Individual mandate vs. GOP proposal of continuous coverage

[DrainBamage]

If I'm understanding the GOP replacement plan proposals correctly, they advocate protecting someone from changes to premiums due to pre-existing conditions if and only if that person has maintained continuous coverage. So if someone who is sick (diabetes, whatever) or has been sick (cancer, whatever) misses one month of insurance payment at any point their penalty will be insurance companies being allowed to charge them much higher premiums due to pre-exsiting condition for the rest of their life.

Is this proposal really that much different than the individual mandate requiring people to have insurance or face a monetary penalty? Either way you are using a strong threat of consequences to compel people to buy health insurance. You'd have to be crazy to voluntarily not purchase health insurance if you knew it could lead to a lifetime of higher premiums.

There are parts of the GOP proposals I like and make a lot of sense, especially opening up available plans to not be required to provide things many people don't need. Genius! Why would someone with no children need a plan that provides maternity and pediatric care? However this thing with continuous coverage requirement, given all the teeth gnashing on indivual mandate, seems absurd. Either way you have a choice to sign up but you have potential for much financial pain if you choose not to get insurance.

 

[ScienceRocks]

So the GOP is going to promise me that I will get continuous coverage that I can afford that will cover any illness? I like to see that.

 

[DrainBamage]

No, they aren't promising you that. They are promising it will be affordable as long as you maintain continuous coverage, but if you don't buy insurance for one month then all bets are off.