Previous letter incorrectly portrays effect of reforms

TO THE EDITOR:

The debate over health care reform has been a polarizing issue for well over a year, and as it should: This sweeping legislation will remake a sector that comprises one-sixth of America’s GDP. However, I take issue with Mr. McDonough’s claim (“Health care article tells only part of the story,” March 29), that a ban on preexisting conditions “undermines the whole concept of insurance.”

McDonough’s letter falsely asserts that people can simply buy insurance when they experience a catastrophic illness or accident, and go without it until then. Coverage for the person would not begin until after the hospital bill is at their doorstep, and no insurance company will retroactively pay for a catastrophic event. The ban on preexisting conditions is meant to apply to chronic conditions, not acute events. This unwise individual would be responsible for paying the bill himself.

McDonough also seems to take issue with the individual mandate for carrying health insurance. This law, which requires all adults to be insured from 2014 on, is a necessary rule to reduce the cost of insurance for everyone through an actuarial method called risk pooling. All types of insurance companies are profitable because for every person who requires payment from the company (due to a car accident, illness, fire, etc.), there are many more who are paying their premiums but not absorbing any costs.

Since insurance companies must now accept individuals with preexisting chronic conditions, healthy people must be brought into the risk pool to guarantee that the extra insurer costs are spread throughout the pool. The individual mandate simply ensures that premiums remain at reasonable levels for all citizens.



Jahan Mohiuddin
Senior
Public Health