Vance’s approach would direct federal support at the small population of patients who truly need it — while enabling the rest of the market to function more efficiently, more affordably, and more sustainably.
Following the recent vice-presidential debate, Sen. J.D. Vance, R-Ohio, continues to face attacks on his ideas for covering people with pre-existing conditions.
Vance’s critics call his proposal — which would separate out sicker patients into a separate high-risk insurance pool — inhumane and impractical.
As Arthur Caplan, the head of medical ethics at NYU Grossman School of Medicine told NBC News, “Anything that separates out pre-existing conditions is doomed to utter failure.”
Nothing contained in this blog is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of the Pacific Research Institute or as an attempt to thwart or aid the passage of any legislation.
Vance’s Critics Wrong: No Need to Fear High-Risk Pools
Sally C. Pipes
Vance’s approach would direct federal support at the small population of patients who truly need it — while enabling the rest of the market to function more efficiently, more affordably, and more sustainably.
Following the recent vice-presidential debate, Sen. J.D. Vance, R-Ohio, continues to face attacks on his ideas for covering people with pre-existing conditions.
Vance’s critics call his proposal — which would separate out sicker patients into a separate high-risk insurance pool — inhumane and impractical.
As Arthur Caplan, the head of medical ethics at NYU Grossman School of Medicine told NBC News, “Anything that separates out pre-existing conditions is doomed to utter failure.”
There’s plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise.
Read the entire op-ed in Newsmax.
Nothing contained in this blog is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of the Pacific Research Institute or as an attempt to thwart or aid the passage of any legislation.