From ‘liquid biopsies’ to precision medicine, these five developments will change cancer care in the next decade. Learn more.

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
232
Views

Re: GOP To Voters-Ignore Suit to kill Pre-existing Condtions

232 Views
Message 1 of 19

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

 Of course they want voters to ignore this being in the Texas courts. Trump and the Republicans put Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court. The Republicans will appeal this to the Supreme Court in hope that the now right leaning Court will rule in their favor.


Kavanaugh is a Texan? Trump is a Texan? What are you talking about??


This topic is not just about Texas. Sorry you think that just because this is now in a Texas court it makes it just about Texas.


Then it's about the same thing as the other topic. So again - why do we need two??

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
232
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
240
Views

Re: GOP To Voters-Ignore Suit to kill Pre-existing Condtions

240 Views
Message 2 of 19

@GraysonL320504 wrote:

@mickstuder wrote:

@GraysonL320504 wrote:

discussion


@mickstuder wrote:

@GraysonL320504 wrote:

Liberals are good for a laugh.  That's about all.  And this thread, like most started by this person, is nothing more than FALSE spin.

 

1.  The thread, supposedly, is about pre-existing conditions, but the lawsuit used to support it is about the mandate.  Incidentally, it is illegal for the government to require you to buy something and charge you a penalty if you don't.  That is a FACT that has never been disputed by anyone, liberal or conservative, who understands the law.  Yet that is exactly what the mandate does.  It says it's a penalty in the ACA itself, Obama said it was a penalty and the people in Congress who supported the ACA said it was a penalty.  But when it was challenged they justified it by saying it was a tax, not a penalty, and the Supreme Court upheld it as a tax.  All the liberals cheered that on because they don't believe in right and wrong.  If they do, they would now support ANY law that requires them to do something they don't want to do or pay a penalty.  Excuse me, I mean a tax.

 

2.  The ACA provided some benefit to about 3% of the people in this country and HURT the other 97%.  And not all of the 3% really benefited because they can't afford to use the insurance they got because they can't afford the deductible.

 

3.  Liberals use the term "pre-existing conditions" FALSELY.   The pre-existing conditions that are the issue are the MAJOR illnesses that cost millions of dollars.  Not common colds or things like high cholesterol, which can be handled by diet and drugs like lipitor.  Prior to the ACA the people with major illnesses were handled by high-risk pools that were run by the states and funded by both the state and federal governments.  The ACA made high-risk pools illegal.  When that happened the people in my state who were in the high-risk pools complained because the got lesser coverage thru the ACA than they had.  Too bad for them according to Democrats because they got insurance and so they should be voting for democrats.  The real problem with pre-existing condition was not all states handled the high-risk pools very well. 

 

3.  The ideal solution should have been to fix those states.  But it would have cost them more state money so they wanted the federal government to pay for it so the majority of the cost would be spread over other states.  It's no different than Medicare for all and California is the perfect example.  According to the LA Times, they passed a state single-payer plan and 65% of Californians supported it.  After it was passed the truth came out about the cost, which would have DOUBLED the budget of the state that already had the highest state income tax.  Then the 65% for changed to 80% against and it was dropped.  And now they support a federal single-payer plan.  Why would they want a plan they had already found that they couldn't afford?  They hope their cost will be less because it will be spread over other states.  As the old saying goes:  The trouble with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money.

 

4.  Only a liberal could be so utterly STUPID as to believe all the nonsense "fake news" threads posted here by liberals.  So how about we try some facts and some REAL political discussion.

 

 


The Above Post it Totally False and is Another Attempt to Mislead and Confuse the American People - why do Folks Feel a Need to Mislead and Misrepresent and Confuse 

 

 

Same old NONSENSE. Unfortunately, the typical liberal lie is to say something is false if it doesn't agree with THEIR FALSE DOGMA when it's actually true, just as what I said is true.  If it is really false, you should have no problem providing the evidence that proves it is false.  Show it.  It's really just that simple.

The FACT is THINKING PEOPLE are against the ACA because, AS I SAID, it hurt many, many more people than it helped and their are better ways to provide health care.  But instead of a RATIONAL  about the ACA, in an effort to gain votes, liberals decided to use a scare tactic by taking one part of the ACA, pre-existing conditions, and saying Conservatives are against pre-existing conditions when, IN REALITY, it is the ACA that they are against for EXACTLY the reasons I stated.  And in regard to pre-existing conditions, AS I SAID, prior to the ACA making it illegal, in many states they were handled better than the ACA handles.  And if you take pre-existing conditions as a standalone issue rather than as part of the ACA, a better solution would have been to focus on the states that didn't handle them as well as the other states.

