Pre-existing condition protections still in the GOP's crosshairs (1 Viewer)

[Greenbeard]

Last summer the Trump administration took the position that a Texas court should strike down the parts of the ACA that protect people with pre-existing conditions (the rest of the law could stay, they argued, only those protections should be thrown out).

In its brief, also filed on June 7, the Justice Department abandoned its customary role of defending laws passed by Congress and took the side of Texas, agreeing that the mandate is now unconstitutional. The Trump administration also argued that the ACA’s guaranteed issue and community rating requirement, which ban insurers from denying coverage or charging people more based on their health, can only work in tandem with the mandate and must also be invalidated. The rest of the ACA can function without the mandate, the brief says, and should be retained.

In the meantime, the Dems built their entire midterm message around defending those with pre-existing conditions ("With midterms approaching, Democrats go all-in on health care, pre-existing conditions ").

GOP candidates, including those pushing that very lawsuit to strip people of pre-existing condition protections, were forced to pivot into lying about their own positions ("Republicans trumpet pre-existing condition protections despite votes to repeal Obamacare".)

It largely didn't work. The Dems ended up winning back the House by nine points in the highest turnout midterm in the era of universal suffrage. The bloodbath would like have been worse for the GOP without a little help from their friend in Texas, who kept his powder dry and the lawsuit out of the headlines until after the election, opting instead to drop his bomb during open enrollment (""Federal judge in Texas strikes down Affordable Care Act").

The GOP, it seems, wasn't chastened by its electoral loss. It failed its first test on protecting those with pre-existing conditions during an early vote last month in the newly Dem-led House:

The move was designed by newly empowered Democrats to put Republicans on the record voting for or against protecting Obamacare and its safeguards for those with pre-existing conditions. The GOP has for years fought against the law, with House Republicans voting in 2017 for repeal.

Wednesday's vote was 235 to 192, with three Republicans supporting the measure.

And where's Trump on the issue? Based on his interview with the NYT last week, still rooting against those with pre-existing conditions:

Um, but, I believe it’s going to be terminated, whether it be through the Texas case, which is going through the court system as a victory right now, because of, you know, the various elements of that case, you would think it would have to be terminated. But a deal will be made for good health care in this country. That’s one of the things I’ll be doing.

There you have it. Dumping pre-existing condition protections would be a great "victory" for the GOP. Not so much for the American people.

Looks like this fight will be on the ballot again in 2020.

 

[Mycroft]

Last summer the Trump administration took the position that a Texas court should strike down the parts of the ACA that protect people with pre-existing conditions (the rest of the law could stay, they argued, only those protections should be thrown out).



In the meantime, the Dems built their entire midterm message around defending those with pre-existing conditions ("With midterms approaching, Democrats go all-in on health care, pre-existing conditions ").

GOP candidates, including those pushing that very lawsuit to strip people of pre-existing condition protections, were forced to pivot into lying about their own positions ("Republicans trumpet pre-existing condition protections despite votes to repeal Obamacare".)

It largely didn't work. The Dems ended up winning back the House by nine points in the highest turnout midterm in the era of universal suffrage. The bloodbath would like have been worse for the GOP without a little help from their friend in Texas, who kept his powder dry and the lawsuit out of the headlines until after the election, opting instead to drop his bomb during open enrollment (""Federal judge in Texas strikes down Affordable Care Act").

The GOP, it seems, wasn't chastened by its electoral loss. It failed its first test on protecting those with pre-existing conditions during an early vote last month in the newly Dem-led House:



And where's Trump on the issue? Based on his interview with the NYT last week, still rooting against those with pre-existing conditions:



There you have it. Dumping pre-existing condition protections would be a great "victory" for the GOP. Not so much for the American people.

Looks like this fight will be on the ballot again in 2020.

Yes. And we can certainly look forward to an enormous amount of media spin, speculation, innuendo and hyperbole on the subject.

 

[Bucky]

Last summer the Trump administration took the position that a Texas court should strike down the parts of the ACA that protect people with pre-existing conditions (the rest of the law could stay, they argued, only those protections should be thrown out).



In the meantime, the Dems built their entire midterm message around defending those with pre-existing conditions ("With midterms approaching, Democrats go all-in on health care, pre-existing conditions ").

GOP candidates, including those pushing that very lawsuit to strip people of pre-existing condition protections, were forced to pivot into lying about their own positions ("Republicans trumpet pre-existing condition protections despite votes to repeal Obamacare".)

