Democrats seize on anti-Obamacare ruling to steamroll GOP in 2020

[Greenbeard]

Another election cycle where the GOP is fighting to bring back pre-existing conditions and make tens of millions of people uninsured, you say? Well, that strategy only lost them the House by the largest midterm margin ever but okay.

Democrats seize on anti-Obamacare ruling to steamroll GOP in 2020

A court ruling last week putting the Affordable Care Act further in jeopardy may provide the opening Democrats have been waiting for to regain the upper hand on health care against Republicans in 2020.

But Senate Democrats, Democratic candidates and outside groups backing them immediately jumped on the news of the federal appeals court ruling — blasting out ads and statements reminding voters of Republicans’ votes to repeal the 2010 health care law, support the lawsuit and confirm the judges who may bring about Obamacare’s demise.

In 2018, Democrats won the House majority and several governorships largely on a message of protecting Obamacare and its popular protections for preexisting conditions. This year continued the trend, with Kentucky’s staunchly anti-Obamacare governor, Matt Bevin, losing to Democratic now-Gov. Andy Beshear.

 

[ludin]

If they didn't want it undone then they should have passed a constitutional bill to begin with.

This is a mess created by dems once again that can't take responsibility for their own actions.

Always blame someone else.

 

[Greenbeard]

If they didn't want it undone then they should have passed a constitutional bill to begin with.

They did. The GOP is in court arguing that changes to the ACA made by the GOP’s 2017 tax law render the entire ACA unconstitutional. Their zeal for bringing back pre-existing conditions truly knows no bounds.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Another election cycle where the GOP is fighting to bring back pre-existing conditions and make tens of millions of people uninsured, you say? Well, that strategy only lost them the House by the largest midterm margin ever but okay.

Democrats seize on anti-Obamacare ruling to steamroll GOP in 2020

I do not, nor have I ever, believed anyone should be covered by insurance for "pre-existing conditions." Not unless they, PERSONALLY, pay the additional premiums required of said insurance.

Insurance is a BUSINESS, invented to profit those who own said businesses.

They are gambling that they can make a profit from most people who don't typically suffer from, or are subject to, the things being covered.

The idea is to convince people to pool financial resources, administered for said customers by the business entities offering the coverage for their own profit, who then pay out as agreed by the contract. Everyone covered by the insurance is paying to cover other people who file claims, mainly so that this pool of money can also be used for themselves if they have to file a claim.

When you add pre-existing conditions, you are literally adding people who can be expected to draw on the pool of funds continuously, increasing the premiums of everyone else. Just like with car insurance, pay-out costs are spread out among the pool of other insured members.

This defeats the whole purpose of insurance, which is to insure oneself for what might happen, not what WILL happen.

Insurance costs for basic insurance are already too high. Take car insurance. Once it was designed to cover one's own accidents, basically to fix or replace one's car. Liability was available as an option, but not required. Then government stepped in at the insistence of "do-gooders" to require liability coverage for damage to other people and their property. Now the biggest cost is liability because accidents happen, and every time they pay out, premiums increase for everyone else.

Who pays? WE DO. Who always profits? INSURANCE COMPANIES!

So no, I do not agree with insuring for pre-existing conditions. That would be like insuring a car one uses for demolition derbies and expecting everyone else to pick up the repair tab.

 

[ludin]

They did. The GOP is in court arguing that changes to the ACA made by the GOP’s 2017 tax law render the entire ACA unconstitutional. Their zeal for bringing back pre-existing conditions truly knows no bounds.

Actually they didn't the entire ACA was a unconstitutional bill from the get go.

It was only ruled constitutional by some stupid tax law that should not have even been applied.

Since that provision is gone the rest of the law is now defunct. Since that was the only reason that it made it.

 

[Slavister]

I do not, nor have I ever, believed anyone should be covered by insurance for "pre-existing conditions."

So you'd want to abolish Medicare protections for pre-existing conditions too I assume?

And your opinion applies to pre-existing conditions that people are born with as well, right?

 

[Captain Adverse]

So you'd want to abolish Medicare protections for pre-existing conditions too I assume?

And your opinion applies to pre-existing conditions that people are born with as well, right?

If you want a single-payer plan, completely run by the government, with the power to control medical and pharmaceutical costs? I might buy into that.

But I do not support such programs which rely on private insurance companies. If citizens are willing to pay taxes for such a single-payer plan, I have no objection.

