Letter: Lynn Davis, Sterling

Editor: Most of us know about pre-existing conditions from personal experience, and it is not only older people who are vulnerable. A small child can be diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, making her insulin-dependent for life; a young woman can be struck by rheumatoid arthritis, an autoimmune disease that twists her bones and attacks major organs; or a young parent in the prime of life can be stopped in his tracks by a diagnosis of cancer.

Barbara Comstock’s campaign website doesn’t mention pre-existing conditions or, actually any health insurance-related issue. Six times in Congress, Comstock voted to allow health insurance companies to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. Half a year ago, however, Comstock read the political tea leaves and suddenly switched to supporting insurance coverage of pre-existing conditions. Trouble is, Comstock still opposes the parts of the Affordable Care Act that make it possible to cover the high cost of insuring pre-existing conditions. Does she understand that cherry-picking one provision won’t work or does she just not care?

Recently the Trump administration announced a new policy permitting states to offer insurance plans that don’t meet the high standards of the Affordable Care Act.  States could use federal money to subsidize cheaper plans with far less comprehensive coverage. It is all but certain that these new plans will be unable to include coverage for pre-existing conditions.

Don’t be fooled by Barbara Comstock’s empty rhetoric. Jennifer Wexton is the only candidate who will fight to protect coverage of pre-existing conditions.

Lynn Davis, Sterling

2 thoughts on “Letter: Lynn Davis, Sterling

  • 2018-10-30 at 11:25 am
    Permalink

    I never understood the fight around pre-existing conditions. And I say this as the father to a child with Type 1 Diabetes.

    Pre-existing conditions are only a concern if you had no coverage in the first place. If you do the right thing for yourself and your dependents, it should not be an issue.

    It is no different than deciding paying for car insurance is not worth it, and then signing up after you crash your vehicle. Thus the adage in my home country that “insurance is only expensive before the accident”

    The real problem is the cost and complexity of healthcare in the US. Democrats tried to fix it and failed. The ACA is a travesty. It’s some sort of hybrid limping model that costs a fortune and doesn’t help nearly as much as it should.

    Democrats had a chance to do something that, while costly, is in my opinion worth the expense. I’m talking universal healthcare coverage.
    Most people understand we need a strong military to protect ourselves. Caring for the sick at home should also be high in the list of priorities, sadly it is not so.

    Both come at a steep price, but are worth it. People don’t contract chronic conditions for fun, and for a lot of those like the ones you describe, they are not the patient’s fault.

    The problem with your letter is that you draw the erroneous conclusion we should vote for the candidate of the party that did not fix the system when it had the chance to do so, in order to give more free rides to people who decide they should only contribute to the system when they need to get more money out of it than they put into it.

    How is this going to help exactly?

Leave a Reply