By the way, here's another tidbit about the left-wing fake news outlet you used as a reference:

NBC News Withheld Evidence Undermining Swetnick’s Credibility

https://www.yahoo.com/news/nbc-news-withheld-evidence-undermining-182413828.html
 
 

 


Does the Republican Leadership in the US Congress support mandating by Statute that Health Insurance Companies may not penalize those with pre-existing conditions by either refusing to cover them or by charging them more if they have pre-existing conditions?


A foolish question.  Obviously you don't understand insurance so I'll take a minute to educate you.

 

Since the ACA went into effect, according to eHealth and others, the average premium for a family has gone up 240%.  The reason for that is primarily those existing conditions that add millions of dollars to insurance company's cost.  The 97% of people who didn't benefit from the ACA paid for it in higher premiums.  In fact, it's the primary reason why wages have not gone up faster.  Instead of giving that money to employees as raises, employers spending it on insurance for employees.

 

Prior to the ACA, premiums were lower because the people that had costly illnesses were not covered by insurance companies.  They were in the state run high risk pools.  By the way, in the states I'm familiar with the high risk pools were covered by insurance companies but it cost the state less.  The reason for that is, due to a law passed when Democrats controlled both houses and the Presidency, that gave control of insurance to the states.  The ACA did not change that.  Consequently, each state has an insurance commissioner, a board or some organization that controls insurance within that state.  So, for one thing, all insurance rates within a state have to be approved by that state.  (That is still true with the ACA.)  So, for example, states that had well run high risk pools could dictate lower rates for the high risk pools or stop the company from doing any business in the state.  What some states did was have each company operating in the state take part of the high risk pool.

 

So, in answer to your question, I would would be against a statute mandating insurance companies take people with major illnesses.  Instead, I would prefer to return to the pre-ACA high risk pools cost EVERYBODY less money and provided better coverage many of the people with pre-existing conditions.  Again, I understand that not all high risk pools were well run.  The one that weren't should be the focus.  But as far as I'm concerned, that's a state issue.  If the one in your state needed improvement start a crusade in your state and leave me alone because mine was.

 

Incidentally, I would support a statute defining "pre-existing conditions" because today, depending upon who you're talking to, it includes anything from a common cold to the most expensive illnesses known to man.


Would you be kind enough to answer the - Albeit - Foolish Question?

 

I Already Have a Health Insurance Company Lobbyist

 

Does the Republican Leadership in the US Congress support mandating by Statute that Health Insurance Companies may not penalize those with pre-existing conditions by either refusing to cover them or by charging them more if they have pre-existing conditions?

 

 

 

 

( " China if You're Listening - Get Trumps Tax Returns " )

" )
" - Anonymous

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
240
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
244
Views

Re: GOP To Voters-Ignore Suit to kill Pre-existing Condtions

244 Views
Message 3 of 19

@mickstuder wrote:

@GraysonL320504 wrote:

discussion


@mickstuder wrote:

@GraysonL320504 wrote:

Liberals are good for a laugh.  That's about all.  And this thread, like most started by this person, is nothing more than FALSE spin.

 

1.  The thread, supposedly, is about pre-existing conditions, but the lawsuit used to support it is about the mandate.  Incidentally, it is illegal for the government to require you to buy something and charge you a penalty if you don't.  That is a FACT that has never been disputed by anyone, liberal or conservative, who understands the law.  Yet that is exactly what the mandate does.  It says it's a penalty in the ACA itself, Obama said it was a penalty and the people in Congress who supported the ACA said it was a penalty.  But when it was challenged they justified it by saying it was a tax, not a penalty, and the Supreme Court upheld it as a tax.  All the liberals cheered that on because they don't believe in right and wrong.  If they do, they would now support ANY law that requires them to do something they don't want to do or pay a penalty.  Excuse me, I mean a tax.

 

2.  The ACA provided some benefit to about 3% of the people in this country and HURT the other 97%.  And not all of the 3% really benefited because they can't afford to use the insurance they got because they can't afford the deductible.