It largely didn't work. The Dems ended up winning back the House by nine points in the highest turnout midterm in the era of universal suffrage. The bloodbath would like have been worse for the GOP without a little help from their friend in Texas, who kept his powder dry and the lawsuit out of the headlines until after the election, opting instead to drop his bomb during open enrollment (""Federal judge in Texas strikes down Affordable Care Act").

The GOP, it seems, wasn't chastened by its electoral loss. It failed its first test on protecting those with pre-existing conditions during an early vote last month in the newly Dem-led House:

And where's Trump on the issue? Based on his interview with the NYT last week, still rooting against those with pre-existing conditions:

There you have it. Dumping pre-existing condition protections would be a great "victory" for the GOP. Not so much for the American people.

Looks like this fight will be on the ballot again in 2020.

It would be great if those with pre-existing conditions have their own personal health insurance and those without pre-existing conditions have their own insurance.

It is unfair to mix these groups of people into the same pool, and unfair for healthy individuals to pay for those that have pre-existing conditions. My solution would be simple but fair. Allow healthy individuals to be insured privateley and the other people to be insured through a federal program where we can syphon funds from medicare, medicaid, and social security into the high risk pool. The federal program can also take in donations.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

It would be great if those with pre-existing conditions have their own personal health insurance and those without pre-existing conditions have their own insurance.

It is unfair to mix these groups of people into the same pool, and unfair for healthy individuals to pay for those that have pre-existing conditions. My solution would be simple but fair. Allow healthy individuals to be insured privateley and the other people to be insured through a federal program where we can syphon funds from medicare, medicaid, and social security into the high risk pool. The federal program can also take in donations.

Almost everything is a pre-existing condition, like having a vagina or having knee pain once. What is and isn't is completely arbitrary, and having a system where the first time you get some condition you're automatically uninsurable is completely ridiculous and inhumane. As long as you support having a backwards healthcare system like the US has, you're going to continue to pay the highest premiums in the world for an ever decreasing standard of care already being beaten by over a dozen nations.

 

[Bucky]

Almost everything is a pre-existing condition, like having a vagina or having knee pain once. What is and isn't is completely arbitrary, and having a system where the first time you get some condition you're automatically uninsurable is completely ridiculous and inhumane. As long as you support having a backwards healthcare system like the US has, you're going to continue to pay the highest premiums in the world for an ever decreasing standard of care already being beaten by over a dozen nations.

Listen, those with pre-existing conditions should have insurance, however it should be through high-risk pools where healthy people have to pay for it.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Listen, those with pre-existing conditions should have insurance, however it should be through high-risk pools where healthy people have to pay for it.

You can't point to one single functioning example of a healthcare system that operates anything even remotely similar to what you advocate for. I can point to dozens of countries successfully implementing what I suggest for much less than we're paying at ranked higher in quality of care. No, kicking people out of our healthcare system for arbitrary reasons is not a good idea.

 

[Helix]

Pre-existing condition protections still in the GOP's crosshairs

well, there's a shock. that started as soon as the protections were proposed. this is just one more issue that can best be addressed via single payer.

 

[Bucky]

You can't point to one single functioning example of a healthcare system that operates anything even remotely similar to what you advocate for. I can point to dozens of countries successfully implementing what I suggest for much less than we're paying at ranked higher in quality of care. No, kicking people out of our healthcare system for arbitrary reasons is not a good idea.

I do not want to pay gastric bypass surgery for someone that eats unhealthy, or pay drug treatment for an addict. These are all self-inflicting costs. Kicking people out for their own failed life decisions seems fair.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

I do not want to pay gastric bypass surgery for someone that eats unhealthy, or pay drug treatment for an addict. These are all self-inflicting costs. Kicking people out for their own failed life decisions seems fair.

Then drop out of the insurance market all together. Save your own money and pay for everything out of pocket. That is the only way to not have to pay for anybody else, stop using insurance. Large numbers of people pooling risk and paying for each other is kind of the entire point of insurance.

 

[Bucky]

Then drop out of the insurance market all together. Save your own money and pay for everything out of pocket. That is the only way to not have to pay for anybody else, stop using insurance. Large numbers of people pooling risk and paying for each other is kind of the entire point of insurance.

That's the point. Many people want people to like me to be forced to pay for health insurance. They want to treat health insurance like taxes, or entitlement spendings where the only way to avoid paying for this is to not work at all.