 

[Slavister]

If you want a single-payer plan, completely run by the government, with the power to control medical and pharmaceutical costs? I might buy into that.

But I do not support such programs which rely on private insurance companies. If citizens are willing to pay taxes for such a single-payer plan, I have no objection.

So, is that a "Yes" to both of my questions?

 

[Greenbeard]

I do not, nor have I ever, believed anyone should be covered by insurance for "pre-existing conditions."

The GOP agrees with you. They should run on that!

Actually they didn't the entire ACA was a unconstitutional bill from the get go.

Well, no, it wasn't. We learned that seven years ago. The GOP is in court arguing that its own modifications are unconstitutional (deliberately!) and thus require the courts to take coverage away from millions and reverse everything in the ACA, from the care delivery reforms to the investments in public health and expanding the health care workforce. All because of actions taken by the GOP.

Blaming the GOP's malevolence on the Dems won't get you very far.

 

[Mr Person]

Actually they didn't the entire ACA was a unconstitutional bill from the get go.

Oh look. Ludin is trying to play lawyer again. As always, he's lying, he's fallen on his face, and yet he thinks he stands triumphant next to a flag proudly waving in a hilltop breeze.

:roll:




No, what they did is pass a law getting rid of the mandate, then turned around and said "now that there's no mandate it's unconstitutional so kill the whole thing." It's wonderfully perfidious. Small wonder certain folk applaud it.

 

[ludin]

The GOP agrees with you. They should run on that!



Well, no, it wasn't. We learned that seven years ago. The GOP is in court arguing that its own modifications are unconstitutional (deliberately!) and thus require the courts to take coverage away from millions and reverse everything in the ACA, from the care delivery reforms to the investments in public health and expanding the health care workforce. All because of actions taken by the GOP.

Blaming the GOP's malevolence on the Dems won't get you very far.

No I bla.e dems for the unconstitutional bill of the unaffordable act.

 

[aociswundumho]

Another election cycle where the GOP is fighting to bring back pre-existing conditions

They should extend this brilliant idea to homeowners insurance as well. This way you could get a fire insurance policy after your house burns down.

 

[Helix]

They did. The GOP is in court arguing that changes to the ACA made by the GOP’s 2017 tax law render the entire ACA unconstitutional. Their zeal for bringing back pre-existing conditions truly knows no bounds.

They definitely want to do that. Wait until the hivemind is reminded what that means via their wallets.

 

[Deuce]

Another election cycle where the GOP is fighting to bring back pre-existing conditions and make tens of millions of people uninsured, you say? Well, that strategy only lost them the House by the largest midterm margin ever but okay.

Democrats seize on anti-Obamacare ruling to steamroll GOP in 2020

The sad part is “bring back pre-existing conditions” draws votes.

 

[Deuce]

They should extend this brilliant idea to homeowners insurance as well. This way you could get a fire insurance policy after your house burns down.

The insurance mandate and subsidies were intended to fix that issue.

Naturally, the GOP fought hard against the fix.

 

[Deuce]

I do not, nor have I ever, believed anyone should be covered by insurance for "pre-existing conditions." Not unless they, PERSONALLY, pay the additional premiums required of said insurance.

Insurance is a BUSINESS, invented to profit those who own said businesses.

They are gambling that they can make a profit from most people who don't typically suffer from, or are subject to, the things being covered.

The idea is to convince people to pool financial resources, administered for said customers by the business entities offering the coverage for their own profit, who then pay out as agreed by the contract. Everyone covered by the insurance is paying to cover other people who file claims, mainly so that this pool of money can also be used for themselves if they have to file a claim.

When you add pre-existing conditions, you are literally adding people who can be expected to draw on the pool of funds continuously, increasing the premiums of everyone else. Just like with car insurance, pay-out costs are spread out among the pool of other insured members.

This defeats the whole purpose of insurance, which is to insure oneself for what might happen, not what WILL happen.

Insurance costs for basic insurance are already too high. Take car insurance. Once it was designed to cover one's own accidents, basically to fix or replace one's car. Liability was available as an option, but not required. Then government stepped in at the insistence of "do-gooders" to require liability coverage for damage to other people and their property. Now the biggest cost is liability because accidents happen, and every time they pay out, premiums increase for everyone else.

Who pays? WE DO. Who always profits? INSURANCE COMPANIES!