 

3.  Liberals use the term "pre-existing conditions" FALSELY.   The pre-existing conditions that are the issue are the MAJOR illnesses that cost millions of dollars.  Not common colds or things like high cholesterol, which can be handled by diet and drugs like lipitor.  Prior to the ACA the people with major illnesses were handled by high-risk pools that were run by the states and funded by both the state and federal governments.  The ACA made high-risk pools illegal.  When that happened the people in my state who were in the high-risk pools complained because the got lesser coverage thru the ACA than they had.  Too bad for them according to Democrats because they got insurance and so they should be voting for democrats.  The real problem with pre-existing condition was not all states handled the high-risk pools very well. 

 

3.  The ideal solution should have been to fix those states.  But it would have cost them more state money so they wanted the federal government to pay for it so the majority of the cost would be spread over other states.  It's no different than Medicare for all and California is the perfect example.  According to the LA Times, they passed a state single-payer plan and 65% of Californians supported it.  After it was passed the truth came out about the cost, which would have DOUBLED the budget of the state that already had the highest state income tax.  Then the 65% for changed to 80% against and it was dropped.  And now they support a federal single-payer plan.  Why would they want a plan they had already found that they couldn't afford?  They hope their cost will be less because it will be spread over other states.  As the old saying goes:  The trouble with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money.

 

4.  Only a liberal could be so utterly STUPID as to believe all the nonsense "fake news" threads posted here by liberals.  So how about we try some facts and some REAL political discussion.

 

 


The Above Post it Totally False and is Another Attempt to Mislead and Confuse the American People - why do Folks Feel a Need to Mislead and Misrepresent and Confuse 

 

 

Same old NONSENSE. Unfortunately, the typical liberal lie is to say something is false if it doesn't agree with THEIR FALSE DOGMA when it's actually true, just as what I said is true.  If it is really false, you should have no problem providing the evidence that proves it is false.  Show it.  It's really just that simple.

The FACT is THINKING PEOPLE are against the ACA because, AS I SAID, it hurt many, many more people than it helped and their are better ways to provide health care.  But instead of a RATIONAL  about the ACA, in an effort to gain votes, liberals decided to use a scare tactic by taking one part of the ACA, pre-existing conditions, and saying Conservatives are against pre-existing conditions when, IN REALITY, it is the ACA that they are against for EXACTLY the reasons I stated.  And in regard to pre-existing conditions, AS I SAID, prior to the ACA making it illegal, in many states they were handled better than the ACA handles.  And if you take pre-existing conditions as a standalone issue rather than as part of the ACA, a better solution would have been to focus on the states that didn't handle them as well as the other states.

By the way, here's another tidbit about the left-wing fake news outlet you used as a reference:

NBC News Withheld Evidence Undermining Swetnick’s Credibility

https://www.yahoo.com/news/nbc-news-withheld-evidence-undermining-182413828.html
 
 

 


Does the Republican Leadership in the US Congress support mandating by Statute that Health Insurance Companies may not penalize those with pre-existing conditions by either refusing to cover them or by charging them more if they have pre-existing conditions?


A foolish question.  Obviously you don't understand insurance so I'll take a minute to educate you.

 

Since the ACA went into effect, according to eHealth and others, the average premium for a family has gone up 240%.  The reason for that is primarily those existing conditions that add millions of dollars to insurance company's cost.  The 97% of people who didn't benefit from the ACA paid for it in higher premiums.  In fact, it's the primary reason why wages have not gone up faster.  Instead of giving that money to employees as raises, employers spending it on insurance for employees.

 

Prior to the ACA, premiums were lower because the people that had costly illnesses were not covered by insurance companies.  They were in the state run high risk pools.  By the way, in the states I'm familiar with the high risk pools were covered by insurance companies but it cost the state less.  The reason for that is, due to a law passed when Democrats controlled both houses and the Presidency, that gave control of insurance to the states.  The ACA did not change that.  Consequently, each state has an insurance commissioner, a board or some organization that controls insurance within that state.  So, for one thing, all insurance rates within a state have to be approved by that state.  (That is still true with the ACA.)  So, for example, states that had well run high risk pools could dictate lower rates for the high risk pools or stop the company from doing any business in the state.  What some states did was have each company operating in the state take part of the high risk pool.