I not only find that unfair, I find it unconstitutional.

 

[washunut]

Last summer the Trump administration took the position that a Texas court should strike down the parts of the ACA that protect people with pre-existing conditions (the rest of the law could stay, they argued, only those protections should be thrown out).



In the meantime, the Dems built their entire midterm message around defending those with pre-existing conditions ("With midterms approaching, Democrats go all-in on health care, pre-existing conditions ").

GOP candidates, including those pushing that very lawsuit to strip people of pre-existing condition protections, were forced to pivot into lying about their own positions ("Republicans trumpet pre-existing condition protections despite votes to repeal Obamacare".)

It largely didn't work. The Dems ended up winning back the House by nine points in the highest turnout midterm in the era of universal suffrage. The bloodbath would like have been worse for the GOP without a little help from their friend in Texas, who kept his powder dry and the lawsuit out of the headlines until after the election, opting instead to drop his bomb during open enrollment (""Federal judge in Texas strikes down Affordable Care Act").

The GOP, it seems, wasn't chastened by its electoral loss. It failed its first test on protecting those with pre-existing conditions during an early vote last month in the newly Dem-led House:



And where's Trump on the issue? Based on his interview with the NYT last week, still rooting against those with pre-existing conditions:



There you have it. Dumping pre-existing condition protections would be a great "victory" for the GOP. Not so much for the American people.

Looks like this fight will be on the ballot again in 2020.

Not sure who in their right mind does not folks with pre-existing conditions have insurance. The true question is how to make it happen without making insurance ultra expensive for the young and/or healthy. ACA fixes one problem while making the other worse. One size fits all works for just about nothing in a country as large and diverse as ours.

So yes, the GOP needs to better communicate a solution to this complex issue. Not sure if any complicated issue can be communicated to the public at large with a media which has turned into an entertainment echo chamber.

For example my sense was that the GOP had provisions for state cataphoric plans. Perhaps I am wrong about this. So not sure the above is accurate although much of the public thought it was thanks to the echo chamber I referenced.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

That's the point. Many people want people to like me to be forced to pay for health insurance. They want to treat health insurance like taxes, or entitlement spendings where the only way to avoid paying for this is to not work at all.

I not only find that unfair, I find it unconstitutional.

Create your own insurance pool. Then you can hand select who's allowed in the pool and make sure no one you arbitrarily see as "undesirable" gets in. That's your freedom as an American.

 

[trouble13]

Last summer the Trump administration took the position that a Texas court should strike down the parts of the ACA that protect people with pre-existing conditions (the rest of the law could stay, they argued, only those protections should be thrown out).



In the meantime, the Dems built their entire midterm message around defending those with pre-existing conditions ("With midterms approaching, Democrats go all-in on health care, pre-existing conditions ").

GOP candidates, including those pushing that very lawsuit to strip people of pre-existing condition protections, were forced to pivot into lying about their own positions ("Republicans trumpet pre-existing condition protections despite votes to repeal Obamacare".)

It largely didn't work. The Dems ended up winning back the House by nine points in the highest turnout midterm in the era of universal suffrage. The bloodbath would like have been worse for the GOP without a little help from their friend in Texas, who kept his powder dry and the lawsuit out of the headlines until after the election, opting instead to drop his bomb during open enrollment (""Federal judge in Texas strikes down Affordable Care Act").

The GOP, it seems, wasn't chastened by its electoral loss. It failed its first test on protecting those with pre-existing conditions during an early vote last month in the newly Dem-led House:



And where's Trump on the issue? Based on his interview with the NYT last week, still rooting against those with pre-existing conditions:



There you have it. Dumping pre-existing condition protections would be a great "victory" for the GOP. Not so much for the American people.

Looks like this fight will be on the ballot again in 2020.

Do you think someone should be able to go to the doctor without insurance and discover they have an illness that is more expensive than carrying insurance and then go buy a policy and have that treatment covered by the insurer?

The only way to make a system like that work is to raise insurance above the cost of the treatments which negates the idea of affordable insurance.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

I do not want to pay gastric bypass surgery for someone that eats unhealthy, or pay drug treatment for an addict. These are all self-inflicting costs. Kicking people out for their own failed life decisions seems fair.

It also opens the door to justifying the gov implement new laws to regulate what it deems as high risk behavior and incorporating more sin taxes on people. That is the bigger unspoken danger associated to what the left is advocating.