So no, I do not agree with insuring for pre-existing conditions. That would be like insuring a car one uses for demolition derbies and expecting everyone else to pick up the repair tab.

You’re right, universal healthcare is the obvious solution. Too bad the right will not allow it.

 

[Greenbeard]

No I bla.e dems for the unconstitutional bill of the unaffordable act.

That doesn't make sense, since the ACA is constitutional. It's the GOP's perversion of it that's now in the hot seat. As always, no GOP sabotage, no problem.

Going after the sick didn't work out for them in 2018, we'll see how it plays out in 2020.

They should extend this brilliant idea to homeowners insurance as well. This way you could get a fire insurance policy after your house burns down.

Let's just stick with health insurance.

 

[Greenbeard]

The sad part is “bring back pre-existing conditions” draws votes.

I'm not sure that's true. The Dems ran heavily on health care in 2018 and the GOP's response was to lie. They lied over and over again, pretending they oppose pre-existing conditions. Even key parties to this very lawsuit (e.g., Josh Hawley in Missouri) were on TV lying about their commitment to protecting those with pre-existing conditions.

They still lost 40 seats in the House, but obviously their lies helped mitigate some of the damage (helped in no small part by the decision of that hack judge in Texas to sit on his decision until after the 2018 election).

But the fact that the GOP needs to lie about its position at this point suggests their actual agenda is not at all popular. Thankfully, most people seem to see through their BS at this point.

 

[jonny5]

Another election cycle where the GOP is fighting to bring back pre-existing conditions and make tens of millions of people uninsured, you say? Well, that strategy only lost them the House by the largest midterm margin ever but okay.

Democrats seize on anti-Obamacare ruling to steamroll GOP in 2020

Heck, if thats what they actually stood for, they would have my vote. But I know better. This is just politics on both sides. Neither side actually cares about healthcare or liberty.

 

[jnug]

Thread title: Democrats seize on anti-Obamacare ruling to steamroll GOP in 2020

The Dems should seize on that and
- Trump's complete failure to support and develop a real Infrastructure program, a true Career generator, as opposed to a job generator that would have resolved a real problem in this country, embarrassingly decrepit Infrastructure
- his unimaginably ignorant MAGA claim while utterly destroying our reputation and our standing in the world, sending some of our allies and all of our adversaries into convulsive spasms of laughter
- the utter mess he has made for Agro America from his tariff war
- his complete and now beyond ignorant positions on climate change, the environment generally and green economy

 

[jonny5]

The sad part is “bring back pre-existing conditions” draws votes.

How is that sad? Why would a insurance company insure someone guaranteed to use the insurance? That defeats the whole purpose.

Thats like you crashing your car, then going and buying collision insurance and making a claim.

 

[jamesbyoung]

The GOP steam roller is minus two wheels and a track. Roll on!

 

[Moderate Right]

Another election cycle where the GOP is fighting to bring back pre-existing conditions and make tens of millions of people uninsured, you say? Well, that strategy only lost them the House by the largest midterm margin ever but okay.

Democrats seize on anti-Obamacare ruling to steamroll GOP in 2020

Pretty much every single Republican has stated that they are for healthcare plans covering those with pre-existing conditions. Do you have any links where they specifically say they do not? And don't make up crap from your twisted opinions. I need links where they specifically say they don't want to cover those with pre-existing conditions.

 

[Greenbeard]

Pretty much every single Republican has stated that they are for healthcare plans covering those with pre-existing conditions.

And yet they voted dozens of times to repeal those protections and are in court right now arguing that when the GOP House lowered the mandate penalty to $0 in 2017 it did so with the explicit aim that those protections would be eliminated. Curious!

Eliminating those protections has been the GOP’s sole animating force for the last decade, but sure let’s act confused about where they stand on their signature issue.

 

[Moderate Right]

And yet they voted dozens of times to repeal those protections and are in court right now arguing that when the GOP House lowered the mandate penalty to $0 in 2017 it did so with the explicit aim that those protections would be eliminated. Curious!

Eliminating those protections has been the GOP’s sole animating force for the last decade, but sure let’s act confused about where they stand on their signature issue.

There you go with your opinions again. You just don't get it. Republicans don't want Obamacare and they don't want to return to the past either. They want a Republican plan that includes coverage for pre-existing conditions. It is just dishonest partisan politics if you claim they don't.