 

So, in answer to your question, I would would be against a statute mandating insurance companies take people with major illnesses.  Instead, I would prefer to return to the pre-ACA high risk pools cost EVERYBODY less money and provided better coverage many of the people with pre-existing conditions.  Again, I understand that not all high risk pools were well run.  The one that weren't should be the focus.  But as far as I'm concerned, that's a state issue.  If the one in your state needed improvement start a crusade in your state and leave me alone because mine was.

 

Incidentally, I would support a statute defining "pre-existing conditions" because today, depending upon who you're talking to, it includes anything from a common cold to the most expensive illnesses known to man.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
244
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
248
Views

Re: GOP To Voters-Ignore Suit to kill Pre-existing Condtions

248 Views
Message 4 of 19

@GraysonL320504 wrote:

discussion


@mickstuder wrote:

@GraysonL320504 wrote:

Liberals are good for a laugh.  That's about all.  And this thread, like most started by this person, is nothing more than FALSE spin.

 

1.  The thread, supposedly, is about pre-existing conditions, but the lawsuit used to support it is about the mandate.  Incidentally, it is illegal for the government to require you to buy something and charge you a penalty if you don't.  That is a FACT that has never been disputed by anyone, liberal or conservative, who understands the law.  Yet that is exactly what the mandate does.  It says it's a penalty in the ACA itself, Obama said it was a penalty and the people in Congress who supported the ACA said it was a penalty.  But when it was challenged they justified it by saying it was a tax, not a penalty, and the Supreme Court upheld it as a tax.  All the liberals cheered that on because they don't believe in right and wrong.  If they do, they would now support ANY law that requires them to do something they don't want to do or pay a penalty.  Excuse me, I mean a tax.

 

2.  The ACA provided some benefit to about 3% of the people in this country and HURT the other 97%.  And not all of the 3% really benefited because they can't afford to use the insurance they got because they can't afford the deductible.

 

3.  Liberals use the term "pre-existing conditions" FALSELY.   The pre-existing conditions that are the issue are the MAJOR illnesses that cost millions of dollars.  Not common colds or things like high cholesterol, which can be handled by diet and drugs like lipitor.  Prior to the ACA the people with major illnesses were handled by high-risk pools that were run by the states and funded by both the state and federal governments.  The ACA made high-risk pools illegal.  When that happened the people in my state who were in the high-risk pools complained because the got lesser coverage thru the ACA than they had.  Too bad for them according to Democrats because they got insurance and so they should be voting for democrats.  The real problem with pre-existing condition was not all states handled the high-risk pools very well. 

 

3.  The ideal solution should have been to fix those states.  But it would have cost them more state money so they wanted the federal government to pay for it so the majority of the cost would be spread over other states.  It's no different than Medicare for all and California is the perfect example.  According to the LA Times, they passed a state single-payer plan and 65% of Californians supported it.  After it was passed the truth came out about the cost, which would have DOUBLED the budget of the state that already had the highest state income tax.  Then the 65% for changed to 80% against and it was dropped.  And now they support a federal single-payer plan.  Why would they want a plan they had already found that they couldn't afford?  They hope their cost will be less because it will be spread over other states.  As the old saying goes:  The trouble with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money.

 

4.  Only a liberal could be so utterly STUPID as to believe all the nonsense "fake news" threads posted here by liberals.  So how about we try some facts and some REAL political discussion.

 

 


The Above Post it Totally False and is Another Attempt to Mislead and Confuse the American People - why do Folks Feel a Need to Mislead and Misrepresent and Confuse 

 

 

Same old NONSENSE. Unfortunately, the typical liberal lie is to say something is false if it doesn't agree with THEIR FALSE DOGMA when it's actually true, just as what I said is true.  If it is really false, you should have no problem providing the evidence that proves it is false.  Show it.  It's really just that simple.

The FACT is THINKING PEOPLE are against the ACA because, AS I SAID, it hurt many, many more people than it helped and their are better ways to provide health care.  But instead of a RATIONAL  about the ACA, in an effort to gain votes, liberals decided to use a scare tactic by taking one part of the ACA, pre-existing conditions, and saying Conservatives are against pre-existing conditions when, IN REALITY, it is the ACA that they are against for EXACTLY the reasons I stated.  And in regard to pre-existing conditions, AS I SAID, prior to the ACA making it illegal, in many states they were handled better than the ACA handles.  And if you take pre-existing conditions as a standalone issue rather than as part of the ACA, a better solution would have been to focus on the states that didn't handle them as well as the other states.