For instance say the gov declares its spending too much money on obesity related issues and creates a sin tax on products like corn syrup or meals that are more than 500 calories in a restaurant so they can subsidize individuals poor life choices.

Maybe they make it a crime to not log in a certain amount of exercise every day.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

Then drop out of the insurance market all together. Save your own money and pay for everything out of pocket. That is the only way to not have to pay for anybody else, stop using insurance. Large numbers of people pooling risk and paying for each other is kind of the entire point of insurance.

That's fine by me but the left is demanding the opposite. They are demanding we all must have coverage and insurance companies must cover everything

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Greenbeard]

It would be great if those with pre-existing conditions have their own personal health insurance and those without pre-existing conditions have their own insurance.

It is unfair to mix these groups of people into the same pool, and unfair for healthy individuals to pay for those that have pre-existing conditions. My solution would be simple but fair. Allow healthy individuals to be insured privateley and the other people to be insured through a federal program where we can syphon funds from medicare, medicaid, and social security into the high risk pool. The federal program can also take in donations.

In a given year, 80% of the population accounts for 18% of the nation's health expenses. The other 20% accounts for the remaining 82% of costs.

There's no way to have a health system where the 80% isn't disproportionately paying for the 20%. The 20% isn't simply going to come up with the $3 trillion needed to pay their bills by themselves. Schemes to segment the risk pool to try and get the 80% off the hook for the 20% can't succeed without gutting the American health system while bankrupting millions of Americans in the process. And guess what? People bounce between the 80% and the 20% from year-to-year.

 

[Greenbeard]

Do you think someone should be able to go to the doctor without insurance and discover they have an illness that is more expensive than carrying insurance and then go buy a policy and have that treatment covered by the insurer?

You'll be hard-pressed to find a post where I've advocated for uninsurance. I certainly don't support the sort of free-riding you suggest.

 

[Bucky]

In a given year, 80% of the population accounts for 18% of the nation's health expenses. The other 20% accounts for the remaining 82% of costs.

There's no way to have a health system where the 80% isn't disproportionately paying for the 20%. The 20% isn't simply going to come up with the $3 trillion needed to pay their bills by themselves. Schemes to segment the risk pool to try and get the 80% off the hook for the 20% can't succeed without gutting the American health system while bankrupting millions of Americans in the process. And guess what? People bounce between the 80% and the 20% from year-to-year.

A couple of things:

1. We shouldn't be worried about making everyone insured, the main issue is driving down the cost. Remember that. If you cannot drive the cost, making everyone insured is not possible.

2. Eliminate waste and fraud, you will see prices go down dramatically.

3. Ask yourself why the same surgery and two different hospitals cost significantly different. Ask why one day your prescription costs one price, and the next day it could be 50% more or 50% less.

No price stabilization. No transparency among hospitals, networks, etc about prices for procedures, medication, etc....

 

[BlueTex]

It would be great if those with pre-existing conditions have their own personal health insurance and those without pre-existing conditions have their own insurance.

It is unfair to mix these groups of people into the same pool, and unfair for healthy individuals to pay for those that have pre-existing conditions. My solution would be simple but fair. Allow healthy individuals to be insured privateley and the other people to be insured through a federal program where we can syphon funds from medicare, medicaid, and social security into the high risk pool. The federal program can also take in donations.

Do you support eliminating Medicare?

 

[bongsaway]

I do not want to pay gastric bypass surgery for someone that eats unhealthy, or pay drug treatment for an addict. These are all self-inflicting costs. Kicking people out for their own failed life decisions seems fair.

You won't pay for an addict to get treatment but you'll pay for that same addict to get 'treatment' in the penal system. That makes good fiscal sense.

 

[RealityNow]

Health care is health care... why would anyone think its only for "healthy people" is absurd... We have enough technology and means to build a system that is about "health care",... not about who has what condition and what level of health.
GEEZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Where do these people come from who go from one type of discrimination to another and then within such seek out one type of segregation or another.
It's just plain "evil thinking"!!! Are these people that desperate to hoard money??? Are they so void of human dignity and compassion?

America has some very nasty minded people... who are so adamant to find some means to discriminate and some means to segregate, until its just plain and simple bigotry of every type continually displayed by bigoted and bias minded people. The 'inhumanity" of their agenda is an insult to the dignity America claims to the world that it is made up of. These people insult everything about that concept and premise of dignity.

