different dates only refer to the fact that the full ban on pre-existing conditions will not take effect until 2014, whereas the ban on excluding children will take effect in six months.

I find this to be an important, albeit small correction, as it seems the DTH has taken a biased stance in favor of heath care. Poorly worded sentences such as the one I am commenting on misrepresent the bill as something which we all can and should agree upon (such as insuring children).

But disallowing companies to take pre-existing conditions into consideration undermines the whole concept of insurance. One buys insurance to prepare in case something bad happens. If the companies are disallowed to take this into consideration, buying insurance before a catastrophe becomes silly. It would then actually makes sense to pay the $750 fine and buy insurance only in the unlikely case something bad happens. While change is needed, this is not the appropriate change.

Charles McDonough
Freshman
English, Business