By the way, here's another tidbit about the left-wing fake news outlet you used as a reference:

NBC News Withheld Evidence Undermining Swetnick’s Credibility

https://www.yahoo.com/news/nbc-news-withheld-evidence-undermining-182413828.html
 
 

 


Does the Republican Leadership in the US Congress support mandating by Statute that Health Insurance Companies may not penalize those with pre-existing conditions by either refusing to cover them or by charging them more if they have pre-existing conditions?

 

Same Question regarding Trump?

 

Pretty simple & straight forward

 

Yes or No answer is all that's required

 

 

( " China if You're Listening - Get Trumps Tax Returns " )

" )
" - Anonymous

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
248
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
254
Views

Re: GOP To Voters-Ignore Suit to kill Pre-existing Condtions

254 Views
Message 5 of 19

discussion


@mickstuder wrote:

@GraysonL320504 wrote:

Liberals are good for a laugh.  That's about all.  And this thread, like most started by this person, is nothing more than FALSE spin.

 

1.  The thread, supposedly, is about pre-existing conditions, but the lawsuit used to support it is about the mandate.  Incidentally, it is illegal for the government to require you to buy something and charge you a penalty if you don't.  That is a FACT that has never been disputed by anyone, liberal or conservative, who understands the law.  Yet that is exactly what the mandate does.  It says it's a penalty in the ACA itself, Obama said it was a penalty and the people in Congress who supported the ACA said it was a penalty.  But when it was challenged they justified it by saying it was a tax, not a penalty, and the Supreme Court upheld it as a tax.  All the liberals cheered that on because they don't believe in right and wrong.  If they do, they would now support ANY law that requires them to do something they don't want to do or pay a penalty.  Excuse me, I mean a tax.

 

2.  The ACA provided some benefit to about 3% of the people in this country and HURT the other 97%.  And not all of the 3% really benefited because they can't afford to use the insurance they got because they can't afford the deductible.

 

3.  Liberals use the term "pre-existing conditions" FALSELY.   The pre-existing conditions that are the issue are the MAJOR illnesses that cost millions of dollars.  Not common colds or things like high cholesterol, which can be handled by diet and drugs like lipitor.  Prior to the ACA the people with major illnesses were handled by high-risk pools that were run by the states and funded by both the state and federal governments.  The ACA made high-risk pools illegal.  When that happened the people in my state who were in the high-risk pools complained because the got lesser coverage thru the ACA than they had.  Too bad for them according to Democrats because they got insurance and so they should be voting for democrats.  The real problem with pre-existing condition was not all states handled the high-risk pools very well. 

 

3.  The ideal solution should have been to fix those states.  But it would have cost them more state money so they wanted the federal government to pay for it so the majority of the cost would be spread over other states.  It's no different than Medicare for all and California is the perfect example.  According to the LA Times, they passed a state single-payer plan and 65% of Californians supported it.  After it was passed the truth came out about the cost, which would have DOUBLED the budget of the state that already had the highest state income tax.  Then the 65% for changed to 80% against and it was dropped.  And now they support a federal single-payer plan.  Why would they want a plan they had already found that they couldn't afford?  They hope their cost will be less because it will be spread over other states.  As the old saying goes:  The trouble with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money.

 

4.  Only a liberal could be so utterly STUPID as to believe all the nonsense "fake news" threads posted here by liberals.  So how about we try some facts and some REAL political discussion.

 

 


The Above Post it Totally False and is Another Attempt to Mislead and Confuse the American People - why do Folks Feel a Need to Mislead and Misrepresent and Confuse 

 

 

Same old NONSENSE. Unfortunately, the typical liberal lie is to say something is false if it doesn't agree with THEIR FALSE DOGMA when it's actually true, just as what I said is true.  If it is really false, you should have no problem providing the evidence that proves it is false.  Show it.  It's really just that simple.

The FACT is THINKING PEOPLE are against the ACA because, AS I SAID, it hurt many, many more people than it helped and their are better ways to provide health care.  But instead of a RATIONAL  about the ACA, in an effort to gain votes, liberals decided to use a scare tactic by taking one part of the ACA, pre-existing conditions, and saying Conservatives are against pre-existing conditions when, IN REALITY, it is the ACA that they are against for EXACTLY the reasons I stated.  And in regard to pre-existing conditions, AS I SAID, prior to the ACA making it illegal, in many states they were handled better than the ACA handles.  And if you take pre-existing conditions as a standalone issue rather than as part of the ACA, a better solution would have been to focus on the states that didn't handle them as well as the other states.