We have HUD that can support education for people in the Medical Field, they can create programs to help graduates open all sorts of testing facilities with enough testing machine to take away from the Hospital big business network the monopoly they have on things like MRI and etc, and break down the independents that extort outrageous high cost to perform these test. It takes all of 3.5 minutes for people to perform a CT Scan or a Ultra Sound, and if we add in 100's of thousands of these units in facilities across the country, the cost will drop down to being what is reasonable and make available these test to the masses, rather than continue with this "exaggerated cost game that is currently existing".

We should have a nation wide boom in building of "quality Senior Care Facilities" and "Rehab Centers".... instead of building these massive homes that are over priced and people live in them for 3-5 yrs and bounce from one to the next, and in the end, they end up looking for a Senior Care Facility when age makes them realize they are not going to be young and image status driven forever.

We need to think different as a society, but with people groomed and raised in a cycle of mentality that was based on every type of discrimination and segregation one can imagine... its like society is not happy unless its "discriminating or planning to discriminate" and segregate something.

Sad as it is to say, its like the standard and basic idea and mentality and agenda of the Republican Ranks to to discriminate against something, or someone and to try and promote segregationist madness upon something and and someone!!! If they are not doing that, they are trying to dictate to others what they can and can't have in society, and who can and can't have the fullness of rights as being a citizen, individual and person.

What is wrong with these type of people ???? Are they this obsessed with money and what ever other insidiousness that makes them so hateful and even to always be trying to deny something to someone..... ??

 

[marke]

Last summer the Trump administration took the position that a Texas court should strike down the parts of the ACA that protect people with pre-existing conditions (the rest of the law could stay, they argued, only those protections should be thrown out).



In the meantime, the Dems built their entire midterm message around defending those with pre-existing conditions ("With midterms approaching, Democrats go all-in on health care, pre-existing conditions ").

GOP candidates, including those pushing that very lawsuit to strip people of pre-existing condition protections, were forced to pivot into lying about their own positions ("Republicans trumpet pre-existing condition protections despite votes to repeal Obamacare".)

It largely didn't work. The Dems ended up winning back the House by nine points in the highest turnout midterm in the era of universal suffrage. The bloodbath would like have been worse for the GOP without a little help from their friend in Texas, who kept his powder dry and the lawsuit out of the headlines until after the election, opting instead to drop his bomb during open enrollment (""Federal judge in Texas strikes down Affordable Care Act").

The GOP, it seems, wasn't chastened by its electoral loss. It failed its first test on protecting those with pre-existing conditions during an early vote last month in the newly Dem-led House:



And where's Trump on the issue? Based on his interview with the NYT last week, still rooting against those with pre-existing conditions:



There you have it. Dumping pre-existing condition protections would be a great "victory" for the GOP. Not so much for the American people.

Looks like this fight will be on the ballot again in 2020.

Democrats are big on providing free stuff and enlarged benefits for Americans, particularly those ignorant Americans who see democrats as American heroes for promoting free stuff. However, it seems there are few, even among republicans, who have a single clue as to how all these free benefits are going to be paid for without bankrupting the US economy and putting everyone in the poor house like Venezuelans reeling from socialism experimentation.

 

[BlueTex]

Democrats are big on providing free stuff and enlarged benefits for Americans, particularly those ignorant Americans who see democrats as American heroes for promoting free stuff. However, it seems there are few, even among republicans, who have a single clue as to how all these free benefits are going to be paid for without bankrupting the US economy and putting everyone in the poor house like Venezuelans reeling from socialism experimentation.

Do you think we should eliminate Medicare for those over 65?

 

[RealityNow]

Why not talk about Republican being big on giving Free Stuff to Industry and Corporations and Giving Massive Ride for Free Tax Cuts to the wealthy? I guess Selective Amnesia takes over and voids that awareness from the minds of Republican. "Geez!!!!!!!!!!"....

 

[tres borrachos]

In a given year, 80% of the population accounts for 18% of the nation's health expenses. The other 20% accounts for the remaining 82% of costs.

There's no way to have a health system where the 80% isn't disproportionately paying for the 20%. The 20% isn't simply going to come up with the $3 trillion needed to pay their bills by themselves. Schemes to segment the risk pool to try and get the 80% off the hook for the 20% can't succeed without gutting the American health system while bankrupting millions of Americans in the process. And guess what? People bounce between the 80% and the 20% from year-to-year.

Pareto's Rule tends to apply everywhere. Even in the world of insurance.

Great and enlightening post.