The language geek that I am, I find it greatly rewarding that the Economist, as one of the few publications, insists on using the term "existing condition" instead of the wonderfully nonsensical "pre-existing condition" – despite its widespread (mis)use in the current US healthcare debate. Note: A conditions exists or it doesn’t. It's a black or white statement. "Pre-existing" is therefore identical with "non-existing" – because when things start to exist they usually exist 100%. But if pre-existing conditions were non-existing conditions, they wouldn't pose a controversial issue for health insurers and consequently not play any role in this debate.
Comments