By the way, here's another tidbit about the left-wing fake news outlet you used as a reference:

NBC News Withheld Evidence Undermining Swetnick’s Credibility

https://www.yahoo.com/news/nbc-news-withheld-evidence-undermining-182413828.html
 
 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
254
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
265
Views

Re: GOP To Voters-Ignore Suit to kill Pre-existing Condtions

265 Views
Message 6 of 19

@GraysonL320504 wrote:

Liberals are good for a laugh.  That's about all.  And this thread, like most started by this person, is nothing more than FALSE spin.

 

1.  The thread, supposedly, is about pre-existing conditions, but the lawsuit used to support it is about the mandate.  Incidentally, it is illegal for the government to require you to buy something and charge you a penalty if you don't.  That is a FACT that has never been disputed by anyone, liberal or conservative, who understands the law.  Yet that is exactly what the mandate does.  It says it's a penalty in the ACA itself, Obama said it was a penalty and the people in Congress who supported the ACA said it was a penalty.  But when it was challenged they justified it by saying it was a tax, not a penalty, and the Supreme Court upheld it as a tax.  All the liberals cheered that on because they don't believe in right and wrong.  If they do, they would now support ANY law that requires them to do something they don't want to do or pay a penalty.  Excuse me, I mean a tax.

 

2.  The ACA provided some benefit to about 3% of the people in this country and HURT the other 97%.  And not all of the 3% really benefitted because they can't afford to use the insurance they got because they can't afford the deductible.

 

3.  Liberals use the term "pre-existing conditions" FALSELY.   The pre-existing conditions that are the issue are the MAJOR illnesses that cost millions of dollars.  Not common colds or things like high cholesterol, which can be handled by diet and drugs like lipitor.  Prior to the ACA the people with major illnesses were handled by high-risk pools that were run by the states and funded by both the state and federal governments.  The ACA made high-risk pools illegal.  When that happened the people in my state who were in the high-risk pools complained because the got lesser coverage thru the ACA than they had.  Too bad for them according to Democrats because they got insurance and so they should be voting for democrats.  The real problem with pre-existing condition was not all states handled the high-risk pools very well. 

 

3.  The ideal solution should have been to fix those states.  But it would have cost them more state money so they wanted the federal government to pay for it so the majority of the cost would be spread over other states.  It's no different than Medicare for all and California is the perfect example.  According to the LA Times, they passed a state single-payer plan and 65% of Californians supported it.  After it was passed the truth came out about the cost, which would have DOUBLED the budget of the state that already had the highest state income tax.  Then the 65% for changed to 80% against and it was dropped.  And now they support a federal single-payer plan.  Why would they want a plan they had already found that they couldn't afford?  They hope their cost will be less because it will be spread over other states.  As the old saying goes:  The trouble with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money.

 

4.  Only a liberal could be so utterly STUPID as to believe all the nonsense "fake news" threads posted here by liberals.  So how about we try some facts and some REAL political discussion.

 

 


The Above Post it Totally False and is Another Attempt to Mislead and Confuse the American People - why do Folks Feel a Need to Mislead and Misrepresent and Confuse 

 

 

Claim: Trump "totally" supports protecting coverage for people with pre-existing conditions

 

“We totally support people with pre-existing conditions," Trump said at the White House last week.

 

This is false.

 

The Trump administration is backing a Republican-led lawsuit that claims Obamacare's protections for pre-existing conditions are illegal.

 

If the suit succeeds, insurers would be able to start denying coverage to those people.

 

The White House has not proposed alternative legislation that would offer those with pre-existing conditions the protections Obamacare gives consumers.

 

Claim: Republicans support it, too

“Republicans will always protect patients with pre-existing conditions,” Trump said in Arizona on Friday. "They're trying to put a false narrative out there — and if there is a Republican out there, him or her, let me know, and we'll talk him into it."

 

This is mostly false.

 

Republicans have spent years trying to repeal Obamacare, and the party on the whole has not yet expressed support for the kind of health care protections for pre-existing conditions that exist now and are popular with consumers. GOP health care bill have so far softened such protections.

 

Supporting the concept of health care for people with pre-existing conditions, and supporting legislation that accomplishes it are two different things.

 

Republicans in Congress have suggested legislation that would protect those with pre-existing conditions, but those bills have not offered the same, groundbreaking level of protection Obamacare provides: that a patient's current health could not be considered by insurance companies doling out plans, so people are not charged more or denied care because of their health.

 

This is in part because Republicans vehemently oppose the individual mandate, the mechanism that forced the healthy to buy insurance or pay a tax, which helped make the bill work.

 

Source - https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/fact-check-trump-claims-gop-protecting-people-pre-existin...

 

 _______________________________________________

 

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration told a federal court on Thursday that it would no longer defend crucial provisions of the Affordable Care Act that protect consumers with pre-existing medical conditions.

 

Under those provisions of the law, insurance companies cannot deny coverage or charge higher rates to people with pre-existing conditions.

 

The Justice Department said the provisions were part of an unconstitutional scheme that required most Americans to carry health insurance.

 

In a court case filed by Texas and 19 other states, the Justice Department said in a brief on Thursday that the requirement for people to have insurance — the individual mandate — was unconstitutional.

 

Source - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/07/us/politics/trump-affordable-care-act.html?module=inline

 

 

 

( " China if You're Listening - Get Trumps Tax Returns " )

" )
" - Anonymous

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
265
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
271
Views

Re: GOP To Voters-Ignore Suit to kill Pre-existing Condtions

271 Views
Message 7 of 19

Liberals are good for a laugh.  That's about all.  And this thread, like most started by this person, is nothing more than FALSE spin.

 

1.  The thread, supposedly, is about pre-existing conditions, but the lawsuit used to support it is about the mandate.  Incidentally, it is illegal for the government to require you to buy something and charge you a penalty if you don't.  That is a FACT that has never been disputed by anyone, liberal or conservative, who understands the law.  Yet that is exactly what the mandate does.  It says it's a penalty in the ACA itself, Obama said it was a penalty and the people in Congress who supported the ACA said it was a penalty.  But when it was challenged they justified it by saying it was a tax, not a penalty, and the Supreme Court upheld it as a tax.  All the liberals cheered that on because they don't believe in right and wrong.  If they do, they would now support ANY law that requires them to do something they don't want to do or pay a penalty.  Excuse me, I mean a tax.

 

2.  The ACA provided some benefit to about 3% of the people in this country and HURT the other 97%.  And not all of the 3% really benefitted because they can't afford to use the insurance they got because they can't afford the deductible.

 

3.  Liberals use the term "pre-existing conditions" FALSELY.   The pre-existing conditions that are the issue are the MAJOR illnesses that cost millions of dollars.  Not common colds or things like high cholesterol, which can be handled by diet and drugs like lipitor.  Prior to the ACA the people with major illnesses were handled by high-risk pools that were run by the states and funded by both the state and federal governments.  The ACA made high-risk pools illegal.  When that happened the people in my state who were in the high-risk pools complained because the got lesser coverage thru the ACA than they had.  Too bad for them according to Democrats because they got insurance and so they should be voting for democrats.  The real problem with pre-existing condition was not all states handled the high-risk pools very well. 

 

3.  The ideal solution should have been to fix those states.  But it would have cost them more state money so they wanted the federal government to pay for it so the majority of the cost would be spread over other states.  It's no different than Medicare for all and California is the perfect example.  According to the LA Times, they passed a state single-payer plan and 65% of Californians supported it.  After it was passed the truth came out about the cost, which would have DOUBLED the budget of the state that already had the highest state income tax.  Then the 65% for changed to 80% against and it was dropped.  And now they support a federal single-payer plan.  Why would they want a plan they had already found that they couldn't afford?  They hope their cost will be less because it will be spread over other states.  As the old saying goes:  The trouble with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money.

 

4.  Only a liberal could be so utterly STUPID as to believe all the nonsense "fake news" threads posted here by liberals.  So how about we try some facts and some REAL political discussion.

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
271
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
277
Views

Re: GOP To Voters-Ignore Suit to kill Pre-existing Condtions

277 Views
Message 8 of 19

@rk9152 wrote:

@BigLib wrote:

It's always amusing watching the MAGATS trying to divert the actual topic. How dare people keep hammering home how Trump and his cronies in Congress have vowed to repeal the ACA, and along with it, pre-existing condition protections. There's a reason why we've not seen the GOP "replacement" bill - it's because it doesn't exist, and republicans do not have the political courage to craft and pass one.

It would be amusing to see how you would implement protections for previously existing conditions without going the Obama planned socialized medicine route.

 

And then there's the tired old line about "not accepting" that Trump is president. Sure, because the TEA Party was made up of people who accepted Obama as president. Part of the teaparty argument was debts and deficits, and they haven't decreased under Trump at all, so why are they so silent now?? Americans have the right to protest, and that fact that the MAGATS are always demanding those protesting Trump simply stop, proves how much they think of and value American freedoms.

The tired old line began with the Dems establishing the "Resistance" including the pussyhatters protestingTrump's actions before he was even sworn in. Any Tea Party comparison you'd like to be amused about?

 

Americans have the right to protest - do you approve of public harassment of people and their families.

 

Compare merely being verbally harassed in public to the level of harassment visited upon the Lieutenant Governor of Massachussets Thomas Hutchinson in 1765 - and very real acts of tarring and feathering and being beat by mobs that occurred at that time...

The left is decidedly "civil" by comparison these days - isn't it?

 

Any Tea Party comparison you's(sic) like to be amused about?

 

The "tea party" (political descendants of the ludicrous and deservedly and broadly lampooned and ridiculed "John Birch Society") had/has large and obvious problems with various "ances" - arrogance and ignorance, coupled with laughably and blatantly obvious marginal literacy in their signage...

They are the very same kind of stupid, ignorant, and marginally literate yokels and bozoids that chant "lock her up" at trump's vicious instigation...

The original "Boston Tea Party" resulted in the destruction of what would be over a million dollars worth of tea in today's money...

It was no light hearted prank - but a very expensive upraised middle finger deliberately and defiantly displayed to the British.

 

 

 


 


 

44>dolt45
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
277
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
287
Views

Re: GOP To Voters-Ignore Suit to kill Pre-existing Condtions

287 Views
Message 9 of 19

@cm9889168 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

How many topics on the same subject are needed??


I agree, but from what I've observed here is there are too many posts on how to hate Pres. Trump instead of accepting he's our president (like many had to with Obama) and working to make our Country better.  They ignore the good things he's done and instead make up topics to spew more hatred.

 

"Love in spite of the many reasons to hate"  MLK


Following is A Partial List of Prominent Republicans Who Have Spent Their Careers - Their Entire Lives Trying to Defeat Democrats and Elect Republicans

 

Everyone of them is On TV and in the Print Media Daily - Attempting to Jolt Real Republicans True Conservatives out of this Stupor Trump has afflicted upon them

 

Would you also acuse them of being - HATERS?

 

Amanda Carpenter - Steve Schmidt - Rick Wilson - Governor Charlie Baker Massachusetts - Glenn Beck - Max Boot - Jeb Bush - Rep. Adam Kinzinger - Bill Kristol - Philip Klein - Mark Levin - Katie Pavlich - Former Gov. Tom Ridge - Mitt Romney - Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen - Jennifer Rubin - Mark Salter - Sen. Ben Sasse - Ben Shapiro - Charlie Sykes - Former Rep. J.C. Watts - Former Gov. Christine Todd Whitman - Meg Whitman - George Will

 

Please Don't Try to tell me - GEORGE WILL - is a Democrat or that the people mentioned above are all part of the Republican Establsihment and The Swamp

 

 

 I'll Accept Trump is our President when Trump demonstrates he wants to be My President that he is the American President of All Americans

 

He doesn't he wants to have a Us against them America and he is explicit about doing or saying anything - ANYTHING to WIN

 

 

 

 

( " China if You're Listening - Get Trumps Tax Returns " )

" )
" - Anonymous

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
287
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
294
Views

Re: GOP To Voters-Ignore Suit to kill Pre-existing Condtions

294 Views
Message 10 of 19

@rk9152 wrote:

 

The tired old line began with the Dems establishing the "Resistance"



Which came first, the tea party or the "resistance"? Oh, that's right. It was the tea party. And the tea party was allowed their protests and resistance of every Obama policy at every whip stitch. So the MAGATS that are objecting to those protesting Trump's policies can just pull up their adult panties, calm their quivering bottom lips and deal with it.

 

 

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/ (11 pages of lies and growing)
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
294
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Open Enrollment: Oct 15-Dec 7, 2019 Find resources to help you decide on the best healthcare insurance plans for you during Open Enrollment season

Top Authors